rec.autos.simulators

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:35:42 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

Cheers!
John

<snip>

Btw this is cut/pasted from a previous post I did. Sorry for being
repetitive.

I would like also to add that the Montreal track is the most fake track I
ever saw in F1RS.  I live 5mins of this track, and I raced many times on it.
11months a year 1/4 of the track is a road for people to get into the ***
(the 180turn and the stretch before the pits chicane serves as that). Btw
the *** is the big round thins you see in the middle of the track.  All
the rest (3/4) is also a road, without any cops (hehe) so my friend and I go
often race there "for the fun of it".

I went to all the F1 races since 1989
so I know how it is. Overall the Gp2 Montreal track is very much better.
The front stretch is good, the little turn to the right after the
grandstands turns too much (it's about 10degrees less in reality). The Senna
chicane is "decent", but grandstand are not really what and where they are
(Gp2 has them better).  1 major thing. Where is the elevation change after
the Senna chicane !!!!!!!! This is the best part of the track, and Gp2 has
it perfect !!!!!. In F1RS there is no elevation, but in reality it's about
3meters high.  This is the best place in the circuit to see who is the best
driver, and Schumi is the only one who takes it perfectly.  After there is a
right-left and it's wayyy to slow. It's full speed in reality.

After there
is the stretch where Panis got his crash, and it's not very good in F1RS.
After it's getting better. The next chicane is good. The stretch were you
pass under the bridge is very well done. The only bad thing is the bridge
itself, it's REALLY not it ;-). The only thing bad is that there is too many
trees, in reality you can see Montreal downtown there.  Btw the downtown is
so lame, it's West in F1RS, but in reality it's North ! Another well done
chicane after, and a good stretch (the one before the 180turn). The 180
hairpin is not good. It's kinda a double-apex turn in F1RS but it isn't that
in reality. Finally, the long straight is "decent" it still turns too much,
in reality there is a little tiny turn.

Gp2 had Montreal 1994 modelled perfectly, except the pits that are funny.
I'm not whining, just saying that the Montreal track is F1RS is not well
done.  F1RS is a blast. (but nothing is better than N2 IMHO still....).

Heh it's very fun to try to cut those chicane.  Pretty good replay. But I
like Gp2's replay of the Bus Stop. I remember some replays where my car was
at most 1millimeter from the walls.  Adrenaline flowing !

Variante Ascari is very good IMHO, but I think the Lesmo curves are this
slow in real life.  Well, let me explain. I think that UbiSoft modelled
those curves uncorrectly, but this only to make the real impression of the
speed with the game engine. IMHO.

Yes we all do. Thanks for this thread it's better to help than to flame.

Fran?ois Mnard
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

begin 666 ymenard.vcf
M0D5'24XZ5D-!4D0-"DXZ3>EN87)D.T9R86[G;VES.TXN#0I&3CIY;65N87)D

M3#M#14Q,.U9/24-%.DXO00T*5$5,.TA/344[1D%8.DXO00T*0412.TA/344Z
M.SLQ,30V.2!/=FED92U#;&5R;6]N=#M-;VYT<F5A;"U.;W)D.U%U96)E8SM(

M3E1!0DQ%.C$Q-#8Y($]V:61E+4-L97)M;VYT/3!$/3!!36]N=')E86PM3F]R

M+F%W<'-S+F-O;2\-"E523#IH='1P.B\O=W=W+F%W<'-S+F-O;2\-"D5-04E,
M.U!2148[24Y415).150Z>6UE;F%R9$!A=W!S<RYC;VT-"D5.1#I60T%21 T*
`
end

What on earth are you on about now?

If I map a circuit as it was 30 years ago, and call it by any name I
like other than what it really is, there is no infringement of licensing
laws.

How in Christ's name  do you think Microprose got around the teams and
drivers situation with GP1?
How do you think Ubi Soft got around the Jacques Villeneuve situation in
F1RS?

Wake up!

--
Bruce
(at work)

"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get
tired."
(Jules Renard)

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

Very true....I certainly wont argue with that.
However, I still stand by what I said in regard to the examples quoted:
if the companies involved thought that they would be in strife for doing
what they did then they never would have proceeded.

You can't sue someone for creating a likeness.  If I created, using an
editor currently available for GP2, a track that had the same outline as
Monaco, Spa...whatever....and used it or sold it with a fictitious name
then I can't be sued for using a licensed name.
If that were not correct then there wouldn't be too many hamburger or
pizza joints around!

--
Bruce.
(At home)

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:53:23 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

Easy for you to say. The Monaco track is laid out around the streets
of Monaco. That means the roads do not change from season to season,
and Ste' Devote, *** Square, Mirabeau etc are all identical
nowadays to what they were thirty years ago. The buildings are also
the same. That means that you would still be in grave danger of
infringing the license for using Monaco, since you can also copyright
the likeness of a circuit (look on Dejanews for the discussions about
Daytona if you need to know more on this).

Furthermore, even if that were not the case, while it is okay for you
to thumb your nose at the F1 license and just go ahead with it anyway,
Papyrus would a) risk a protracted and potentially very expensive
legal case, and b) seriously damage their chances of getting an F1
license in future when/if they ever decided to do a modern day F1 sim.

Cheers!
John

Don`t know about the pizzas and hamburgers, BUT, this topic was
discussed in depth here a while back, and someone with the apropriate
knowledge (don`t remember who) explained it to us in detail and the
essence was that it`s not only the name that is protected, but the whole
concept (including likeness) that is protected, as was the case with
Daytona :-(

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

  Bruce you TPTCCer you....
    have you noticed how difficult it was to get Daytona on N2?  Do you
think GPL will be any different?  Companies like Papyrus respect licensing
agreements and go to great lengths to honor and protect them.  A Track
editor???   No, I'd be suprised, but also...the private concerned citizens
are getting quite good at making tracks...If GPL is a hit..you can bet
SOMEBODY would include a Monaco clone....
   Personally I'm hoping for a Mt. Panorama track for our Touring Cars...
dave henrie
#99 TPTCC
Big Sky Racing Team-  We're small but were slow!

