David Lifton on the Paines (2017)

[John Cotter]

40 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Max Good did the legwork and he deserves to be paid for the work he did. And you know he's not making a mint off of this movie.

You are not entitled to access everyone's intellectual property for free all the time, just as you are not allowed to enter anyone's home or office at any time. It's his creation. Go do your own interviews and research on your own dime and time, and then give it all away if you want. When doing your research you may rely solely on the work of amateurs and hobbyists if it pleases you. Is that really how you pursue intellectual efforts, or do you just steal all your books written by professional writers? I'm going to respect the time and effort that real professionals put into creating their intellectual property and I strongly reject the notion those properties should be stolen from them.

Takes as much effort (and much more money) to cross the country and record an interview as it does to knit a sweater. If you're stealing that sweater, you're stealing. If you're stealing that interview, you're still stealing. It's the same theft of the time, energy, and money that it took to create both. If the information in that intellectual property has value to you, then it has value. You are not entitled to get it, or anyone else's intellectual property, for free.

Sorry. I just cannot stand the attitude of someone expecting professionals to work for free, as if their time, effort, and expenses incurred weren't worth anything at all. In my view, that attitude discourages any future aspiring professionals from working, especially on this particular case, which seems to be such a thankless task for so many researchers.

Well said.

[John Cotter]

There seems to be a lot of straw-manning by Lifton in that piece. The issue is not that the Paines were proactively involved in the JFKA conspiracy. The issue is that they were implicated probably unwittingly on a need-to-know basis.

The evasive straw-manning is a tacit admission to that effect.

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Max Good said:

The content about Griffin was posted on my private Patreon account with a very clear statement:

This material is provided for research purposes and cannot be published without express permission.

Greg Doudna ignored this and he has now been banned from my Patreon.  His thread posted here was also deleted by the moderators.  Fred Litwin is now carrying the torch on this.  I guess Griffin gave him permission to publish the letter, so that is now public.

I would like to respond to this Max, you who have never responded or communicated personally to me once even when I tried to communicate with you by email and private message. I deny that I did anything I realized was wrong or objectionable at the time I did it. First, on removing me from your Patreon for no stated cause (according to the Patreon letter sent me, which informed that no cause or reason was necessary), that is your right, no cause is required, that is your right. I respect that is your right and that is not an issue with me.

But that aside, what was my offense? You publish videos of interviews of key figures on Patreon of great interest to JFK assassination research, publish it into the public domain behind a paywall, invite and welcome the public to have access to your content behind the paywall like going behind a paywall of the Washington Post etc. for content, which is your right. I was a Patreon subscriber of yours, paid the monthly donation, I assume with your knowledge and permission, and had legitimate access to view what you had there. All the general and emailed communications I received as a patreon supporter from you and Patreon form letters etc. were welcoming to me. I never reposted any video interview of yours. What I did was make usually-partial transcriptions of several of the video interviews and posted not the video but those transcriptions I had made as topical on the Education Forum, without any realization you had objection to my doing that. You posted comments on several of my topic postings of this nature without expressing objection either publicly or privately to me to my making and posting and discussing my transcriptions, always with links to your patreon site and how to subscribe, respectfully cited. How was I to know you were taking offense? You never said so publicly. You never advised me privately that you objected. Nobody told me you objected. How was I to know?

I saw your most recent notice (the bolded words above) but did not realize that applied to my making a transcription since I believed, at that time, that my transcription was my own creative doing, like taking notes of a lecture and later discussing from those notes. My purpose in reporting on some of the video interviews you were publishing was for research and discussion purposes on this forum. I did not understand my making of my own transcription was what you meant as included in requiring your permission. I did not know at the time, though I become aware of this about two days ago by researching it, that according to copyright law actually a full transcription of a lecture or film etc. is not supposed to be done without permission because it is considered "derivative" of your copyrighted work. Brief excerpts of transcription for research discussion purposes would be considered a "fair use" exception to copyright protection but not the full thing. In the most recent case at issue I transcribed the full 2-1/2 minutes of your posted Judge Griffin interview, and I posted my transcription prepared by me--not the video--on a forum topic here on the Education Forum, which has been taken down. (When I woke up two days ago and read your post expressing objection where I learned for the first time that my posting my transcription was objectionable to you, I was moving to delete the transcription in full from my post, moving to comply with what I newly learned you found objectionable, but the moderators took down the thread moments later before I was going to do so, I assume in response to your request.) I did not realize my transcription was what you meant by "this material ... cannot be published" without permission. I understood "this material" to be a reposting of the video itself.

