Is this the end????

Greetings all, Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

I will be taking my copy back tomorrow, and will tell the store why, too. -- Colin ICQ 25485061 Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

What a bunch of hippocrites... they never complained when carsets for MGPRS2 (unlicenced) were released, now did they? This is about as stupid as it gets... 1) users add-ons, if anything help sell and prolong the life of the game. 2) Attacking a site like that is silly as it will generate a lot of bad press right in front of the games' target audience... Not to mention this is a slap in the face of the simracing community. Were can I mail the "suit" that spewed that crap? -I want a piece of him. Jan. =--- Lugnut wrote... > > <snip>

Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote on 19 Apr 2001: <snip> >http://formulasim.gameloft.com/ Hmm. The following phrase from UbiSoft's message: >We have found out that a counterfeited version of our copyrighted >game, "F1 Racing Championship", is available for download on the >following website: http://formulasim.gameloft.com/ seemed (on a first, *cursory* glance) to be somewhat more important. Put me in a bind, that did. I can't in all conscience (given what I've often said here and elsewhere) support any site supplying warez. On the other hand, Ubisoft's stance with regard to patches is utterly absurd. Having read the messages again, though, it would seem that Ubi have backed down over the major allegation (of wholesale piracy), but are now trying to stick to their second point. Which is, as I say, absurd. As is mentioned elsewhere, they didn't moan about MGPRS2 patches... looks like they're being leant on by the FIA or Bernie... -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

We have been living in a fools paradise with all the various track paks and carsets and such. One of the huge differences between say a Quake/Halflife mod and a racing mod is licensing real world companies. There is no way you can have accurate track building or car painting without crossing over several copyright violations. Now most of the companies have been turing a blind eye to the efforts of these few people. But as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are buying and what folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing licensing agreements with much more vigor. it can ONLY get worse dave henrie "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What a bunch of hippocrites... they never complained when carsets forMGPRS2

Quoted text (17 lines)

> (unlicenced) were released, now did they? > > This is about as stupid as it gets... 1) users add-ons, if anything help > sell and prolong the life of the game. 2) Attacking a site like that is > silly as it will generate a lot of bad press right in front of the games' > target audience... > > Not to mention this is a slap in the face of the simracing community. Were > can I mail the "suit" that spewed that crap? -I want a piece of him. > > Jan. > =--- > Lugnut wrote... > > > > <snip> > >

OK, let's look at what the folks are getting for free: the ability to view advertisements. Let's look at what the companies are paying for these advertisements: $0! Companies should be glad these car painters are out there painting cigarette and alcohol cars because the game companies aren't allowed to. This way they get their logos out there. Everybody wins. Tracks: same thing. Somebody downloads Road Atlanta (say) for GPL and thinks "hey, this would be a cool track to visit". Seasons: lets say UbiSoft decided to produce a 2001 update for F1RC. As long as it was a reasonable price (say $25) people would buy it because they know it would probably be higher quality than a 2001 season somebody did on his own time for free. As long as the patchers and updaters aren't charging for their additions, the game companies should encourage their efforts. (End of rant). "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ckLD6.31206$[email hidden]... > people. But > as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are > buying and what > folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing > licensing agreements with > much more vigor.

Rob Adams <[email hidden]> wrote on 20 Apr 2001: <snip> >As long as the patchers and updaters aren't charging for their >additions, the game companies should encourage their efforts.<snip> So where do you stand on Dave Noonan charging 15 quid for his addon? (I have no real problem with it, BTW.) After all (going OT for a moment), Amstrad allow the distribution of ZX Spectrum ROMs with emulators, but only on a strictly non-commercial basis[1]. I think it would be very easy indeed for a company with less sense than Papy/Sierra/whatever to squash Noonan if it wanted to, even if it had trouble suppressing freeware products. [1] Gerton Lunter, author of a shareware Spectrum emulator called "Z80" has a specific agreement with Amstrad that allows him to charge for registration. AFAIK, all recent Spectrum emulators have been freeware. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

This is a copy of an email I sent Ubisoft. THe despicable bastards will never get one cent out of me again. I don't support Warez but when I read crap like that, I think it's not so bad after all. Moe I find it absurd that Ubisoft sent an email to the Formulasim website demanding the immediate removal of patches for F1RC. These are the only way we can modify your games in order to provide us the most realistic F1 experience possible. I haven't purchase F1RC because I live in Canada and it is not released here yet, but I will save my money and continue playing with the other two Formula One releases available to us, GP3 and F1CS2K. The two companies that produce these games don't seem to have a problem with editors and other utilities. I can guarantee you this, I will not be the only one who boycotts your products because of this. I think Ubisoft should rethink their policies. Thanks for your time, A once loyal Ubisoft supporter "Lugnut" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

"Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TwLD6.242$[email hidden]... > OK, let's look at what the folks are getting for free: the ability to view > advertisements. Let's look at what the companies are paying for these > advertisements: $0! > > Companies should be glad these car painters are out there paintingcigarette > and alcohol cars because the game companies aren't allowed to. This waythey > get their logos out there. Everybody wins. > > Tracks: same thing. Somebody downloads Road Atlanta (say) for GPL andthinks > "hey, this would be a cool track to visit". > > Seasons: lets say UbiSoft decided to produce a 2001 update for F1RC. Aslong > as it was a reasonable price (say $25) people would buy it because theyknow

Quoted text (8 lines)

> it would probably be higher quality than a 2001 season somebody did on his > own time for free. > > As long as the patchers and updaters aren't charging for their additions, > the game companies should encourage their efforts. > > (End of rant). >

It is just as legal, and just as acceptable a policy, for makers of entertainment to CHARGE for including a logo or product in a film, game, etc. We've all seen reports already of this happening in PC games. It is completly within the power of the PC game makers to turn the whole bloody sheebang on its ear and REFUSE to place corporate and other propriatary logos and graphics in a game without payment for the advertising. KFG

