rec.autos.simulators

It was a general message in the direction of all the currend third-party
tracks made from real-life ones.  I know you guys didn't BH... I just put
them all in the same sentence.

Good to know you have permission, that's the correct way and that's all we
need to know ;)

The thing is... I'm unsure about Suzuka, I have my doubts they would give
permission.  If it does then bravo, but I have my doubts.  If it doesn't
have any, then it's pointless to talk about a pirated track which itself is
illegal.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so
much that he stops making great tracks"

I really don't know much about all this lawyer stuff, but please, why
argue for some ignorant who doesn't respect others work ?

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove spam when replying

Someone somewhere seems to have finally found a way to shut this
site down which in my opinion is good news as we do not want to
encourage piracy within the community.

Cheers

Phi;

-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com

Naw, it's not my intent.  I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't
raise some issues here.  There is a possibility that the track itself is
created in the illegality.  If it's not (like per example the GPLEA tracks)
then fine.  But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the
approval of the track owners themselves?  This would mean that ALL converted
tracks would need approval.  Be sure that if you call the Pocono raceway and
ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it's not
in it", they wouldn't want.  Same goes for any other converted track no?

With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are
quite too difficult for the common mortals  but they are much more easier
than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future.
Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble.

I mean cmon guys.  We all remember the Daytona clones.  GPL isn't immune to
all those problems.  GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different
from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done
without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant.  I still wish those
stupid people at the French pits would delete the tracks, whatever legal or
not they are in the first way.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Jan.
=---

Martijn

Ah, but remember, Dave didn't actually release Suzuka. As long as he doesn't
publicly make it available, no license whatsoever is needed. You can do
whatever you want with Papy code as long as it stays on your system (or at
least you don't release it blatantly ;-) Ah well, the French Pits are gone,
woohoo!

-Corey Leigh

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove spam when replying

What is your problem for questionning me on my rights to post on a newsgroup
with whatever I want to say? eh!

Of course not Mr. I-assume-such-***-theories ;)  Why so defensive? We
are just questionning some values and morals.

Err.... Does not compute...  I've done more than you think!

If they want to be in legality, of course they would do but of course a big
majority never did.  You can't simply blattently create a track without the
permission of the track itself!!! Hello McFly!! Of course there is a major
difference here that I will expand below between GP2 and GPL tracks.

Unless you don't care about the legal laws, yes.  "Necessary" btw can be a
vague term.  The reason you have yet to see any track complain about it's
use is simply that those tracks aren't part of the current F1 season
promoted in GP2.  Which is why per example third-party tracks have had
problems in the past with the Daytona International Speedway.  A software
such as Nascar Racing 3 models the Winston Cup season which itself has such
a track in it's calendar.  For GP2, all FIA tracks were inside the title.
It is of course not the same exactly for GPL, especially when during that
era we had non-point Formula 1 races.  Brands Hatch is one of them per
example.  Why would a track owner sue since it cannot happen in real life?
(Formula 1 cars racing at his track).

The point is that with the advent of Nascar Racing 4, I personally feel a
very important trend appearing for third-party track creators.  The
"old-school" editors from the old game engine will have no choice but to
update themselves to the new game engine, which means (in a positive way)
that plenty of new tracks will be created for both GPL and N4.  You will
also have the possibility to convert tracks between GPL and N4 in a very
easy way (speculating of course but based on serious assumptions of file
architecture of the new game engine based on the early alpha previews).

We are all happy about those tracks popping everywhere for GPL these past
months, but let's realise the GPL community isn't immune to the law.  This
message is much more philosophical than you may think and targets more the
overall trend of the community and less the track creators themselves.

At least we know (if we trust the words of the GPLEA people) that all their
tracks are created with the legal approval of the track owners themselves,
which is a positive way for everybody to promote both virtual reality
motorsport and the track that are created.

Happy? ;-)

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

If Mr. Noonan, or anyone else for that matter, takes the time and effort to
design and produce a circuit for (say) GPL from a real-life circuit that is
still in existence, then good ***y luck to them.
I, for one, won't refuse the offer simply because I don't know if Mr.
Circuit Owner has given permission to digitise his bit of real estate.
That's an issue to be sorted between him and the creator of the electronic
version.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

As for your second point, by making a few dollars selling his
converters, he can devote time to create new stuff from scratch, makes
sense to me, charge for some stuff and let other stuff be available for
DL

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

"Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/
"The Pits"    http://www.thenorwaypits.com/

* Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way *
"Spamkiller"    http://www.spamkiller.com

Sudesh

I dont quite understand the difference yet. Not only for current F1 tracks
do portrait rights apply

So I am not allowed to model a section of public roads!?

Not true. Sepang ie. wasnt in original GP2 and is made (many times) in GP2.
You can download whole seasons of updated/changed/new tracks. Surely the
FIA could have done anything about it if they cared

He wouldnt sue because there is no point sueing. If the trackowner wants,
he can have 100% of the net result of the profits I make of a track (which
accumulates to zero). And its only to the holder of the copyrights
/portrait rights to execute these rights.
At least, thats here. The holder would have to have great perseverance to
sue if he has to cross borders, and has a guaranteed net result of zero.

Uh.. sure..

definately. But also be realistic. I mean, I just dont think its such a big
deal. And these matters are always VERY complex if you really want to sort
it out perfectly. As long as I dont make any money from making a track, I
sure as hell wont spend any money on a lawyer to write a legal agreement so
that I can make a track. For Papy, it was different as it was a commercial
product.

Martijn