I also quoted excerpts, in keeping with recognized and routine fair use, from the full letter of Judge Griffin that you published on Patreon. On that, in which I cited brief quotations for purpose of research discussion of what you had published (behind a paywall to which the public is invited), I am surprised, did not realize, that you also object to that. Again, I respect your right to have any rule you wish as a condition of participation on your Patreon, but brief quotations of published material, including behind paywalls, certainly is legally permitted as fair use. I had no idea, I did not understand, that you were intending by your bolded words above that not even conventional and legal fair use brief quotations cited or discussed on the Education Forum where archival materials are discussed related to the JFK assassination, crossed your line of acceptability. 

I did not knowingly break rules on your Patreon account that you established, was not aware of objection from you in what I reported and quoted from what you have published. I did not intentionally act illegally or unethically toward you. I did not realize you were regarding my transcription, with link to your Patreon account for people to go to subscribe for access to the video directly, was in itself objectionable to you. I strenuously disagree with the portrayal of Ruth Paine in your film and stance of neutrality in presentation of baseless allegations and Ruth's denials as if they are of equal weight. At the same time I have sought to address and stick to substantive issues of content, not ad hominem toward you personally. My issue is the grievous and shameful mistreatment of Ruth Paine in the form of baseless allegations which she does not deserve, reflected in the conspiracy community and given credibility with your neutral-narrator-stance. My only issue here is justice for Ruth Paine and the damage done to her name. Partly because I knew Ruth Paine, by accident of time and chance in the St. Petersburg Friends Meeting long ago. But because I would see this as wrong even if I had not ever known her.  

Before me, you kicked off Paul Hoch from your Patreon, solely because he asked you on Patreon for your source for the closing words in your film claiming "dozens of files" remain kept secret on the Paines, which isn't true and by now I think you know it. You kicked Paul Hoch off for asking. When I asked you, in an email and private message polite inquiry (I never said anything on your patreon), you did not deign to respond at all to me (and it is not as if I had insulted you or deserved such brushoff)--you, a journalist, refused to respond or reply to the most basic relevant question of asking for your source for a key and damaging claim in your film concerning the subject of your film. Damaging because it is the last image the viewer of your film sees, and the average viewer cannot be expected to know that there is literally no known footnote underlying that damaging claim, no known basis, no known evidence, and you refuse to say your source or basis because you know there is none. But to your discredit you will not say that either (that you have no known basis or source.) And to his discredit and shame, DiEugenio urged you not to provide your source or answer that question. (Is that looney land or what? To urge refusal to cite a source.) And yet while kicking off Paul Hoch, and not responding to me and others who asked that question, you do not lift a finger to correct the record, and continue to damage Ruth Paine--by the impression left with the viewer that something is being covered up concerning her in a sinister way in "dozens of files" kept secret by presidents--in the film. To this day you have not addressed this. You regard the very asking that you cite a source on that to be an affront and an offense. That is not how journalists I respect act. 

Judge Burt Griffin raises a relevant question in light of the damage being done unjustly to Ruth Paine. Please consider addressing this question with a thoughtful response. Judge Griffin, an honorable man, asks (speaking here of ethics not of law):

"To what extent do journalistic ethics require an interviewer to determine that a defamatory claim is true before publishing it or requires the publisher to say it is untrue if it is published?" 

[David Andrews]

Lifton to Max Good: And so for all time, she probably takes a look at the Lincoln assassination and realizes that Mary Surratt has been black[ened] and, you know, her name is blackened in history. And historians say, well, that she didn't deserve to be, Ruth Paine.

Since Lifton brought this up: Mary Surratt ran a boarding house visited by Confederate couriers, spies, and the Lincoln assassination team.  There is circumstantial evidence and testimony linking her to Booth's original Lincoln kidnap plot, which was in the works for weeks before the end of the war, and discussed among a number of conspirators at the Surratt house. 

Seemingly ignoring Mrs. Surratt, Allen Dulles pimped the JFKA to the WC as historically consonant with the American theme of lone killers.  Duiles even handed out a book on lone assassins to the WC members. (As he shot Lincoln single-handedly, the book judged Booth a lone assassin, despite the attempted assassinations of William Seward and Andrew Johnson carried out by others that night.) 

Was it beyond Dulles - with his concern for historical consonance - to put a woman at the head of the JFKA-related household?  Had things gone differently, might Ruth Paine have been made a Mary Surratt-style conspirator?

Edited December 29, 2022 by David Andrews

[Guest]

Frankly, I don't see how this transcription could have harmed Max financially, on the contrary, this is proof he has potentially interesting material on his website, free promotion if you ask me.  