>"Kevin Gavitt" <[email hidden]> wrote > It is completly within the power of the PC game makers to turn the whole > bloody sheebang on its ear and REFUSE to place corporate and other > propriatary logos and graphics in a game without payment for the > advertising. Nobody would disagree with that. It's just obvious they are shooting themselves on the foot with that mentality. Heck 95% of the cars/tracks for GPL, Icr2, N1, N2, Gp2, Gp3, F1RC, F1CS, F1CS2k, Viper Racing, SCGT, NFS series, <insert about every racing game, sim or arcade> are illegal in some sort. Seriously, if I was that site, I would continue to put modifications to the sim on their site. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Unless developers follow the the CART and IRL model established by Infogrames and Midway, wherein a company acquires a license with no intention of producing products based on those licenses. :-P -- JB On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:23:36 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> We have been living in a fools paradise with all the various track paks >and carsets >and such. One of the huge differences between say a Quake/Halflife mod and >a racing >mod is licensing real world companies. There is no way you can have >accurate track >building or car painting without crossing over several copyright violations. >Now most >of the companies have been turing a blind eye to the efforts of these few >people. But >as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are >buying and what >folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing >licensing agreements with >much more vigor. >it can ONLY get worse >dave henrie >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> What a bunch of hippocrites... they never complained when carsets for >MGPRS2 >> (unlicenced) were released, now did they? >> >> This is about as stupid as it gets... 1) users add-ons, if anything help >> sell and prolong the life of the game. 2) Attacking a site like that is >> silly as it will generate a lot of bad press right in front of the games' >> target audience... >> >> Not to mention this is a slap in the face of the simracing community. Were >> can I mail the "suit" that spewed that crap? -I want a piece of him. >> >> Jan. >> =--- >> Lugnut wrote... >> > >> > <snip> >> >> > >

F1 isn't complaining -- it's Ubisoft who apparently feel threatened by third-party add-ons that just MIGHT be superior to their own base product. Go fig. Thankfully, not all developers and publishers are like Ubisoft. -- JB On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:37:07 GMT, "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (32 lines)

>OK, let's look at what the folks are getting for free: the ability to view >advertisements. Let's look at what the companies are paying for these >advertisements: $0! > >Companies should be glad these car painters are out there painting cigarette >and alcohol cars because the game companies aren't allowed to. This way they >get their logos out there. Everybody wins. > >Tracks: same thing. Somebody downloads Road Atlanta (say) for GPL and thinks >"hey, this would be a cool track to visit". > >Seasons: lets say UbiSoft decided to produce a 2001 update for F1RC. As long >as it was a reasonable price (say $25) people would buy it because they know >it would probably be higher quality than a 2001 season somebody did on his >own time for free. > >As long as the patchers and updaters aren't charging for their additions, >the game companies should encourage their efforts. > >(End of rant). > >"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:ckLD6.31206$[email hidden]... >> people. But >> as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are >> buying and what >> folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing >> licensing agreements with >> much more vigor. > > >

Made my mind up, no F1RC for me! I mean, I really like the idea of mods and with all the dedicated talent out there, I'm not going to support Ubisoft to slow it down. -- G-Loc "Lugnut" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Having read the messages again, though, it would seem that Ubi have > backed down over the major allegation (of wholesale piracy), but are > now trying to stick to their second point. Which is, as I say, absurd. > As is mentioned elsewhere, they didn't moan about MGPRS2 patches... > looks like they're being leant on by the FIA or Bernie... > That's right - I'm sure it will be in their contract with Bernie that they *must* pursue to the best of their ability mods, patches etc. that infringe the rights that Ubisoft have paid for. I think it stinks, too, but blame Bernie rather than Ubisoft. - Michael

'Why are UbiSoft and others treated differently than Papyrus over here?' ;) Lugnut wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

I'm certainly writing this strongly worded email to them... " Dear Sir/Madam, I AM DISGUSTED BEYOND BELIEF that you would ask the above website to remove add-ons to your products from their site. "Since it is illegal and strictly forbidden to offer counterfeited versions of a video game, this site is causing a serious damage to our company by infringing our intellectual property rights. " This is a BLATENT LIE. NOTHING released by formulasim - is a counterfeit of your game. I singularly fail to see why you believe this to be so. When people create new tracks, cars, paint schemes and so on for a compter game the only party to benefit financially is the developers and publishers of that game as the only financial resutlt is people going out to buy this game with the sole aim of applying this modifications to it. Would Citroen demand I remove alloy wheels and a " West " logo if I were to put them on my car - NO. Microprose/Hasbro with GP2 (some 1000 modifications available online) and GP3 (a large and growing number of modifications) have had NO PROBLEM with people doing so and have, I presume, a similar legal agreement with the FIA regarding the F1 Licence. ES Sports with F1 2000 and F1 Championship Season 2000 have had NO PROBLEM with people doing so and have, I presume, a similar legal agreement with the FIA regarding the F1 Licence. Papyrus and Sierra with Nascar 1, Nascar 2, Nascar 3, Nascar 4, Indycar 1, Indycar 2, and Grand Prix Legends have had no problem with people doing this to their products - and I assume they have or have had similar agreements with the governing bodies of those series also. "1) The agreement we have with the licensor of the Formula One rights contains certain provisions which do not permit Ubi Soft to promote or otherwise display the game on the Internet" And indeed - UbiSoft is not doing so - it is the private individuals who develop these modifications who do this - NOT YOURSELVES. If the governing body or the FIA have trouble with these modififcations being made available in the public domain the onus is upon THEM to deal with the issue - NOT you. "2) By proposing patches for the 2001 F1 season to the public, you are bypassing Ubi Soft on any future exploitation of its 2000 F1 Season rights for which Ubi Soft has the license. " If your proposed 'exploitation' or should if be "Product" based upon the 2000 seasons is to be so appauling as to be superceeded by an amateur effort - then frankly I see no hope for your company in the future. I have no intention of EVER buying another UbiSoft product - i am returning my recent UbiSoft purchases to the store from where I bought them. I will enjoy EA's F12000 with all the patches, bells and whistles that the public domain can develop, and the same goes for GP3 and GPL. I sincerely hope you retract you position on this matter - and until you do - I intend to do my utmost to urge people to NOT buy your products - for the reason that UbiSoft considers it illegal to privately modify, for ones own personal use, something an individual has bought. THAT is an inexcusable stance for UbiSoft to take and I'm disgusted by it. Douglas Ellsion " "Lugnut" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:37:12 GMT, Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote: Isn't it funny that Ubisoft is the same company that tried to save a little money with Monaco F1GP2 that they didn't include the driver and car likenesses, but built in editors so that people could modify these items themselves? What were they thinking. People who bought the game would a) All be capable of modifying game graphics to an acceptable level b) only modify graphics for the season that the game was released in c) stop playing the game after one year of after a sequel was released? its madness. shoot the lawyers i say. The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest. If I could flipping get it to work on my Geforce, it would even be able to take me away from GPL for a while. This admittedly arcad-ish game had me hooked and hotlapping like crazy. I think it was probably the best arcade racer ever. oo-er. have to stop before i foam at the mouth. i just have to say that it is the only racing game i've played where the racing line is critical. most games allow you to be slightly off the racing line and get away with it, but POD rewarded you for giving 100%. Very unusual for that type of game. It also had a healthy online community at the time which Ubisoft encouraged. I can't understand what they are trying to protect. My feeling is that we are pretty well looked after on the race sim front (except for Cart / Indycars). I'm happy to play GPL & GP3 for the next year in their current states. I'm going to vote with my wallet and not support companies who take these kinds of actions. It starts now with Ubisoft, but the next one is sure to follow. regards, Ian who doesn't know how to be brief...

