Another casualty of Firecrown, Russ Niles out at AVweb

Clip4 said:
You could have purchased these entities yourself and ran them like they had been or you can start up similar businesses under a new name since you believe these entities were so much in demand and profitable. I will be watching for your start up of Pilot Consumer.
Click to expand...
If an individual has the passion and desire to do it, I'm sure they could make a go of it. Firecrown wouldn't have bought the publications if they were losing money, they'd have just let them die.

However, and this is the problem with almost anything in aviation these days: Investors are going to want a certain return on their investment, and aviation is simply too small of a market to get a reasonable return in most of the areas we wish there would be some new entrants. Thus, there isn't much investment happening.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If an individual has the passion and desire to do it, I'm sure they could make a go of it. Firecrown wouldn't have bought the publications if they were losing money, they'd have just let them die.

However, and this is the problem with almost anything in aviation these days: Investors are going to want a certain return on their investment, and aviation is simply too small of a market to get a reasonable return in most of the areas we wish there would be some new entrants. Thus, there isn't much investment happening.
Click to expand...
or maybe the people who had the passion just are getting old and ask Firecrown if they wanted to buy the company and subscription list for a few bucks.
 
Richman67 said:
Maybe I'm being overly harsh, but it sure seems like that.
Click to expand...
While there are some over the top build/rebuild articles, you have to understand that this is what it takes to win awards at Oshkosh and these articles are on the winners other than the random hack jobs.

But there's still a good mix of articles these days in my opinion. It went from bad to worse, but a couple of years ago somebody smacked the editorial heads and got them to put some relevant and even correct information there.

By the way, over on Avbrief Bertorelli has written a couple of good editorials on the decline of editorial and magazine management.
 
flyingron said:
While there are some over the top build/rebuild articles, you have to understand that this is what it takes to win awards at Oshkosh and these articles are on the winners other than the random hack jobs.

But there's still a good mix of articles these days in my opinion. It went from bad to worse, but a couple of years ago somebody smacked the editorial heads and got them to put some relevant and even correct information there.

By the way, over on Avbrief Bertorelli has written a couple of good editorials on the decline of editorial and magazine management.
Click to expand...

This might be heresy, but I'm not particularly concerned with what it takes to "win" at Oshkosh. Maybe it's fun to read about the winners in the post-OSH issue, but outside of that...Do. Not. Care.
 
About 30 years ago, I used to write articles about ordinary individuals and their aircraft. Sure, few of them were award-winners, but just about everyone has a few interesting stories about their build.

Of course, back then, RVs weren't that prevalent. So you'd have interesting other types, instead of cookie-cutter builds.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Richman67 said:
This might be heresy, but I'm not particularly concerned with what it takes to "win" at Oshkosh. Maybe it's fun to read about the winners in the post-OSH issue, but outside of that...Do. Not. Care.
Click to expand...
This. I've seen Lindy winners, and countless articles about building them, and I have zero desire to go that route. Zero.
 
DaleB said:
This. I've seen Lindy winners, and countless articles about building them, and I have zero desire to go that route. Zero.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I admire their dedication. And some of the things they build are incredible, so there are things to learn there. But I lack the patience and maybe the skills to build a perfect airplane. I'd rather build a nice one and go fly it.
 
Buyer paid something and expects to make a return on investment. Unless they paid close to zero, having a hard time seeing how this profits (or unless I’m totally clueless, which I may be, lol). Unless it’s a just a hobby, or vendetta against industry/peers, or money laundering front.
 
Interesting...I'm getting a "403 Forbidden" error when I try access AVweb....

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Interesting...I'm getting a "403 Forbidden" error when I try access AVweb....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Must be a you thing.
ddbf39d458ecd4f39421303c7892bf3f.jpg
 
If you want to know why Firecrown bought out all of the specialty flying rags, you need look no farther than the current Flying issue (#962). The Used Aircraft Guide article in this issue looked eerily familiar, and indeed it is: it is recycled content from March 2024 Aviation Consumer. A significant portion of it is directly plagiarized word for word from the prior article. I think it is ironic that those of us who subscribed to Aviation Consumer now get to read it again in our extended Flying subscriptions. Nothing like paying for the same content twice. Recycling content this way is pretty reprehensible for a flagship publication.
 
chemgeek said:
If you want to know why Firecrown bought out all of the specialty flying rags, you need look no farther than the current Flying issue (#962). The Used Aircraft Guide article in this issue looked eerily familiar, and indeed it is: it is recycled content from March 2024 Aviation Consumer. A significant portion of it is directly plagiarized word for word from the prior article. I think it is ironic that those of us who subscribed to Aviation Consumer now get to read it again in our extended Flying subscriptions. Nothing like paying for the same content twice. Recycling content this way is pretty reprehensible for a flagship publication.
Click to expand...
It's just a recognition/marker that the sector isn't as vibrant as OSH purports. I still agree with your sentiment about paying for anything twice, but that goes beyond recreational pursuits.
 
Half Fast said:
I agree emphatically with your sentiment, but is it really "plagiarism" when Firecrown owns the originator?
Click to expand...
Did they present it as a refreshed article, or as original work? I don’t think plagiarism is solely about ownership.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Did they present it as a refreshed article, or as original work? I don’t think plagiarism is solely about ownership.
Click to expand...
I see plagiarism as the use of material one doesn't have the rights to. In this case, Firecrown would have owned the earlier published work and it wouldn't be plagiarism. Now, presenting old work as new isn't a good sign....

