PAPYRUS AND IMS

Maybe if papyrus would have made this product more available, then people wouldn't be forced to cheat to get it. If they had made converters, then others would not have been forced to make them. Papyrus has done little to support ICR2, which is my favorite game. They have practically abandoned it. We will never see Homestead, St. Louis, Rio, or Japan. I think most of this probably has to do with money hungry Sierra taking over Papyrus. They do not know or seem to care what the people there before them had done. I still hold out hopes that someday these problems will be rectified, but I doubt it. So if Sierra has problems with copyright infringements, maybe they should look for problem solving solutions instead of legal solutions. Just think if everyone started infringing upon their copyrights we could run them out of business ( though I don't condone this). Could they afford to bring a couple million lawsuits against their loyal customers. Just think of the hours their lawyers would be spending sending off letters to people. At $250 an hour for a copyright lawyer I don't think this would work. So Sierra get your stuff together and start supporting your software and your loyal customers will support you. Tell the people where they can buy Indianapolis at. I've already got it.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Maybe if papyrus would have made this product more available, then people > wouldn't be forced to cheat to get it. If they had made converters, then > others would not have been forced to make them. Papyrus has done little to > support ICR2, which is my favorite game. They have practically abandoned > it. We will never see Homestead, St. Louis, Rio, or Japan. > I think most of this probably has to do with money hungry Sierra taking > over Papyrus. They do not know or seem to care what the people there > before them had done. I still hold out hopes that someday these problems > will be rectified, but I doubt it. > So if Sierra has problems with copyright infringements, maybe they should > look for problem solving solutions instead of legal solutions. Just think > if everyone started infringing upon their copyrights we could run them out > of business ( though I don't condone this). Could they afford to bring a > couple million lawsuits against their loyal customers. Just think of the > hours their lawyers would be spending sending off letters to people. At > $250 an hour for a copyright lawyer I don't think this would work. > So Sierra get your stuff together and start supporting your software and > your loyal customers will support you. > Tell the people where they can buy Indianapolis at. I've already got it.

Bravo! Truer words were never spoken. This is a service economy, and it's about time Sierra woke up and smelled the Kenya AA. Give the customers what they want and they'll be happy with you for life (works for Mercedes...). Neglect their legitimate concerns and give them the old Marie Antoinette favorite "let 'em eat cake", and you'll be seeing the backs of your customers before you can spell guillotine. Bart

Papy isn't the bad guy here. They no longer have the liscense for Indy, so they couldn't produce more copies even if they wanted to. --

: Maybe if papyrus would have made this product more available, then people : wouldn't be forced to cheat to get it. If they had made converters, then : others would not have been forced to make them. Papyrus has done little to : support ICR2, which is my favorite game. They have practically abandoned : it. We will never see Homestead, St. Louis, Rio, or Japan. At one time the IMS track was widely available. Unfortunately at the time the only people who were interested were ICR2 fans. At the time there were not converters so the NASCAR guys had to desire for the track. When the converter became available Papyrus had lost the rights to IMS (partial due to Tony George's desire to control IMS totally). Therefore they could not "re-issue" the track pack. If they could have they would have. Since the development and money had already been spent, it would have just been more money in the pocket. Now SEGA owns the IMS license and so . . . : I think most of this probably has to do with money hungry Sierra taking : over Papyrus. They do not know or seem to care what the people there : before them had done. I still hold out hopes that someday these problems : will be rectified, but I doubt it. I don't think that Sierra had that much influence on Papyrus losing interest in CART. Granted ICRx were not the money makers NASCAR were, but ICR2 was still one of the top sellers in Sierra's complete stable when they picked up Papyrus. The money was still there for support and future sims based on CART. However, I think the folks at Papyrus (those that currently work there) have a "desire" to do NASCAR. They "drive" for CART has faded for them. If they aren't hot-to-trot what kind of sim do you think we would get? I also think that "licensing" also became an issue as I think CART sold the license to Sony (at least for the "console" market). Apparently Microsoft bought the rights for the computer market. Maybe if the desire had been there, Sierra could have come up with the money, then again, maybe not.... <snip> : So Sierra get your stuff together and start supporting your software and : your loyal customers will support you. : Tell the people where they can buy Indianapolis at. I've already got it. They can't, because there doesn't seem to be any place left with the original stock. Though the last I heard *** had copies available some time ago for the European market. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Do you have a $49.95 Mercedes? ------------- remove NOSPAM from my address to email me ------------ "The theory has always been that if you put enough monkeys at enough typewriters eventually out will come Shakespeare. Well, now we have the internet and the theory has been proven wrong."

Then they need to quit pursuing the people who copy the track and trade it. I had to use a converter to make Indianapolis run on ICR2. I don't think they should worry about people giving the track away for others personal use. They have no way of making more profit on the Indianapolis track so this should be of no concern to Sierra. The anally retentive people at Sierra have no continuing intellectual rights to this property since they no longer offer it. I am glad that a global company like Microsoft now has the rights to CART. Sure I know that people have had some problems with Microsoft, but I would rather deal with a man of Bill Gates character that those that are involved with Sierra. Sierra is a good company in some respects, but they are very short sighted. They have been more interested in quickly releasing products, than making sure that they release a solid product. Indycar racing was what started the ball rolling on the huge profits in this industry. World Wide more people are interested in CART than in Nascar. So I wish Sierra good luck and adios, but I tell all you Nascar fans that it will not be long before you are abandoned. Bass Fishing 3 will see the light of day before Nascar 3.