lol i was going to buy the game this weekend but i want buy it now guess i'll stick to gp3 and n4 maybe there will be a better game bye a better company who knows On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:20:23 +0200, istoff wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:37:12 GMT, Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Isn't it funny that Ubisoft is the same company that tried to save a >little money with Monaco F1GP2 that they didn't include the driver and >car likenesses, but built in editors so that people could modify these >items themselves? > >What were they thinking. People who bought the game would > >a) All be capable of modifying game graphics to an acceptable level >b) only modify graphics for the season that the game was released in >c) stop playing the game after one year of after a sequel was >released? > >its madness. > >shoot the lawyers i say. > >The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, >besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest. > >If I could flipping get it to work on my Geforce, it would even be >able to take me away from GPL for a while. This admittedly arcad-ish >game had me hooked and hotlapping like crazy. I think it was probably >the best arcade racer ever. oo-er. have to stop before i foam at the >mouth. i just have to say that it is the only racing game i've played >where the racing line is critical. most games allow you to be >slightly off the racing line and get away with it, but POD rewarded >you for giving 100%. Very unusual for that type of game. It also had >a healthy online community at the time which Ubisoft encouraged. > >I can't understand what they are trying to protect. My feeling is >that we are pretty well looked after on the race sim front (except for >Cart / Indycars). I'm happy to play GPL & GP3 for the next year in >their current states. > >I'm going to vote with my wallet and not support companies who take >these kinds of actions. It starts now with Ubisoft, but the next one >is sure to follow. > >regards, >Ian >who doesn't know how to be brief...

Stand By folks. Ubisoft is going to be the publisher of MYST III.... Will hand-drawn maps be considered illegal ? -Larry "Moe Lefaive" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XBND6.697171$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This is a copy of an email I sent Ubisoft. THe despicable bastards will > never get one cent out of me again. I don't support Warez but when I read > crap like that, I think it's not so bad after all. > > Moe > > I find it absurd that Ubisoft sent an email to the Formulasim website > demanding the immediate removal of patches for F1RC. These are the only

way > we can modify your games in order to provide us the most realistic F1 > experience possible. > I haven't purchase F1RC because I live in Canada and it is not released > here yet, but I will save my money and continue playing with the other two > Formula One releases available to us, GP3 and F1CS2K. The two companiesthat

Quoted text (15 lines)

> produce these games don't seem to have a problem with editors and other > utilities. > I can guarantee you this, I will not be the only one who boycotts your > products because of this. I think Ubisoft should rethink their policies. > > Thanks for your time, > > A once loyal Ubisoft supporter > "Lugnut" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Greetings all, > > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on

UBIsoft's > > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > > > http://formulasim.gameloft.com/ > >

I think it's best to ignore the whole thing. Certainly Ubisoft is not sending such threatening letters to everyone who posts or creates modifications for F1RC. Why is it that we haven't heard from other sites? That strikes me as quite odd. Is there something you're not telling us? Maybe Ubisoft has it out for your site because of some grudge or something. It's an insane thing for Ubisoft to do. There's something missing that would make this all understandable. The licensing angle is not the answer, since other software companies (Sierra/Papyrus, for example) have licenses and do not restrict modifications. This all seems very odd, and it looks to me more like a personal problem between Ubisoft and yourself rather than a sweeping policy. Alanb

I agree 100% with your points. Any companies complaining about 99% of the "add-ons" have to pretty clueless. I guess some people don't like real competition. It always amuses and delights me that "hackers" here in the community can do a better job on graphics, accuracy, whatever than the big commercial operations who created the titles in the first place. Marc. "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TwLD6.242$[email hidden]... > OK, let's look at what the folks are getting for free: the ability to view > advertisements. Let's look at what the companies are paying for these > advertisements: $0! > > Companies should be glad these car painters are out there paintingcigarette > and alcohol cars because the game companies aren't allowed to. This waythey > get their logos out there. Everybody wins. > > Tracks: same thing. Somebody downloads Road Atlanta (say) for GPL andthinks > "hey, this would be a cool track to visit". > > Seasons: lets say UbiSoft decided to produce a 2001 update for F1RC. Aslong > as it was a reasonable price (say $25) people would buy it because theyknow

Quoted text (19 lines)

> it would probably be higher quality than a 2001 season somebody did on his > own time for free. > > As long as the patchers and updaters aren't charging for their additions, > the game companies should encourage their efforts. > > (End of rant). > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ckLD6.31206$[email hidden]... > > people. But > > as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are > > buying and what > > folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing > > licensing agreements with > > much more vigor. > > >

