rec.autos.simulators

The question of why there is no Daytona in N2 continually comes up
despite the numerous answers (both official and otherwise).  Perhaps
it's just a language barrier of some sort?  Anyway for the benifit of
all, here is Jim Sokoloff's position once again (translated of course).
 Enjoy:

"It's not Papyrus who be preventin' ya' fum racin' at Daytona.
Sheeeiit...

Sega gots'ta an 'slusive license t'use da damn dojigger and likesness
uh Daytona fo' all fum Internashunal Speedway Co'p (owners uh de
Daytona Internashunal Speedway).

Daytona USA holds some license fum ISC t'use da damn Daytona track
dojigger and likesness in deir 'eshibit, which Papyrus indeed dun did
develop fo' dem.  'S coo', bro.  Daytona USA's use apparently duzn't
conflict wid de Sega license.  What it is, Mama!

Papyrus would love t'gots' Daytona available in our game, fo' our users
t'play and enjoy; we'd love t'gots' Indy in our game, fo' our users
t'play and enjoy.  Slap mah fro!  Unfo'tunately, Papyrus gots'ta been
unable, by wo'kin' wid de co'po'ashuns controllin' de rights t'license
dose propuh'ties, t'secure da damn rights t'use dose propuh'ties in our
game.  What it is, Mama!

Given de above facts, how 'esactly do ya' arrive at da damn conclusion
dat Papyrus be preventin' ya' fum havin' Daytona fo' N2?"

---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus.  ah' believe I'm speakin' 100 de trud here,
but I'm not speakin' as Papyrus licensin' spokessucka'

--

The IWCCCARS Project: Q & A Representative
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~ebusch/

Eric,
 I hope some hardware manufacturer releases some new stuff soon, " 'cuz yous
gots way too much time on yo' hans, and yo brain is pumpin dawg ;-}.

Happy Lappin'
Wade Tschida

[My original post filtered through 'jive' snipped...]

I'm not doing it for my health...

I'm merely advising folks as to what my perception of the law is.
(Many people don't understand what constitutes infringement in
intellectual property law, and I'm merely trying to save them
potentially thousands of dollars in legal fees, civil and possibly
criminal penalties.)

With that in mind, I can tell you that posting or e-mailing one of our
tracks, or a derivative of our tracks is infringing on copyright
grounds. (Which is what I calmly advise people who ask for the "Indy"
or other track in a public forum that I see.)

Posting or e-mailing even a completely original Daytona track (which
is not in ANY way derived from a Papyrus track, otherwise also see
above paragraph) infringes on International Speedway Corp's trademark
on the appearance, name and tradedress of the Daytona International
Speedway.

Papyrus will defend its intellectual property. (We'd prefer to never
have to do it, but just as any company will defend its property, we
will defend ours...)

You can be DAMN sure that ISC will also defend its intellectual
property. (And you can be pretty darn sure that Papyrus will
co-operate if asked, since most infringements against ISC will
probably involve derived tracks...)

For the record, I've never demanded that anyone who was infringing do
anything at all. I will take credit for advising them of my take on
the legal issues involved, as I think that's the neighborly thing to
do (assume that people aren't intending to break the law, and thus
advise them that what they are doing is breaking the law)... So far,
I've never had any reason to notify management at Papyrus that someone
was infringing; it's always stopped at my e-mail to them.

Everyone is their own person, and I am powerless to stop you from
engaging in behavior which is infringing. However, if you knowingly
infringe on Papyrus (or ISC or other licensor) property, I will
support our lawyers' actions to uphold the law by stopping and/or
penalizing you.

Believe me, I can sympathize with the frustrations people feel about
not having (and having no reasonable expectation of having in the
short term) two of the Cup tracks for our simulation... But that
doesn't mean I can advocate or condone lawlessness to "solve" the
problem. After all, I'm not rich, but there's a bank nearby with PILES
of money; why don't I just break into the bank and "solve" my problem?

