Knot exam paper... test your current knowledge!

Sorry guys - been busy.
Okay - where were we again?
Ahh yes - Mr Marc801 C:

Oh dear - you are a troubled little person aren't you!

You've said "My work is in the public domain."
The very definition of "public domain" means that you cannot restrict sharing.

That's strange, I thought that I can do whatever i choose with my own work?
And that I can choose to control how my work propagates.
How I choose to allow use is entirely up to me.

Actually - this is the guiding principle:
Use of my work is not a right - it is a privilege that is granted.

Lets see now, what else have we:

So either your work is in the public domain or it isn't. You've said it is. As such you've relinquished all rights to control its distribution.

I have made my work available for private (non commercial) use - and it is uploaded to the internet from where anyone can download it free of cost.
But, since my work represents years of hard work and research, I choose to keep track of who accesses it and uses it.
My work is not free for commercial use or for use where someone will profit from it.
To stop such use that contravenes 'private use rules' - I have introduced tighter controls which enables tracking (traceability).

Nope. Reread the definition of public domain. It doesn't only mean free.

Nope. I can do whatever I want. Its my work and I own it.
I may choose to lock it down and make it a purchase item(s) in the near future.

I don't want it. As others have said it's basically irrelevant to the majority of climbers .

You are by definition - an oxymoron.
Why bother to even post such content as you have?
Clearly, to spend the time as you have - you must feel some form of malice.
What else could explain your behavior?
You are driven by malice - and you feel compelled to act.

I simply respond in kind to your malice.

Lets see... who else is still posting:

Ahh yes - Mr SinRopa!
How are you today SinRopa?

Okay - lets have a look:

I’m pretty sure that’s the one I have since I downloaded it a week or so ago.  There’s only been one update from the original version back in May right?

The exam paper has undergone significant revision and content change. I believe the current iteration is VER 2.0.
It includes some challenging new questions on identifying TIB from non TIB knots.
Also a new question on the configuration of a 'Prusik hitch' - the question asks to identify which tying method is more effective (based on specific application).
There is also new content on a type composite knot structure - which provides certain benefits (which need to be identified).
And there is the age old problem of tying into the middle of a rope (in a party of 3, where there is no access to either end) - the question challenges to select the best response.

Mark Gommers wrote: That's strange, I thought that I can do whatever i choose with my own work?
And that I can choose to control how my work propagates.
How I choose to allow use is entirely up to me.

Not once you place it in public domain, which you have stated you have done, repeatedly. There is a legal definition  of public domain which you refuse to acknowledge.

"The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it."
From:   fairuse.stanford.edu/overvi…

Actually - this is the guiding principle:
Use of my work is not a right - it is a privilege that is granted.

See above.

Nope. I can do whatever I want. Its my work and I own it.

No, you placed it in the public domain - we own it now.

Why bother to even post such content as you have?

To clarify IP law for those that are struggling with the concept of public domain.

Clearly, to spend the time as you have - you must feel some form of malice.
What else could explain your behavior?
You are driven by malice - and you feel compelled to act.

Not malice at all. Trying to provide a learning moment.

Hello Marc801 C:

You are a troubled little person aren't you !

You might need to go and review what copyright and intellectual property law means.

You're whole premise is flawed.

See - in this instance, I am the copyright owner.
As the person who holds copyright title over the work - I can do whatever I want.

There are lots of images and content posted every day on the internet.
That doesn't mean that its free for others to copy and use as they see fit.

Your malice has blinded you to the notional concept of copyright and intellectual property.

I am happy for you to continue to try to argue the definition of copyright owner and intellectual property owner (where I hold such a title).

EDIT:

Marc801 C, you might want to undertake a little learning of your own.
Have a look at this link about copyright:
Link: https://www.copyright.com.au/about-copyright/copyright-myths/ 
The concept of public domain (in this instance) means that it is uploaded to the internet - and can be downloaded by anyone.
As for the use part - it is restricted to private use only.
You are applying a strict definition of 'public domain' - and you are fixated by that definition.
Public domain can also have a generic (colloquial) meaning that content is uploaded to the internet from where anyone can download it (which is true - anyone can download my work).
From memory, a copyright owner has to make a formal declaration to give effect to the strict definition of 'public domain' (which I haven't done).
The declaration looks like this: “This work is dedicated to the public domain”.
I have never made such a declaration.

However, I am not stating that my work is free of copyright (which usually takes 70 years for that to happen).
It is in the public arena (if that concept is easier to understand) - but it is not free of copyright.
So lets run with public arena - if domain troubles you.

By the way, my older (previous) papers were entirely free to download and share without any form of restriction.
But, all of my latest work is subject to tighter control.

My older work was (by a stricter definition) open for any use (other than commercial use).
However, copyright still applies to those older works. Again, after 70 years has expired, copyright would be lifted from those works.

Did someone say malice?

Unbelievable durability to this thread.