In article <irWD6.15438$[email hidden]>, "Larry" <[email hidden]> writes: >Stand By folks. Ubisoft is going to be the publisher of MYST III.... > >Will hand-drawn maps be considered illegal ? > >-Larry Truthfully, I don't care. I can't *stand* MYST...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Lugnut <[email hidden]> writes: > Greetings all, > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could >be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on UBIsoft's >part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. Wait - they don't want you to post either updates, carsets, etc. that they WON'T do? I'd think they'd like the free advertising, plus it lets the game be useful longer. Yeah, I'd hate if the other companies shut down all 'enhancements'... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <ckLD6.31206$[email hidden]>, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Now most >of the companies have been turing a blind eye to the efforts of these few >people. But >as the 'licensed' companies become more aware of what their dollars are >buying and what >folks are getting for free...they will 'most likely' begin enforcing >licensing agreements with >much more vigor. >it can ONLY get worse

I would even agree with the companies if they were producing the same add-ons. But they're not - or at least, they haven't. So what's the harm? Bureaucracy...bah! Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into the POD scene in a big way for awhile. David G Fisher <istoff> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:37:12 GMT, Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote: > The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, > besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest. > > If I could flipping get it to work on my Geforce, it would even be > able to take me away from GPL for a while. This admittedly arcad-ish > game had me hooked and hotlapping like crazy. I think it was probably > the best arcade racer ever. oo-er. have to stop before i foam at the > mouth. i just have to say that it is the only racing game i've played > where the racing line is critical. most games allow you to be > slightly off the racing line and get away with it, but POD rewarded > you for giving 100%. Very unusual for that type of game. It also had > a healthy online community at the time which Ubisoft encouraged.

Boy Dave, I couldn't agree with you more..... Having been recently engaged in a very similar situation with the Havas Legal Department (representing Sierra/Papyrus "property rights and EULA" for NASCAR 3)....I could literally write volumes on this subject....I have an "intimate" experience with it....lol. Since I'm already known for writing r.a.s. posts that are way too long....I'll not go into all the ramifications and issues I am aware of on this topic....through my personal experience. Suffice it to say, everything I've read under this thread (so far) barely scratches the surface....with regard to the "issues" and complexity of these issues. I'm speaking not only of the "legal issues," which are immense, but also of the "marketing, distribution and related business issues" which are even more immense in scope and complexity. I do have a few "comments" I would like to make.....actually they are more like "topics" to suggest and open discussion for. Several of these, I believe....will not be very popular among the readers of this newsgroup. That's fine.....actually, that's why I'm going to present them for discussion! But, before I do that, let me say that the recent "experience" I had (through my company, Pabst-Racing.com) with the Havas Legal Department, was not a bad experience, nor was it totally adversarial. I believe Papyrus (through Sierra/Havas) acted appropriately in sending us a "cease and desist" letter. Everyone I talked to at all of the principal companies were courteous and professional. I'm not mad at Papyrus nor has this experience left me with any bad feelings towards them in any way. In fact, if the situation had been reversed, I would have sent me a "cease and desist" letter too! The issue was resolved amicably....and quite easily on the part of both parties, I believe. This is the first public statement, of any kind, anywhere....that I've made about this "event" we went through with Papyrus ....many, many months ago. I felt compelled to make it now.....because I don't want anyone (in the sim community or at Papyrus/Sierra/Havas) to mistakenly assume any comments I may make below are written with the idea of taking "shots" directly or indirectly, at Papyrus or any of its employees. They are not written for that purpose in any way.....and I don't even feel a need to take shots at Papyrus for any reason. (Note: I will not go into any details of this issue with Papyrus/Sierra/Havas....so don't waste your time and space on this newsgroup server making posts in this string asking me questions about it.) That being said, here are a few things I discovered.....through my research, through discussions with our attorney (who specializes in Internet Law I might add), through research done by him....and through discussions I've had with "gaming industry" professionals on this topic for the last 18 months or so. These are not so much "opinion"....but more like "questions" yet unanswered.....for members of this sim racing community to consider: 1. The Internet is a powerful tool for not only information distribution, but "product" distribution as well. Yet, it is mostly unregulated and the business landscape for the most part, appears more like that of a group of "street vendors" rather than an organized marketplace. Like the "street vendors" market....it is wide open and vulnerable to unscrupulous people, fencing activities (both organized and unorganized) and various other fraudulent business activities. How does a pc-based software developer (gaming or otherwise) protect its intellectual property and product software adequately, when all they have as a tool to do so is a "contract" with their users/customers. These End-User-Licensing-Agreements, as they are often called, are not very powerful tools to combat fraudulent activities. They are governed legally, by "contract" law.....not by "criminal" law...for the most part. Contract law, unlike criminal law, isn't even a "written law" for the most part. Contract law is primarily written by the judgments handed down in the civil courts of this country. Since the Internet is so new, there's not much "case law" written (not many cases involving the Internet civil contract disputes have actually gone to trial). What is left, is the legal community (lawyers) simply "speculating" on what would be upheld, could be upheld, might be upheld......if and when some "issue" actually went to trial. Every "restrictive use statement" in a software developer's EULA....is potentially an "issue" that could be litigated....but probably has not yet been litigated. Software companies, have tended to pack their EULA's with every possible weapon conceivable.....because they just don't really know what will or will not hold up in court. Of course, the "scare factor" is an important element of their attempt to force user compliance.....and combat fraudulent use of their property. This is a very difficult issue, and its final resolve is many, many years away. 2. Most sim racing "game" EULA's prohibit "hacking" of their code and files. User created "patches and upgrades" and so forth, no matter how good they are, no matter how much they improve the realism, enjoyment and value....of a racing simulation for all the users....is still "hacking" the code and files....or modifying them in some way. Even, if you only "add" your files to that of the "developers game files".....its still results in an "end product" not created by the developer....that's prohibited.....and should be prohibited! Please note, the prohibition to "hacking" game files doesn't say, "If you don't sell it.....you can go ahead and hack our game!" It has nothing to do with whether you make money, sell it...or give it away. Legally, what you do with your "hack" isn't the issue....its the "hack" that's prohibited. Of course, what you do with these patches and upgrades.....then gets into other areas of prohibited activity in most gaming software EULA's. I actually think where we are going to have to go with all this is something along the lines of the "shareware or freeware" activities that have been very popular and very lucrative to many independent code writers and creative talents within the computer industry! Some of this "shareware" programming....is very close to "hacking" in the legal sense! There is a very fine line for many of these "privately produced" utilities and tools.....between a hack, and an independent code. A very fine line, indeed. Frankly, I believe the sim racing community specifically, would be much better served if all these user-created patches and upgrades could be done within the framework of some kind of a "shareware" marketplace, where the original developer can also participate in some of the financial rewards of the patches and updates, by granting a "shareware license" to the creator, so he/she can sell his creation and pay a portion of his/her income to the original racing sim developer! Let the "marketplace" determine if the "hack" is valuable or not....just like every other product in a free marketplace, people won't buy it if its not a good and desired patch. Of course, then you get into "licensing" problems....since most of them have restrictive use clauses which dramatically narrow the field of what use....the license is granted for. So for example, Papyrus couldn't grant me a "shareware license" to produce a 2001 Winston Cup car set for N4.....because that would be in fact, sub-licensing out...all the licenses they obtained to use the icons, names and logos, images and so forth....that are in N4 (like NASCARS's name and logo.....an obvious example). In order for any type of "shareware" program to work....this issue would have to be resolved first. 3. The "product license" game that all sim racing developers have to play.......is one of the stupidest business activities I have ever encountered in my entire life. As I've read many times here on r.a.s., its tantamount to NBC paying NABISCO (for example), to advertise NABISCO's products during NBC key programming....because NABISCO's products will increase TV viewers for NBC TV shows! Huh? Whose fault is this anyway? Well, here's the "rub" as I see it. Its not anybodies fault. At least, its not anybody currently in the sim racing game development industry right now...who is responsible. Everyone in the industry at this moment....is doing what has "always been done"....i.e., paying a fee to track owners (this is only once example of sim racing license fees paid) for the name, logo, image and likeness...of their track. And, as long as there is one game developer willing and eager to do this.....they all must do it (and probably end up having to sometimes competitively bid against each other for the license). I don't know who actually started doing this in the gaming industry.....what his or her name is.....but I do know...whomever they are (were) they had no clue about running a business. Because, since that day.....everyone has had to repeat the same dumb mistake.....as long as one developer was willing to "pay up!" It was probably some "hack programmer"....who mistakenly was given marketing management responsibilities....to go get permission from some stubborn track owner to use his track. Instead of doing his/her homework, making a good business presentation about "promotion of the track's ticket sales...promoting racing in general" and so forth, they just took the easy way out and wrote the track owner a check....for his permission to use the track in their game! Now, everybody has to do it! Since this nation's anti-trust laws prevent all the racing sim game developers from having a meeting and jointly agreeing to stop this stupid business practice.....together and all at the same time....we are going to have to put up with this major problem for a long more time I'm afraid. I doubt very seriously whether anybody in the current sim racing game development industry at this very moment, thinks this is a good business practice and a good idea....and are just totally glad to shell out all this money....so their very popular racing sim can promote some race track owner's business! Well...this is too long....and that's enough "conundrums" for us all to ponder. What could solve all this? Well, I have my own ideas as do many others I imagine. But, I'm not going to go into this....its the subject of a whole new "post"....10 times longer than this one! .....lol.... Take care... Tom Pabst

