rec.autos.simulators

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

> That's not a race track.  Race tracks are owned by somebody, they are a
> business entity.  Let's say you want to model in a FPS Walt Disney World.
> Do you REALLY think you don't need to ask? So what's the difference with
> that and a race track? None.

> > Not true. Sepang ie. wasnt in original GP2 and is made (many times) in
> GP2.

> Sepang was not part of the season which GP2 models.  Brands Hatch was part
> of the Formula 1 season modeled in GPL (they raced a non-point race there).
> End of this portion of discussion.

> Still, the converters themselves are also in the illegality, and that I'm
> 100% sure.  Do you really think all those track owners have granted
> permission to use those 30 tracks in GPL? Of course not.

> > You can download whole seasons of updated/changed/new tracks. Surely the
> > FIA could have done anything about it if they cared

> "If they cared" is the single most important thing of this whole thread.

> > 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.

> If so, then explain the whole fuss with the Daytona track.  There is a
> potential profit loss that tracks lose by having them available illegally.
> They could have had license money (although it's not directly related to the
> game itself but the FIA in F1 sims).

> > 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.

> True but his converter is a commercial product no? ;)

> Even if it's free it doesn't mean it's legal.

> --
> -- 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.

> > We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-)

> It's not really an appropriate track for those vintage F1's.  Quite boring
> to race imho.  Would be a better Icr2 track (especially considering it's
> somehow based on Icr2 track editing, but that's another thing) ;)

> Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka.  Does he has the rights to do a
> modeling of the track?  What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snetterton and
> Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of
> license?

> I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his
> arguments are irrelevant.

> --
> -- 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.

> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:45:46 GMT, "J. P. Hovercraft"

> >No, it doesn't, but they -do- still own the rights to the movie you
taped, and
> >you -don't- have the right to post the movie to a website for download
just
> >because you used -your- tape and -your- VCR to record -their- movie.

> Yep, the copyright is still on the converted tracks.

> Andre

> >J. P. Hovercraft

> >> That is totally false..

> >> If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a
> >> movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David)
> >> ownership of my new tape (track)

> >> Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track..
After
> >> it does that, it is out of davids hands.

> >> >   not quite I think:
> >> > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might
be
> >> > similar.  (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may"
be
> >> > conversing with the pkzip orginator...)
> >> >   I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that
includes
> >> > their copywright in all you do.  I know many of the "free" websites
have a
> >> > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their
property.
> >> >   The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it
"requires"
> >> a
> >> > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly
> >> > operate.
> >> >    That being said,  Dave Noonan has only a couple of options:  a)
Publize
> >> > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect
that.
> >> b)
> >> > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an
obviously
> >> beta
> >> > effort delutes his past efforts.  c) Hire a lawyer.
> >> >   Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast
majority
> >> of
> >> > RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the
> >> > sim-racing community and not visit the french site.  A last
alternative
> >> > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a
large
> >> > group of users writting complaints.)
> >> > --
> >> > dave henrie
> >> > Free the ICR2 source code!
> >> > (hmm conflict in logic?)

> >> > > I do not agree with that at all

> >> > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a
ARJ
> >> file
> >> > > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the
converter

> >> > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under
> >> > > microsoft

> >> > > Just does not work that way..

> >> > > >   I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave
> >> Noonan's
> >> > > > copyright protection to that track.
> >> > > > So yeah,  Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who
converts
> >> > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan.  Anyone who
doesn't
> >> like
> >> > > > this is free to write their own convertor.
> >> > > >   This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is
riding on
> >> > the
> >> > > > coat-tails of others efforts.  And yesssss, in a sense you could
argue
> >> > > that
> >> > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has
expended
> >> quite
> >> > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors.  what has the French
site
> >> > done?
> >> > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts?
> >> > > > dave henrie


> >> > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and
the
> >> > > others
> >> > > > si
> >> > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you
> >> built
> >> > > > suzuka
> >> > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of
you
> >> can
> >> > > > claim
> >> > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that
s
> >> all

> >> > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare
time
> >> > > mod'er
> >> > > > c
> >> > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction...

message :
> >> > > > 8ksvbs$l

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:45:46 GMT, "J. P. Hovercraft"

>>No, it doesn't, but they -do- still own the rights to the movie you taped, and
>>you -don't- have the right to post the movie to a website for download just
>>because you used -your- tape and -your- VCR to record -their- movie.