• Mark, you did say that you were placing your work in the public domain in this thread. Marc is pointing out that you have not, in fact done this. You bring up IP laws with such authority but you've really failed to grasp that Marc did not say you can't protect your IP, he said (correctly) that the fact that you have a copyright means that you either 1)did not place your work into public domain or 2) did not understand that public domain means owned by the public. To try and argue that public domain and maintenance of IP can coexist because you claim 'colloquial use'is bogus. I'm not aware of the use of 'public domain" to describe something that is merely available for public use.

Has anyone tested the knot David Carradine used? Just tighten your knot and go. Or come. Semantics

per Joe Crawford:

Unbelievable durability to this thread.

Indeed. I simply reply to posts (like yours right now).

Joe - the simple fact is that 'Marc' is not making his posts from the point of view of a genuine friendly discourse.
His posts are born out of malice (its a lovely word and concept).
To understand this - you need to go back and examine each one of his posts. If you do that - you will see that there is underlying 'mischief' behind his posts.
'Mischief' is a legal concept - and it gives rise to his underlying malice.

The question is: What is he actually trying to prove - and to what ultimate purpose (ie underlying motive)?

I am happy to debate the concept of public domain.
But - one must point out that mere use of such words does not constitute free access and sharing without due care toward the original copyright owner.
What is missing from 'Marc's' argument is a declaration to make it so - that is, an express declaration from the copyright owner (yours truly) that it is intended to be stripped free of any copyright claim.
And here is the catch... I never used such words and never gave legal effect to any such action.
Also, on my website - there is no such intention nor are there any words to give effect to legal removal of copyright claim in order to officially enter the 'public domain'.

What Marc is referring to is a few typed words in a post that I made as a passing comment - in a colloquial sense - that my work exists in the 'public domain' (ie the public arena).

I would 100% agree with 'Marc's' argument if he could find the exact words where I expressly intended to declare my work to be stripped of all copyright claims to enter the 'public domain' (as per strict legal definition) .
If 'Marc' did his homework - he will not find such an express declaration.
Mere passing comments about 'public domain' are legally insufficient.
It has to be a formal express declaration - and even then its still not so straightforward.
The document itself has to carry very specific language - to further give effect to intentional removal of copyright.
Again - this has not occurred.

I am happy for 'Marc' to continue his pointless argument.

EDIT:
For 'Marc' to think about:

Extract from Wiki:
It is controversial, however, whether it is possible for a copyright holder to truly abandon the copyright of their work. Robert A. Baron argues in his essay "Making the Public Domain Public" that "because the public domain is not a legally sanctioned entity," a statement disclaiming a copyright or "granting" a work into the public domain has no legal effect whatsoever, and that the owner still retains all rights to the work not otherwise released. The owner would then have the legal right to prosecute people who use the work under the impression that it was in the public domain. It is certainly true that under some jurisdictions, it is impossible to release moral rights. For example the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz) prevents the transferability of copyrights in §29 UrhG so that an abdication isn't possible as well, though that is not the case in the United States.  A more likely problem may be the lack of factual evidence that the owner has indeed put the work into the public domain. 

'Marc's' argument hinges on a passing comment made in a post on a social forum. This would never stand up in a court of law.
To legally enter the 'public domain' - the copyright owner must expressly intend to strip all copyright ownership from the content. Furthermore, the actual content must carry specific wording to give legal effect to stripping of all copyright claim. For a living (ie still alive) copyright owner, this is usually very hard to do and the courts examine this 'intent' very carefully.
The upshot is that you need a legal team to to actualize content from being stripped of all copyright claim so it can enter the legally defined 'public domain'.

'Marc' - I would be pleased for you to pursue your legal position against me in a court of law.
I know you will lose - and the court will force you to pay all costs.

per Mark Gommers: 

Domain and arena have an oceanic gulf between them. You clearly stated that you were putting your work into the public domain. The point again is that you said this, but is demonstrably false. You are  now backpedaling and trying to revise the meaning of an unambiguous term to ensure you dont have to admit you were incorrect to say your work was being placed in the public domain.

I've read the whole thread and it's pretty bleak reading. Every time that someone calls out your refusal to answer questions directly you berate them with questions of their English literacy, temper and mental capacity while claiming some grand injury. Malice? Really? How could anything typed here do you any harm? And why on earth would Aidan, Jim, Marc, or anyone else here actually have any malicious motivation to question your bullspit? If you really can't take a smidge of poking from the trolls, maybe steer clear of advertising your non-expert expertise on 'teh interwebz'

Oh dear...
Per Joe Crawford:

You're at it again.
Ask yourself the real underlying reason why you are posting...

Domain and arena have an oceanic gulf between them. You clearly stated that you were putting your work into the public domain.

As stated - my work is available to be downloaded at no cost.
You are trying to apply a strict legal definition - and that I am somehow bound to that definition.

Can you find the exact typed words where I intended to strip all copyright ownership of my work - and which gave legal effect to my work entering the 'public domain' in that sense?
Remember, to give legal effect to such a claim - I must have made a special declaration.
Also, my content has to carry the same legal wording to give rise to that legl effect.