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:30:47 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into the POD >scene in a big way for awhile. > >David G Fisher Fun and seriously competitive and lag-free online play. Ubisoft got that one right at least. I was very disappointed with Monaco, though. I still like the way ghosts laps were used in pod. pick 5 to race against. thats more like it...

>"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > 'Why are UbiSoft and others treated differently than Papyrus over here?' > > > Greetings all, > > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following could > > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move onUBIsoft's > > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. LOL Thanks Gregor. I hope that DGF now understands... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Did you by any chance compete in the $10,000 Tournament won by some guy named Leadfoot? Geez, I guess it was almost four years ago now. David G Fisher "Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:30:47 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into thePOD

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >scene in a big way for awhile. > > > >David G Fisher > > Fun and seriously competitive and lag-free online play. Ubisoft got > that one right at least. I was very disappointed with Monaco, though. > > I still like the way ghosts laps were used in pod. pick 5 to race > against. thats more like it...

Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. But I'll let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. David G Fisher "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Z81E6.701056$[email hidden]... > >"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > > 'Why are UbiSoft and others treated differently than Papyrus over here?' > > > > > Greetings all, > > > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the followingcould

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on > UBIsoft's > > > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > > LOL Thanks Gregor. > > > I hope that DGF now understands... > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:40:33 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Did you by any chance compete in the $10,000 Tournament won by some guy >named Leadfoot? Geez, I guess it was almost four years ago now. > >David G Fisherunfortunately not. i only heard of the tournament the week in which it was to be held. a saturday, if i recall. and my ghost laps weren't really anywhere near world class. i had just managed to get really good laps on about 4 out of the original (16?) tracks. there was a nice buzz in the game service, which i haven't really seen since. then again, i don't play online much these days. i'm newly wed so no time for long sessions online. er no wait, i've been married 4 and half years now, i think i'm entitled to ignore the wife a bit more now. i've earned it :) regards all, ian

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. ButI'll > let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. Talk about elitist attitude! Lmao good try David. You don't know anything more then we do. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Uq2E6.701271$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. But > I'll > > let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. > > > Talk about elitist attitude! Lmao good try David. You don't know

anything > more then we do. Ok. Here's something I don't know. It took me a whopping three minutes to find this info. It's a post from the HG forum. --------------------------------------- First I would like to say that MGPRS2 was not hit with similar letters, because it was not liscensed by the FIA. Meaning... Ubisoft doesn't have to listen to their bitching or complaining, since they were not under a licensing contract with them. I am certain that this letter from Ubisoft is the result of FIA pressures. I have not heard of anyone else recieving this letter, and I think I know why. If you look closely at FormulaSim, you will notice their full domain name "formulasim.gameloft.com". GameLoft is a subsiduary of Guillemot (as is UbiSoft), GameLoft will be backing back into UbiSoft becoming a direct subsiduary. Therefore, by virtue of them hosting the website, they (Ubi) are breaching the contract, which is clear: UbiSoft cannot accomodate, or create anything for the game outside of the original 1999 season license. Furthermore, they cannot themselves provide online play for the game (through a anline portal). The message and the circumstances surrounding this issue seem very clear to me. FormulaSim was hosted on UbiSoft server, offered downloads that broke the contractual obligations of UbiSoft. Therefore, UbiSoft had no choice bu to force them to stop (their asses are on the line). If you also look closer, you will notice that the FormulaSim guys have stated "we will be moving to another server". I suspect that after they do that, there is little UbiSoft will do. As long as they abide by the contract, and ensure that they are not directly associated with the 3rd party add-ons, there is little legal ramification on Ubi.