---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus, speaking as myself, for myself.

ROFLMAO!!

hawaii: ingenious

nro: pending

Ontario Motor Speedway.
Ontario, CA.

Any idea how long someone owns the rights to a non-existant entity?

I believe I heard that before Nascar drivers "invaded" Indy the
only testing on a simular track was Ontario.

P.S. I was at the track the day Tom Sneva was the first (Indy Car) to
run a 200 mph lap.

--
MyKey

Much cut and edited, but the gist is intact

And I seriously doubt you sympathize with frustrations, if in your own
opinion you compare people on their own time for no profit
creating tracks to make your sim better, with lawless sorts. Get real.

You guys make a hell of a Sim, but everything interrelated to that
makes you seem like businessmen first. That's what will stop you from
ever crossing over into the top tier of *** companies, like
Blizzard and ID. They're there for the *** community. You guys are
there first as a business. Get a clue.

I appreciate you guys shooting from the hip, but I wish you'd for once
put the gamers first. Wishful thinking I guess, coupled by all the
Offline league features you torpedoed in Nascar 2.
But you feel our frustrations.... Right.

Richard Scott

It's not only Papyrus, but also the track owners would get mad. There are
editors for Warcraft 2 and Quake because you can make all the levels you
want, and not violate any licenses .None of the monsters in Quake own a
license to any of the levels you could create, and the Orcs aren't going
to get mad at you for making your own version of Azeroth ;). ID and
Blizzard would still be as great as they are now, even if they didn't
include any editors.

Hey Jim,

For your own sanity, give it up.  You're never going to get these people
to quit ***in'.  As I am fond of saying, "You can please some of the
people some of the time,***the rest."  Some of us know it's not in
your power to produce Daytona and Indy at this time, and those that can't
understand it, even though it has been discussed to DEATH, obviously have
little real world experience with business.

Thanks for you input in this newsgroup.

ChrisP

Eric:
Please give Mr. Sokoloff a break here.....he has helped many of us with
problems and has been a gentleman in all respects.  This man is only
trying to help and often helping involves explaining.  His explainations
with regard to intellectual property law and trademark law (likeness to
Daytona Speedways "touch and feel").  He has been very calm and civil as
far as I've seen.  He is right, and he is kind enough to explain things
in a way which might keep a legally nieve person from being forced to
climb courthouse steps.

I know a little about intellectual property law, trademark and copyright
law.  What people must realize is that the law "requires" property
owners to persue those who infringe.  If owners do not persue infringers
the owner could "lose" his ownership of those properties.  In other
words.....if the owner is aware of infringements but choses to ignore
the infringing ( because he doesn't want to appear as a bad guy, or
because he doesn't like lawyers or judges or legal fees...or whatever )
he could lose his rights later on.  The owner "must" persue all
infringers even if he would rather not.  It is the way the law works.
By not aggressively persueing infringers it appears as though the owner
"abandons" his property and it could become public domain as a result.

There is currently a lot of controversy regarding Paramounts
notification of Star Trek related websites.  Paramount ( I hear ) has
required such sites to remove trademarked material to the dismay of us
all, but they must do this or lose their rights.  I don't know if
Paramount is doing this reluctantly or out of a sense of power but it
matters not they "must" persue infringer whether they want to or not.

Did I explain this right Mr. S.?

***********************************************************************

Just my two cents worth-- I fthose guys who make the tracks are smart
enough and dedicated enough to do what they have done then I say GREAT!
And I appreciate them for adding to and helping us all out, allbeit
technically illegal as it has been stated in original message.  So if
editing tracks is illegal then I suppose any and every change or "patch"
not made by Papy/Sierra is also wrong... i.e. the mirror patch, changing
driver settings, editing calendar files -- you get the picture.