Well, Goy....we'll agree to disagree :-)
--
Bruce.
(At home)

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
#12 in TPTCC

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:50:30 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

Yes you can. A likeness is copyrighted just as much as a logo, a name
or anything else. If you make a likeness of Spa or Monaco you _can_ be
sued, it's just a question of whether or not the track wants to. You
can take that risk as you have relatively little to lose, a companu
like Papyrus cannot.

Cheers!
John

call it by any name I like other than what it really is, there is no
infringement of licensing laws. How ... do you think Microprose got around
the teams and drivers situation with GP1? How do you think Ubi Soft got
around the Jacques Villeneuve situation in F1RS? <<

Daytona project Bruce (I wouldnt), and you "may" change your mind. They
were going to distribute that under a different name while providing us with
a patch to change it to Daytona, they changed their mind quickly after a
call from "them". <<

I understand the Daytona heavies threatened to take action against anyone
producing even a look-alike track, regardless of what they called it. But I
wonder if their case would have stood up if tested. Yes the logos are
theirs, the name is theirs, the corporate logos and signages etc belong to
their respective owners, but can they say that the general look and layout
of the track is copyrightable ? I have my doubts.

It brings to mind the recent case of Coke and their famous shaped bottle.
Some other company apparently wanted to use the classic shaped Coke bottle.
Coke went to court to get an injunction to prevent anyone else from using
the design. Coke argued that the bottle shape had been long used exclusively
by them, and that it was a distinctive and recognisable shape with a long
established association with the Coke product, and therefore it was a
copyrightable design that no one else should be able to use. Coke had their
lawyers, the other side had theirs, and Coke lost the case. Now my point is
that if something with as strong and distinctive design and association as
the classic Coke bottle was deemed by the courts to be non-copyrightable,
then I would have to expect that the shape and design of the Daytona track
layout would fall into the same category. If fact Id have to say that Coke
would have a much stronger case for copyright in this area than Daytona.

In general, publishable material via any medium is copyrightable. Machines
and functional apparatus is patentable. Designs are registrable. Copyright,
patents, and registrations are not all the same thing and all have different
implications.

Another side of the coin is the nature of the punishment if you were guilty
of copyright infringement anyway. Copyright infringement isnt a crime. Its
not a criminal offence. Its purely a civil matter. Also you dont get sued
for copyright infringement. You get accused of copyright infringement and
you get sued for damages. Damages are not only actually outlays or loss of
property but can also be the loss of earnings as it would be in this kind of
case. The thing is this, if person A made a Daytona type track and gave it
away to person B then the only damages that could be claimed are those
associated in that single deal. You couldnt, for example, be sued for
$1,000,000 because you gave away a single copy of a track. Daytona, or
whoever they sold the copyright licence to, could only sue you for the loss
of income on that single copy, which might be only $10. If you let it go to
court youd also have to pay court costs etc if you lost but youd be dumb
to let such a thing go to court for that reason. Admit fault in the first
instance and send them their $10.

Neither-the-less, when someone with the resources of Daytona tells you they
will sue you and youre just a ordinary person whos only involved in a
hobby anyway, then youd very likely be totally intimidated and acquiesce
at least I would. So I dont blame The Pits in the least for backing down on
this point. However I feel in light of the Coke precedence, and other
things, that Daytona wouldnt have a chance. They are bluffing but who among
us have the resources to call them. Certainly not I.

BTW, all of this is just my thoughts and understandings of the matter and
cant be taken as being correct on any point.

Phillip McNelley

Now where is my racing gear, I have a (two) races to run in the TPTCC
tonight and the clock is ticking.

Bruce and Dave, have you run yours yet ?

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

(snip)
Which companies?
(unsnip)

Microprose and Ubi Soft respectively.

(snip)
Yes you can. A likeness is copyrighted just as much as a logo, a name
or anything else. If you make a likeness of Spa or Monaco you _can_ be
sued, it's just a question of whether or not the track wants to. You
can take that risk as you have relatively little to lose, a companu
like Papyrus cannot.
(unsnip)

Okay.....I *CAN* be sued.  But the likelihood of the suit being
successful is minimal.  The likeness is NOT copyrighted....witness a
case involving the Coca-Cola bottle.
What *is* likely to be successful is that I would not have the finances
to withstand a lawsuit from a multi-national conglomerate, and would
therefore back down.
This does not mean that, if the case went to court, that the
FIA/FOCA/Monagesque Government would win.

My point is that there is nothing LEGALLY preventing my doing what I
suggested........and if there were any problem with that then Microprose
would not have done it with GP1/World Circuit and Ubi Soft would not
have disguised Jacques Villeneuve as 'Driver X'.

--
Bruce
(at work)

"Laziness is nothing more than the habit of resting before you get
tired."
(Jules Renard)

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:13:52 +1100, Bruce Kennewell

The point is that if Papyrus were just going to include Monaco and to
hang with the FIA license or getting Monaco's permission, regardless
of whether that was legal or illegal it would not be a smart move for
a company in their position to make. You as an individual can do that
sort of thing and get away with it, but if you may have to deal with
the FIA or Monaco in future then that is not a very good way to bring
yourself to their attention, quite apart from the danger you put your
company in by bringing a potentially large lawsuit to their door.

Cheers!
John