There definitely was a good buzz at the GS. I had a great time racing as "DmndDave". I made it to the top 25 of that tourney, and remember the final $10,000 race. A lot of fun. I also enjoyed the way Ubi kept pumping out incredible new tracks week after week for a long time. I don't know how they managed to do it. The graphics looked great even in software mode. The Voodoo1 had just been released about the same time as the game. David G Fisher "Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:40:33 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Did you by any chance compete in the $10,000 Tournament won by some guy > >named Leadfoot? Geez, I guess it was almost four years ago now. > > > >David G Fisher > unfortunately not. i only heard of the tournament the week in which > it was to be held. a saturday, if i recall. and my ghost laps > weren't really anywhere near world class. > > i had just managed to get really good laps on about 4 out of the > original (16?) tracks. > > there was a nice buzz in the game service, which i haven't really seen > since. then again, i don't play online much these days. i'm newly > wed so no time for long sessions online. > > er no wait, i've been married 4 and half years now, i think i'm > entitled to ignore the wife a bit more now. i've earned it :) > > regards all, > ian

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I would even agree with the companies if they were producing the same add-ons. > But they're not - or at least, they haven't. So what's the harm? > Bureaucracy...bah! > > Eldred The real sticking point I think, is the Season 2001 carsets. UbiSoft paid BIG money I'll bet to get 2001 rights from Uncle Bernie. Even if only a few hundred RAS users DON'T buy any 2001 update from Ubi because better or free web versions are out there, then Ubi's investment gets tanked. And it doesn't matter if the web versions are better looking etc...Ubi paid the money they can(and it sounds like they will) enforce the licensing agreement. From the sound of their statements they are using the ol Sledgehamer when a diamond striker was needed. They chose to go after ALL addons rather than sift through all the various sites and utilities and patches and addons and and....you get the picture. dave henrie

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ra1E6.18522$[email hidden]... > Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. ButI'll > let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. > > David G Fisher David Fisher, the dodo who believes that if a driver rams a car ahead of him, the car in front is at fault. David Fisher who doesnt have clue. As if anyone would give your ridiculous opinions any credence anyway. ROFL!!!!!! > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Z81E6.701056$[email hidden]... > > >"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > 'Why are UbiSoft and others treated differently than Papyrus overhere?'

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following > could > > > > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on > > UBIsoft's > > > > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > > > > > LOL Thanks Gregor. > > > > > > I hope that DGF now understands... > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > >

They better, I'm a FF driver. I know everything about auto racing. David G Fisher "Aviator" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:F%4E6.2353$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> > David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Ra1E6.18522$[email hidden]... > > Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. But > I'll > > let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. > > > > David G Fisher > > David Fisher, the dodo who believes that if a driver rams a car ahead of > him, the car in front is at fault. David Fisher who doesnt have clue. > > As if anyone would give your ridiculous opinions any credence anyway. > ROFL!!!!!! > > > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Z81E6.701056$[email hidden]... > > > >"Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > 'Why are UbiSoft and others treated differently than Papyrus over > here?' > > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > Regardless of how you feel about F1RC, the following > > could > > > > > be of consequence to us all. Let's hope this is just a move on > > > UBIsoft's > > > > > part, and that no other software developers will follow suit. > > > > > > > > > LOL Thanks Gregor. > > > > > > > > > I hope that DGF now understands... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <nl0E6.11269$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... >Take care... > >Tom Pabst My god! Can a post be any more corporate ass-licking than this fucking toad? Profits, profits, profits. Corporations are god. You are unbelievable. -Tim

In article <nl0E6.11269$[email hidden]>, Tom Pabst wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

|2. Most sim racing "game" EULA's prohibit "hacking" of their code and |files. User created "patches and upgrades" and so forth, no matter how good |they are, no matter how much they improve the realism, enjoyment and |value....of a racing simulation for all the users....is still "hacking" the |code and files....or modifying them in some way. Even, if you only "add" |your files to that of the "developers game files".....its still results in |an "end product" not created by the developer....that's prohibited.....and |should be prohibited!

If I paint my tea jar, it's a product not created by the "developer". I can read a book and rewrite it, add my own ending, or even write a sequel. Software companies want the protection of copyright law but do not want to also extend the rights to individuals they have with any other kind of intellectual property. Of course, intellectual property is an oxymoron, but that's a whole other discussion. |"marketplace" determine if the "hack" is valuable or not....just like every |other product in a free marketplace, people won't buy it if its not a good |and desired patch. Of course, then you get into "licensing" This is totally false. Gran Prix Legends, for example, is a failure by your criteria. The majority of the market doesn't like it. I would hate to think the majority or the market will always dictate what happens. I think we have plenty of evidence just how bad the market's decisions can be. You should be able to create something and other people should be able to use it regardless of how popular it is. You don't really think we have a "free" market do you? Our market is heavily controlled. The market, unfortunately, won't even try a product based on good or bad, but only one sell or not sell. That's not a good thing. People cannot truly decide what they want if the choices they are given are limited. Eliminating the modifications to things like racing simulations is one example of that. The "market" will not demand the modifications we see because the "legal" providers will never produce them. If I have to get a license and all kinds of other red-tape, I'll likely just forget the whole thing. I'm not saying your suggestion is stupid, but it would require a lot of people who do this just for fun to become businessmen, and maybe that's not what they want. |3. The "product license" game that all sim racing developers have to |play.......is one of the stupidest business activities I have ever |encountered in my entire life. As I've read many times here on r.a.s., its |tantamount to NBC paying NABISCO (for example), to advertise NABISCO's |products during NBC key programming....because NABISCO's products will |increase TV viewers for NBC TV shows! Huh? Whose fault is this anyway? Good point. Same thing for the morons in the world that think they own the score of a basketball game. People have some bizarre ideas. I've always kept a watchful eye on anyone who says they are a lawyer or in marketing.