I've read the whole thread and it's pretty bleak reading.

It is quite funny really.
It depends on how you choose to interpret the insults and child like behavior.
I have always tried to be accurate - and replied in-kind to each new insult or insinuation (as i am doing now).

Look Joe - you feel that you are correct, right?
This new tangent that you are on - this whole nonsense about me intending to release all copyright claims - is absurd.
I mean - why bother?
What do you gain from it?

Joe - be honest now. What do you stand to gain from your posts?
I know that you cant find any specific words where i gave legal effect to stripping all copyright ownership.
You are simply relying on a comment made in a post - and everything hinges on that.

If you want to argue the law -  you need to back it up!

And there's a challenge for you Joe.... back it up with legal wording and legal proof.
If you wish to continue arguing 'Public domain' - you need to back it up with the evidence (not just a passing comment in a social forum).
If you cant - why not just let it go?
Or do you feel something else - is there something that is compelling you to continue posting?

Mark Gommers wrote:Can you find the exact typed words where I intended to strip all copyright ownership of my work - and which gave legal effect to my work entering the 'public domain' in that sense?
Remember, to give legal effect to such a claim - I must have made a special declaration.
Also, my content has to carry the same legal wording to give rise to that legl effect.

I know that you cant find any specific words where i gave legal effect to stripping all copyright ownership.
You are simply relying on a comment made in a post - and everything hinges on that.

If you want to argue the law -  you need to back it up!

And there's a challenge for you Joe.... back it up with legal wording and legal proof.
If you wish to continue arguing 'Public domain' - you need to back it up with the evidence (not just a passing comment in a social forum).

ACTUALLY, Joe, he didn't say the magic spell to make it all "legal." Give it up! What do you stand to gain? Are you challenged in some way?

per Aidan:

ACTUALLY, Joe, he didn't say the magic spell to make it all "legal." Give it up! What do you stand to gain? Are you challenged in some way?

The real question I have is: What do you both stand to gain from this line of argument?
What is the real underlying motive?
In any case, lets hypothetically argue that you somehow managed to 'force' me to legally surrender all of my copyright claims to my own work.
Remember that I am not a climber, and I have never been to high altitude or seen snow. I can barely onsight YDS 5.2. So why would you even bother to try to force me to surrender my copyright claim?
Do you see the paradox?

 A more mature and respectful approach would have been this:

"Heh Mark - have you intentionally released all copyright claims from your work?
Were you aware that you have to make a special legal declaration to give rise to your work being freely available in terms the strict legal definition of 'public domain'?
Also, you need to add the same legal declaration and release on all of your content otherwise it has no effect."

To which I would have courteously responded:
Thanks, actually no - I am not intentionally releasing any copyright claim to my work.
I used the term 'public domain' in a colloquial sense - as in free to download in the internet space.
But thank you for bringing it to my attention.

...

Hey so this popped up and I'm interested. Without getting involved in the copyright debate, who/when/where/how do I have to pay to get access? I'd be stoked to give to someone's educational and helpful IP. Thanks.

Ten pages in and still no idea how long the tails should be.

per Jim Titt:

Ten pages in and still no idea how long the tails should be.

Hello Jim... how are you?
I feel your pain.
Tell you what, if you can successfully answer this little quiz, I'll see if I can answer the enigmatic tail question :)
Note: Need to take care with these questions...note how the knots are in pairs.
Each pair is related - but, there are key differences that may cause you to stop and ponder before answering...

Why on earth would I bother? Or are you trying to get me to supply the answers because you are unable to do so?

I just finished a few pages of this thread. Can someone show me how to tie a hangman's noose?

Jordy Clements wrote: I just finished a few pages of this thread. Can someone show me how to tie a hangman's noose?

page 9.......youre welcome

per Mr Titt:

Why on earth would I bother? Or are you trying to get me to supply the answers because you are unable to do so?

Interesting comment Jim.
Damn - I thought I would learn something!
Hmm, lets see...

I have a feeling that each of the knot pairs share the same topology (ie they are topologically the same), but not necessarily the same geometry.
Also, I have a feeling that some differ in terms of material type and diameter.
Hmm, #1415 is shown tied with EN892 rope and EN564 accessory cord - and are geometrically identical.
This might be a clue.

#1010 and its derivative are shown tied with EN892 rope.
Both are fixed eye knots.

#1412 is the odd man out - one tied with webbing and the other tied with EN892 rope.
We know that #1412 tied with webbing has a known vulnerability under low loads with slack shaking and cyclic loading.

Deduction: we know that #1010 is vulnerable to cyclic loading and slack shaking. Failure mode is via tail slippage (particularly when subjected to cyclic circumferential loading profile).
So we'd need a rather large tail to mitigate against slippage.
The EBSB Bowline is inherently secure - and tail slippage is not a failure mode.

I think #1415 and #1010 + its derivative are key to the puzzle.
But heh, I'm just guessing...

I think the clues are all there Jim.