Now, a warning from Max would have been nice, Greg had no intention to do Max harm IMO.  And he tried contacting Max... so...

Also, Max is a FILMmaker, and he makes good films. But I don't think he intended to add new evidence to the case, that is not the way I looked at it. 

Informational ? Yes.  And it is not like he wanted to hide stuff, the other stuff is available for research (just pay the attibution like Greg did).  

So I guess you can use it for research, but you can only make a footnote about the sourche (other will have to pay to actually check it) 

From the About section on his website : "Max is fascinated by marginal characters and provocative stories".   

So... at least one can expect some controversy and discussions, right ?

Conclusion, no harm done here.  Only the communication was not there.

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

It's good to see a Warren Commission lawyer, Burt Griffin, come to the defense of Ruth Paine. Kudos to Mr. Griffin for doing that.

But if Mrs. Paine ever decided she wanted to take legal action against Max Good for the slanderous conjecture that appears in his 2022 film ["The Assassination & Mrs. Paine"], I'm not sure if the case that Ruth would present would be a fruitful one.

I say that because even though some of the things presented in Max Good's film are no doubt slanderous and just flat-out wrong (and ridiculous), the fact is that Ruth Paine herself was willing to be a part of Good's film and to be interviewed by him on camera--and, hence, defend herself from the crazy conspiratorial accusations that have been made against her over the last 50+ years.

So might not that fact diminish her chances at winning any such lawsuit, since she herself was an active participant in the film, and as such she very likely was fully aware that she would be forced to defend herself on camera from many of the charges that have been made against her?

So, in the case of Good's film, Ruth certainly had to know what she was getting into when she agreed to be interviewed for the film. Of course, if bits and pieces of the film that were favorable to Mrs. Paine were left on the cutting room floor, then Ruth's "case" against Mr. Good would obviously be a bit stronger.

But, in my view, Ruth definitely would likely have a solid legal case (if she ever chose to go down that road) against some of the slanderous things that have been written about her on the Internet and in books over the years. In those instances, Ruth never had a camera shoved in her face in order to respond directly to some of the insane charges that have been made by various conspiracy theorists on the Internet in the last several years.

I've tried my best to defend Mrs. Paine from many of the preposterous claims that have been made against her. (See link below.)

Edited December 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[John Cotter]

58 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

It's good to see a Warren Commission lawyer, Burt Griffin, come to the defense of Ruth Paine. Kudos to Mr. Griffin for doing that.

But if Mrs. Paine ever decided she wanted to take legal action against Max Good for the slanderous conjecture that appears in his 2022 film ["The Assassination & Mrs. Paine"], I'm not sure if the case that Ruth would present would be a fruitful one.

I say that because even though some of the things presented in Max Good's film are no doubt slanderous and just flat-out wrong (and ridiculous), the fact is that Ruth Paine herself was willing to be a part of Good's film and to be interviewed by him on camera--and, hence, defend herself from the crazy conspiratorial accusations that have been made against her over the last 50+ years.

So might not that fact diminish her chances at winning any such lawsuit, since she herself was an active participant in the film, and as such she very likely was fully aware that she would be forced to defend herself on camera from many of the charges that have been made against her?

So, in the case of Good's film, Ruth certainly had to know what she was getting into when she agreed to be interviewed for the film. Of course, if bits and pieces of the film that were favorable to Mrs. Paine were left on the cutting room floor, then Ruth's "case" against Mr. Good would obviously be a bit stronger.

But, in my view, Ruth definitely would likely have a solid legal case (if she ever chose to go down that road) against some of the slanderous things that have been written about her on the Internet and in books over the years. In those instances, Ruth never had a camera shoved in her face in order to respond directly to some of the insane charges that have been made by various conspiracy theorists on the Internet in the last several years.

I've tried my best to defend Mrs. Paine from many of the preposterous claims that have been made against her. (See link below.)

David, the material which purportedly rebuts your opponents and supports your lone nut theory does nothing of the kind. It’s just an amorphous conglomeration of verbiage providing an illusion of substance without any logical coherence.

It’s like the bricks Basil Fawlty’s builder dumped in a pile “without cementing them together in the traditional fashion”.

https://youtu.be/eUUyCjeTV7Y

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

David, the material which purportedly rebuts your opponents and supports your lone nut theory does nothing of the kind. It’s just an amorphous conglomeration of verbiage providing an illusion of substance without any logical coherence.