In article <[email hidden]>, istoff says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

>What were they thinking. People who bought the game would > >a) All be capable of modifying game graphics to an acceptable level >b) only modify graphics for the season that the game was released in >c) stop playing the game after one year of after a sequel was >released? > >its madness.

Yup. This is what the corps, as outlined by Tom Pabst above, want to happen. Actually, they'd rather charge you per month, week, or even shorter time periods. That is why copywrite law is going places it never has, or should, go. IP laws are becoming completely one-sided for large corps, fucking over consumers and any smaller players. The end result will be us paying "licensing" fees for everything, including, eventually, any and all games/music/software. Even that we "purchased" way back when. Think. You'll want to fire-up Nascar 4 in 2010 for some nostalgiac action and have to pay the exact same fucking fee you'd need to pay to play any other game. Why? Well, to make sure you aren't playing with some pirated game of some sort, best to make sure and charge you no matter what. All for your own good, of course. -Tim

It would be different if their name was Villeneuve! Ben Dave Henrie wrote in message ...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I would even agree >with the companies if they were producing the same add-ons. >> But they're not - or at least, they haven't. So what's the harm? >> Bureaucracy...bah! >> >> Eldred > The real sticking point I think, is the Season 2001 carsets. UbiSoft >paid BIG money >I'll bet to get 2001 rights from Uncle Bernie. Even if only a few hundred >RAS users >DON'T buy any 2001 update from Ubi because better or free web versions are >out >there, then Ubi's investment gets tanked. And it doesn't matter if the

web

Quoted text (13 lines)

>versions are >better looking etc...Ubi paid the money they can(and it sounds like they >will) enforce >the licensing agreement. > From the sound of their statements they are using the ol Sledgehamer when >a diamond >striker was needed. They chose to go after ALL addons rather than sift >through all the >various sites and utilities and patches and addons and and....you get the >picture. >dave henrie > >

"Ben Coleman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It would be different if their name was Villeneuve! > > Ben See? Obviously you understand....and yes you are correct. :) btw...isn't Villeneuve a French name...and isn't ubisoft a french company??? is smell synergy! dave henrie

So eh... won anything yet? Jan. =--- David G Fisher wrote... > They better, I'm a FF driver. I know everything about > auto racing. > > David G Fisher

Can we say: "Major Stock Holder of UbiSoft" DGF?? huh?? huh'huh?? hahahahahha Cheers.... "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ra1E6.18522$[email hidden]... | Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. ButI'll | let you all bitch and moan for awhile longer. It's fun. | | David G Fisher

what is pod? On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:30:47 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into the POD >scene in a big way for awhile. > >David G Fisher > ><istoff> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:37:12 GMT, Lugnut <[email hidden]> wrote: >> The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, >> besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest. >> >> If I could flipping get it to work on my Geforce, it would even be >> able to take me away from GPL for a while. This admittedly arcad-ish >> game had me hooked and hotlapping like crazy. I think it was probably >> the best arcade racer ever. oo-er. have to stop before i foam at the >> mouth. i just have to say that it is the only racing game i've played >> where the racing line is critical. most games allow you to be >> slightly off the racing line and get away with it, but POD rewarded >> you for giving 100%. Very unusual for that type of game. It also had >> a healthy online community at the time which Ubisoft encouraged. >

Shannon Hendrix <[email hidden]> wrote on 21 Apr 2001: <snip> >the morons in the world that think they >own the score of a basketball game.<snip> We get that here, too :( Various football (round ball version) websites have been leant on recently to stop using their team's idents - so you can have a Manchester United website[1], so long as it doesn't use the name "Manchester United", the badge, the colours, or the fixture list (for some reason, fixture lists are copyrighted...) [1] though why anyone whould want to... -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote on 20 Apr 2001: <snip> >First I would like to say that MGPRS2 was not hit with similar >letters, because it was not liscensed by the FIA. So what about games such as Grand Prix 3? <snip> >I am certain that this letter from Ubisoft is the result of FIA >pressures. No argument there. Presumably the same FIA pressures that result in companies telling us it is "not practical" to play their games over the Internet. <snip> >If you look closely at FormulaSim, you will notice their full domain >name "formulasim.gameloft.com". GameLoft is a subsiduary of >Guillemot (as is UbiSoft), GameLoft will be backing back into >UbiSoft becoming a direct subsiduary. Therefore, by virtue of them >hosting the website, they (Ubi) are breaching the contract<snip> Makes sense, actually. So why don't they say so in plain English? -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

<istoff> wrote on 20 Apr 2001: <snip> >The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, >besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest.<snip> Which is now out in the UK on (I think) Sold Out for a fiver. Snap it up! -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

><[email hidden]> wrote > what is pod? It's an old futuristic arcade game. It was fun for that time (and had some nice multiplayer implementation), but I always prefered Wipeout to it. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

I was joking. Aviator is a guy who thinks he knows everything about auto racing because he drives FF's. David G Fisher "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> So eh... won anything yet? > > Jan. > =--- > David G Fisher wrote... > > They better, I'm a FF driver. I know everything about > > auto racing. > > > > David G Fisher > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (David Buttery) writes: >We get that here, too :( Various football (round ball version) websites >have been leant on recently to stop using their team's idents - so you >can have a Manchester United website[1], so long as it doesn't use the >name "Manchester United", the badge, the colours, or the fixture list >(for some reason, fixture lists are copyrighted...) What's a 'fixture list'? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Ah... sorry. Underestimated your sense of irony/sarcasm. Jan. =--- David G Fisher wrote... > I was joking. Aviator is a guy who thinks he knows > everything about auto racing because he drives FF's. > > David G Fisher

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > What's a 'fixture list'? > The list of games a team plays during a season. A game is also called a match or a fixture here in the UK. Cheers Phil -- http://www.legendscentral.com http://www.geocities.com/f2_festival GPL Handicaps: F1 -3.60 secs, F2 +115.11 secs

as you say over there, a 'schedule' (and you don't pronounce it correctly, either <G>) -- Colin ICQ 25485061 > "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > What's a 'fixture list'? > >

EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote on 21 Apr 2001:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] (David Buttery) writes: > >>We get that here, too :( Various football (round ball version) >>websites have been leant on recently to stop using their team's >>idents - so you can have a Manchester United website[1], so long as >>it doesn't use the name "Manchester United", the badge, the >>colours, or the fixture list (for some reason, fixture lists are >>copyrighted...) > >What's a 'fixture list'? > >Eldred

The schedule of games (eg "April 21st: Aston Villa v Southampton"[1]). I'm surprised the term isn't known in the US. Well, well - you live and learn. [1] this is a real example, so I'll probably get sued... -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

For some reason we North Americans use the word "schedule" to mean schedule. Go figure ;) p.s. And most Canadians pronounce it correctly - shed-yule. "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote on 21 Apr 2001: > >What's a 'fixture list'? > > The schedule of games (eg "April 21st: Aston Villa v Southampton"[1]). > > I'm surprised the term isn't known in the US. Well, well - you live and > learn.

Rob Adams <[email hidden]> wrote on 21 Apr 2001: <snip> >most Canadians pronounce it correctly - shed-yule. Most of my fellow Britons don't :( -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (David Buttery) writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>>We get that here, too :( Various football (round ball version) >>>websites have been leant on recently to stop using their team's >>>idents - so you can have a Manchester United website[1], so long as >>>it doesn't use the name "Manchester United", the badge, the >>>colours, or the fixture list (for some reason, fixture lists are >>>copyrighted...) >> >>What's a 'fixture list'? >> >>Eldred > >The schedule of games (eg "April 21st: Aston Villa v Southampton"[1]). > >I'm surprised the term isn't known in the US. Well, well - you live and >learn. > >[1] this is a real example, so I'll probably get sued...

Why the <expletive> would they copyright the schedule?!? How are people supposed to know when the game(sorry, 'match<g>) is, and who's playing? That's lame... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Rob Adams <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LBnE6.4724$[email hidden]... > For some reason we North Americans use the word "schedule" to meanschedule. > Go figure ;) Nah, somehow "schedule" doesn't sound right for a list of independent events. I think schedule (to me at least) implies some sort of progression or dependency - like asking if a project is on schedule to be completed on time. I may, of course, be talking absolute rubbish. Now, don't get me started on "did you... yet?" ;-) Jonny

On 21 Apr 2001 11:41:11 GMT, [email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote: >>The saddest thing is that the most fun i've had on any pc car game, >>besides GPL would have to be POD. hands down, no contest. ><snip> > >Which is now out in the UK on (I think) Sold Out for a fiver. Snap it >up! i still have it. doesn't work on my geforce in hardware mode :( cheers

EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote on 22 Apr 2001: >Why the <expletive> would they copyright the schedule?!? How are >people supposed to know when the game(sorry, 'match<g>) is, and >who's playing? That's lame... > >Eldred It's absolutely insasne, but if you look at the fixture list in a newspaper, you'll see something along the lines of "Copyright the FA Premier League 2000/01. Not to be reproduced without permission". It's one reason why it's hard to find a complete fixture listy for the season on the net. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.71) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

Hell I use "Itinerary" hahaha Words of wisdom by "Fred Flinstone" "Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

| | Rob Adams <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:LBnE6.4724$[email hidden]... | > For some reason we North Americans use the word "schedule" to mean | schedule. | > Go figure ;) | | Nah, somehow "schedule" doesn't sound right for a list of independent | events. | | I think schedule (to me at least) implies some sort of progression or | dependency | - like asking if a project is on schedule to be completed on time. | | I may, of course, be talking absolute rubbish. | | Now, don't get me started on "did you... yet?" ;-) | | Jonny | |

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:24:10 GMT, Marc Collins <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >I guess some people don't like real competition. It always amuses and >delights me that "hackers" here in the community can do a better job on >graphics, accuracy, whatever than the big commercial operations who created >the titles in the first place. > >Marc.

Quite simple: Passion. Hackers do it in their free time and for the love of the "sport" or whatever, while most game programmers of today toil away in corporate sweat shops scrambling to get product after product out of the door. Uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) Ever wondered what's wrong with the world? http://bnetwork.com/ PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (David Buttery) writes: >It's absolutely insasne, but if you look at the fixture list in a >newspaper, you'll see something along the lines of "Copyright the FA >Premier League 2000/01. Not to be reproduced without permission". It's >one reason why it's hard to find a complete fixture listy for the >season on the net. > F'king lawyers... :( Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +28.67...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> The real sticking point I think, is the Season 2001 carsets. UbiSoft >paid BIG money >I'll bet to get 2001 rights from Uncle Bernie. Even if only a few hundred >RAS users >DON'T buy any 2001 update from Ubi because better or free web versions are >out >there, then Ubi's investment gets tanked.

Well gee, I guess Ubisoft could always put some smal impreovments in the GAME to make the upgrade worthwhile. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:30:47 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into the POD >scene in a big way for awhile. > >David G Fisher POD was a game I missed.. never saw it in the shops here in Holland and I never read something about it. Is it still worth ordering it and is it still being played online? Andre

POD's an excellent arcade racer... you can't really go wrong with it, even in single player. Never used online, wouldn't know if there's anyone still around. Jan. =--- Andre Warringa wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > POD was a game I missed.. never saw it in the shops > here in Holland and I never read something about it. > Is it still worth ordering it and is it still being > played online? > > Andre

thanks for enlighting me guess that one slipped bye me lol. On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:09:34 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >><[email hidden]> wrote >> what is pod? > > >It's an old futuristic arcade game. It was fun for that time (and had some >nice multiplayer implementation), but I always prefered Wipeout to it.

The problem with POD was it was kind of buggy. I think they released a "gold" version which included all the patches and tracks. It's four years old now, so I don't have any idea if anyone is still playing it. I may do a search just to see what happened. There was supposed to be a POD 2 also. David G Fisher "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:30:47 GMT, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >POD was an awesome racing game. One of my very favorites. I was into thePOD

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >scene in a big way for awhile. > > > >David G Fisher > > POD was a game I missed.. never saw it in the shops here in Holland > and I never read something about it. Is it still worth ordering it and > is it still being played online? > > Andre