Ron Wanttaja
 
MauleSkinner said:
That seems more like a copyright issue. Similar, but distinct from plagiarism.
Click to expand...
Actually, if they own the magazine the article originally appeared in, they own the copyright as well. Unless the author specifically limited the further use, which won't apply in a "work for hire" case like was probably the case at Aviation Consumer.

Ron Wanttaja
 
MauleSkinner said:
That seems more like a copyright issue. Similar, but distinct from plagiarism.
Click to expand...

Plagiarism, simply stated, means to take another entity’s ideas and use them as if they were yours, usurping the originator’s ownership rights; essentially, to steal. If you’ve purchased the intellectual property, then you haven’t stolen it and can do with it as you like.
 
Half Fast said:
Plagiarism, simply stated, means to take another entity’s ideas and use them as if they were yours, usurping the originator’s ownership rights; essentially, to steal. If you’ve purchased the intellectual property, then you haven’t stolen it and can do with it as you like.
Click to expand...
But plagiarism, defined precisely, includes:
“An instance of plagiarizing, especially a passage that is taken from the work of one person and reproduced in the work of another without attribution.”
“ The act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.”
“A piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.”

These definitions say nothing about ownership, only originality and presentation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But plagiarism, defined precisely, includes:
“An instance of plagiarizing, especially a passage that is taken from the work of one person and reproduced in the work of another without attribution.”
“ The act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.”
“A piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.”

These definitions say nothing about ownership, only originality and presentation.
Click to expand...

If those things were done with permission, would they constitute plagiarism? I’d say no. And Firebomb (did I get the name right) can certainly grant themselves permission.
 
Half Fast said:
If those things were done with permission, would they constitute plagiarism? I’d say no. And Firebomb (did I get the name right) can certainly grant themselves permission.
Click to expand...
Seems like you’re afraid to use actual definitions for fear of plagiarism, in which case this will never be resolved. :lol:
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
“ The act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.”
...
These definitions say nothing about ownership, only originality and presentation.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that apostrophe indicate possession, and by extension, ownership?
 
asicer said:
Doesn't that apostrophe indicate possession, and by extension, ownership?
Click to expand...
Since my older brother gave me his paper from when he took the class and told me to put my name on the top and turn it in, it’s not plagiarism, because I own it and have permission to use it?
 
Firecrown taking a page from Hollywood and just recycling ideas.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since my older brother gave me his paper from when he took the class and told me to put my name on the top and turn it in, it’s not plagiarism, because I own it and have permission to use it?
Click to expand...

That would be akin to a staff writer taking a piece that another writer published in another publication and turning it in to FLYING as their own, even with permission, and getting paid for it.

A better analogy would be that you wrote a paper for a class as an undergrad, got a high grade, and decided to submit it for an assignment in grad school.

I recall reusing one of my high school papers for a college freshman assignment. (Got A's both times.) I don't see how that would be plagiarism.

My employer reused drawings, software, analyses, etc., all the time for different products for different customers. That's not plagiarism; it's design reuse.

In any event, if you're determined to lay the additional sin of plagiarism upon Firebomb, I will not oppose you. As far as I'm concerned, they can be damned for every aviation disaster from the Hindenburg to the Challenger explosion, and if you want to lay Pearl Harbor off on them I for one won't say "Nay." Go ahead; skewer them.
 
Half Fast said:
That would be akin to a staff writer taking a piece that another writer published in another publication and turning it in to FLYING as their own, even with permission, and getting paid for it.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what we’re talking about here?

chemgeek said:
If you want to know why Firecrown bought out all of the specialty flying rags, you need look no farther than the current Flying issue (#962). The Used Aircraft Guide article in this issue looked eerily familiar, and indeed it is: it is recycled content from March 2024 Aviation Consumer. A significant portion of it is directly plagiarized word for word from the prior article. I think it is ironic that those of us who subscribed to Aviation Consumer now get to read it again in our extended Flying subscriptions. Nothing like paying for the same content twice. Recycling content this way is pretty reprehensible for a flagship publication.
Click to expand...
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since my older brother gave me his paper from when he took the class and told me to put my name on the top and turn it in, it’s not plagiarism, because I own it and have permission to use it?
Click to expand...
No, it's not plagiarism. But that doesn't mean it's not cheating. There's a lot of things that are allowed, and even encouraged as a professional but are prohibited as a student.
 
asicer said:
No, it's not plagiarism. But that doesn't mean it's not cheating. There's a lot of things that are allowed, and even encouraged as a professional but are prohibited as a student.
Click to expand...
And plagiarism is one of those things that are allowed and/or encouraged as a professional, as long as proper permissions exist.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And plagiarism is one of those things that are allowed and/or encouraged as a professional, as long as proper permissions exist.
Click to expand...
The disclaimer usually says "Reprinted from" or "Reprinted with permission from" and not "Plagiarized (with permission) from"
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
And plagiarism is one of those things that are allowed and/or encouraged as a professional, as long as proper permissions exist.
Click to expand...
Please explain this a bit more. My understanding is different but I may not be reading your post as you intended it to be read.
 
Copyright infringement is when you use someone else’s work without permission. Plagiarism is when you use someone else’s work without attribution (or citation). Reprinting old articles may be neither, either, or both of those things. But it’s almost always the product of laziness.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Please explain this a bit more. My understanding is different but I may not be reading your post as you intended it to be read.
Click to expand...
I had to write a training manual for my company. I copied and pasted relevant sections from other company documents without providing any citations, disclaimers, or other source identification. In technical communication, paraphrasing is discouraged, as is expending the time (and therefore money) to write something original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top