>Yep, the copyright is still on the converted tracks.

>Andre

>hmm that VCR u own which has a record button... do u need permission to tape
>something from the television?, or to make a copy of that movie?

>Dave's converter = the VCR if u ask me, it gives u the ability to convert a
>track, but does not give u anything that belongs to someone else.  It also
>doesn't give you the permission to use those tracks, it just allows u to convert
>them from 1 program to another.

> > What an ungratefull asswipe you are,, Noonon did free tracks, his
> converter took
> > time to do, and time is money, he has every right to charge a few
dollars
> for
> > it, if you dont like it, don't buy it, this does not give you the right
to
> steal
> > from him, and to steal from papy, if you downloaded the tracks already
> > converted, with out having purchased ICR2, n2, ect,,

> Wha? I think you lost track of this thread my boy.  I was one of the first
> one stating that those guys did something wrong, yet that doesn't mean we
> can't question any validity of a software.  What insinuated from my tree
> branch in this thread was an obvious questioning which brought many good
and
> bad arguments, and in the end I think created a consensus stating that
free
> tracks should always be continued to be created, and that asking legally
to
> track owners would be equal a definitive "no" and attract the attention of
> track owners to the problem.

> > With out the effort of Dave Noonan, and the GPLEA, we would be racing on
> only 11
> > tracks, instead of having 50 to choose from.

> Well duh!  But should we all do this at the expense of doing this legally?
> That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down all those
> track creators.  Of course you can't see such point it seems.

> > So, dont hold your ***ing breath for a responce to your smart ass
> question
> > about Suzuka,,,***weed

> It wasn't me you "dickweed".  It was somebody else.  Half-plonk to you
also.

> --
> -- 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.

>The A1-Ring isn`t the same track layout as the Osterreichring so any
>computer representation of the Osterreichring isn`t a likeness of the
>existing track.

> Wha? I think you lost track of this thread my boy.  I was one of the first
> one stating that those guys did something wrong, yet that doesn't mean we
> can't question any validity of a software.  What insinuated from my tree
> branch in this thread was an obvious questioning which brought many good
> and
> bad arguments, and in the end I think created a consensus stating that
> free
> tracks should always be continued to be created, and that asking legally
> to
> track owners would be equal a definitive "no" and attract the attention of
> track owners to the problem.

> > Well duh!  But should we all do this at the expense of doing this
legally?
> > That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down all
those
> > track creators.  Of course you can't see such point it seems.

> Personally I think that if I bought "the product Silverstone", then I
> own the name, the track, the likeness, the previous likenesses etc.
> That's what I'd expect to be buying, but I'd want my lawyer to confirm
> it, as I'm not sure what the legal extent is.

> > Francois....PLEASE!......for pity's sake....have another look at the
load
> of
> > waffle in that post and try and sort it into something that is, at the
> very
> > least, intelligible, would you?

> It's very intelligible Bruce.  You just need to make the effort and read
my
> comments in "smart-arse" mode.  It's the way I alluded subtly the message.
> You would be surprised how my posts have second-level meanings Bruce.
It's
> not just the standard "I speek French so Iz wrot very bhadly in
INNNglish".
> Couple of redundance, lousy sentence structure and I should had replaced
> "any" by "the".  I was bored at that time, but please don't tell me you
> don't have the capacity to understand the words I have wrote.

>> Personally I think that if I bought "the product Silverstone", then I
>> own the name, the track, the likeness, the previous likenesses etc.
>> That's what I'd expect to be buying, but I'd want my lawyer to confirm
>> it, as I'm not sure what the legal extent is.

>Hey John - if you do buy Silverstone can I have a go!