Get real--Papy/Sierra.  Better yet read the manual on customer
satisfaction/support.  Don't blaze the guys who are doing something when
your companies do so little once the product hits the street.  I do love
the sim, don't take me wrong.  I'd just like to have some support for the
things the customer wants, needs or dreams for!  After we-- we pay the
bills, right?

My thanks go out to ALL the guys/gals who do a little editing to make a
great game better, more playable, ect.  Papy/Sierra-- cut those guys a
check for doing your job ;)

Xducer
aka-- Roger F.

[snip]

[snip]

The problem is not with Papyrus, Richard... The problem is with the
*tracks* and the *owners* of the tracks... If they could, don't you think
Papyrus would LOVE to put out Daytona and Indy?

Write to IMS and Daytona and tell them what a huge marketing
opportunity they are missing... tell them not to renew their exclusive
agreements with lousy arcade game producers... tell them the real
fans who will buy tickets want to run a SIMULATION, not play a
game....

- Mike.

================================================================

= R.I.P. Scott Brayton: February 20, 1959 - May 17, 1996
= R.I.P. Jeff Krosnoff: September 24, 1964 - July 14, 1996
= R.I.P. Jim Chapman: January 24, 1916 - October 10, 1996
================================================================

The problem with technically illegal is it can cause you near endless
hassles... And for a lot of the things that people are doing, there
are ways to do it which are not illegal. (Some of the things people
are doing, I can think of a way to make legal... :-) )

That's not true at all. First of all, editting tracks is not (in and
of itself) illegal, and we've never maintained that it was.
Distributing derivative works without the copyright holders permission
is illegal, and we're forced to take steps to maintain our copyrights.

In addition, several types of third-party patch programs are
completely legal. (Basically, anything that doesn't involve bundling
of copyrighted material.) So, if someone were to (to pick a wild
example) write a converter that took Indy and converted it to ICR2 and
N1, and distributed only the converter program (and not the Indy
track), there'd be no problem with Papyrus copyrights. Same with the
guy who wrote the Taladega->Daytona program, since he didn't include
the Talladega track with it, Papyrus doesn't have any legal ground to
stop him from distributing it. (NB: I don't know what ISC's position
on this is, and I don't have a law degree, so I can't really say this
guy is "in the clear", but at least he's not violating Papyrus
copyrights... :-) )

If someone wrote a patch program to make the dates appear to be 1997
dates, and distributed it as a patch, we couldn't stop them. (But
distributing a pre-patched executable wouldn't be OK under copyright
law...)

We are working on a patch, to address several shortfalls in the 1.00
release of N2.

And yes, you and all the other customers do pay the bills (and thus,
my salary) and for that I thank you.

---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

Did I say that? Where?

"Because it would stop us from making money in the future"  is not the
reason. "Because it violates our copyrights, which we are forced by
law to defend or risk losing." is the reason.

The notion that non-profit items are somehow "less infringing" is a
fallacy. (It might make a judge more sympathetic to you when awarding
damages, but it doesn't make it legal...)

That was an analogy, purposely chosen to be a little extreme. (You
could read Rich Stallman's stuff, and come up with a bunch of reasons
why my analogy is imperfect. But you don't need to bother with that,
since I'll admit that an intellectual property theft is not *AS*
damaging as a physical property theft, but it's still damaging...)

As far as I can tell, the real difference is that our types of games
brush all too closely with lawyers, and the law and the ***
community are most comfortable when they are separated by a
distance... You can be sure that Id is agressively pursuing the folks
who "liberated" the source code to Quake (oh no, wait, that wasn't
done for profit, I guess it's OK... :-) )

The first patch addresses some of the off-line gamers concerns. (No
doubt it doesn't address all of them, but it will demonstrate to some
rational people (perhaps not to the *** theorists) that
off-line leagues are not being sabatoged by Papyrus.)

---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus

<Level headed response to a previous post snipped>

Ok Jim, that's it! Your not a programmer for Papy!!! You are obviously
a cleverly disguised PR guy for Sierra. Either that, or you have an
endless amount of patience ;-)