The above is one of the most ridiculous (and flat-out wrong) statements that has ever been uttered on this forum.

Congrats, Mr. Cotter.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Max Good did the legwork and he deserves to be paid for the work he did. And you know he's not making a mint off of this movie.

You are not entitled to access everyone's intellectual property for free all the time, just as you are not allowed to enter anyone's home or office at any time. It's his creation. Go do your own interviews and research on your own dime and time, and then give it all away if you want. When doing your research you may rely solely on the work of amateurs and hobbyists if it pleases you. Is that really how you pursue intellectual efforts, or do you just steal all your books written by professional writers? I'm going to respect the time and effort that real professionals put into creating their intellectual property and I strongly reject the notion those properties should be stolen from them.

Takes as much effort (and much more money) to cross the country and record an interview as it does to knit a sweater. If you're stealing that sweater, you're stealing. If you're stealing that interview, you're still stealing. It's the same theft of the time, energy, and money that it took to create both. If the information in that intellectual property has value to you, then it has value. You are not entitled to get it, or anyone else's intellectual property, for free.

Sorry. I just cannot stand the attitude of someone expecting professionals to work for free, as if their time, effort, and expenses incurred weren't worth anything at all. In my view, that attitude discourages any future aspiring professionals from working, especially on this particular case, which seems to be such a thankless task for so many researchers.

The product attempting to be sold can be duplicated times infinity. You are saying that those who take one of these infinite copies should experience violence in the form of jail or the threat of jail. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that's fair. Stealing is when you take something from somebody else and that person doesn't have that thing anymore - piracy is different. Your outlook on this issue seems to rely on the expectation of profit, and I am saying that nobody should have any expectation to make a profit when trying to sell something that is not scarce. Home and office space is scarce, digital files are not. The creator's profit is not worth others' negative rights against authority figures forcing their will onto them.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

And let's be clear: this stuff isn't being stolen from Max Good in a heroic attempt at distributing information for the common good and history; it's a deliberate attempt to sabotage his Patreon account and impair his ability to generate income.

So? Don't try to sell ice to Inuit individuals.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Max Good]

I think the reason Greg Doudna couldn't resist re-posting the material on Griffin from my Patreon, despite the clear instruction not to, was that he hoped Griffin would take some legal action against me.  Griffin, Paul Hoch, W. Tracy Parnell, Doudna, Fred Litwin, and David von Pein have all suggested or intimated legal action against me.  That's not exactly in the spirit of a "friendly debate," as far as I'm concerned.

This isn't about intellectual property for me and I will not engage with people who would like to see me getting sued.  I think most of us can see who has honest intentions and who does not.

Thanks to Denny Zartman and John Cotter for the support.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Max Good

[Matt Allison]

13 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

The product attempting to be sold can be duplicated times infinity. You are saying that those who take one of these infinite copies should experience violence in the form of jail or the threat of jail. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that's fair. Stealing is when you take something from somebody else and that person doesn't have that thing anymore - piracy is different. Your outlook on this issue seems to rely on the expectation of profit, and I am saying that nobody should have any expectation to make a profit when trying to sell something that is not scarce. Home and office space is scarce, digital files are not. The creator's profit is not worth others' negative rights against authority figures forcing their will onto them.

This screed sounds like the script uttered verbatim by music pirates in the 2000s. All that did was end the ability of musicians to support themselves by selling their art.

That's not something to be proud of, guy.

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

This screed sounds like the script uttered verbatim by music pirates in the 2000s. All that did was end the ability of musicians to support themselves by selling their art.

That's not something to be proud of, guy.

Okay? Fine, it isn't worth getting jail involved anyway. How can you justify jail for taking something that is not scarce?

Edited December 29, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[John Cotter]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The above is one of the most ridiculous (and flat-out wrong) statements that has ever been uttered on this forum.

Congrats, Mr. Cotter.

 

In view of its provenance, I could hardly wish for a higher compliment.

Thank you, David.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Max Good said:

Griffin, Paul Hoch, W. Tracy Parnell, Doudna, Fred Litwin, and David von Pein have all suggested or intimated legal action against me. 

I would have liked to see legal action to stop the film because I don't think it is accurate or fair to Ruth Paine. I don't believe that such legal action would prevail, however. The problem with the film is that all you have are the suspicions of people who are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy (Sue Wheaton comes to mind immediately). But you think it is ok to go with these suspicions even when people like Judge Griffin, David Lifton and Joe Alesi (and presumably others) tell you otherwise. That is wrong in my opinion and it is not worth the damage it does to Ruth Paine and the factual record in the JFK case.