It's not Papyrus it's Sierra. I don't think they are bad guys, but I do think they are petty. They should not threaten legal action if people are using the trackpack for personal use - no profit. If Sierra no longer offers the product then they can no longer make money off of it. So then they need to lay off of people who offer the track. So long as those people do not try to make a profit off of it. That is the bottom line. They were to cheap on the cost side to retain the rights for the product, so they don't want their loyal customers to use an outdated product that is of no further use to that company. I respect all of your arguments against what I am saying, but I disagree with you 100 percent. Indianapolis can not sue Sierra over a product that it no longer sells. Sierra can not control how people use a product that it no longer sales. Any good copyrights attorney (and I have retained one before) will tell that this product is now public domain since no one is using the intellectual rights of this product to the detriment of Sierra - i.e. profits. That is the bottom line.

This is the second time you've made this point. If Sierra/Papyrus was to allow the free-reign of these indy-posts, then they risk the license agreements from other tracks. The other track owner may say "sure, you can have my track for your game...How ya' gonna garantee that it doesn't get hacked?" It's not likely that the words would be verbatum, but I hope you see what I was getting at. Basically, if S/P allow someone to illegally distribute one track, other licenses are in jeopardy. Best Regards, Marc Marc J. Nelson The Sim Project

Three points: (i) Copyright has no relation to profit. If I write a program then I own the copyright to it and continue to do so whether or not I ever wish to make any profit from it. (ii) The (important) copyright at stake belongs to IMS, not Sierra. Papy had a limited license to use IMS's name & likeness. That license has long since expired. That copyright is most definitely not in the public domain!!! (iii) If Sierra stand by & let people violate IMS's copyrights then is that going to make them look good in IMS's eyes when they next try and bid for it? There are no good guys here & no bad guys. Just free market capitalism ;-)) Cheers, Richard

~~~~ I guess we all were (in anticipation at least <g>) but I think we were all racing ICR1 at that time ;-) Cheers, Richard

Two thoughts here: First, they probably made a commitment to IMS when they signed the contract to protect IMS' intellectual property rights with respect to the IMS track likeness. Second, if they fail to stay up with this stuff, the chance of signing contracts for other tracks decreases - would you sign a deal with someone who failed to carry out their obligations? I'm sorry, but you're wrong there. Worldwide, the largest audience is F1, followed by NASCAR, then CART. They were probably too late in the F1 game to pick up a license for the current drivers with Microprose and Psygnosis already in the hunt. So they chose to do the "Legends" title to avoid the licensing issues. I seriously doubt that either Sierra or Papyrus is going to abandon a title that has sold more than half a million copies. I'm also sorry to see Papyrus abandon the CART simulations. But it appears that they haven't abandoned open-wheel racing, and they are venturing into some new areas, such as the SODA racing title. I think it's a bit early to start the doom and gloom predictions. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html Hawaii Handle: davids

I don't know what copyright attorney you are using, but if I were you, I'd get a new one. Copyrights don't disappear just because a title goes out of print. Besides, the issue at stake here isn't the copyright on the track pack, but IMS' rights to the likeness of the track itself. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html Hawaii Handle: davids

Okay, I am going to try and state my case one more time. First of all for your saying that Indianapolis has " intellectual rights" to the likeness of it's track. Wrong answer - Copyrights pertain to works of art and literature, not real estate. Indianapolis has trademarks.- their logos and emblems are protected by law, anything else is not. If one wants to buy a piece of property and make a replica of Indianapolis they can. The thing that they cannot do is use the name, logos, or emblems that belong to Indianapolis. As for the copyrights owned by Sierra in regards to IMS. I state that one can use these files, which they are, under the fair use doctrine. "Fair Use" allows the reproduction of copyrighted material without permission if the use is "reasonable" and not harmful to the copyright owner. Four criteria must be met in considering whether a particular use is reasonable. 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a non-profit, educational or of a commercial value. If one gives someone a copy of these files it is a nonprofit and a non commercial nature. Criteria one is met, because no money has exchanged hands. Another reason that it is met, is because people only exchange these files, because their is no other way for them to obtain this material ( this is the character of the use).. If one were to sell this material, then they would be in violation of the law. 2) The amount and importance of the material in relation to the work as a whole. These are just a few files in relation to the program as a whole. No one is copying the whole ICR2 or NASCAR2 programs. These files cannot run without the mother program and without them they are useless. So my argument here is that these files are not important to the work as a whole. The integity of the program is not compromised by using these files. Anyone who has seen these files also understands that that these files are a tiny fraction of the whole program. 3) The nature of the copyrighted work. These are files that are no longer of any use to Sierra. Since they lost the contract to sell IMS, they have no further use for these files. These are just discarded waste amongst their vast commercial property. If at some point they do reobtain the right to sell IMS. The files, program that it runs on, and key characteristics (look of the course) will have so changed that it will have rendered these files useless. 4)The effect of the use on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Their is no potential market, because Sierra no longer sells this product. The copyrighted work also has no value, because they can no longer sell this product. I do not think that it is anyones' intention to harm Sierra's market value by using these files for personal use. I am totally against pirating someone elses hard work. These files are no longer of any value to Sierra and I do not think that they are forced to play net nanny for IMS. IMS can come out with this new program, with ABC, and blow what has been done in the past out of the water, making these files obsolete. It is not my intention to copy these files fo anyone else. This is just an argument that I feel someone else can use - if they do copy these files - to justify the fair use of these files. It is also not my intention to get into a petty bickering match with anyone over this philosophy. If a lawyer can show me where I am wrong then please show me - I am always delighted to find out new information. Where in the copyright code does it say that we can't have "fair use" of an obsolete product. Don't try and intimidate me into thinking I am wrong just because you are a lawyer -please show me so that I can understand this.

[some thoughtful comments snipped throughout for brevity] It's not clear to me exactly what property rights IMSC licensed to Papyrus, since I don't have access to their license agreement. I believe that IMS could very well make the case that their speedway is the expression of an idea, and if somewhat creates an exact likeness of it, then they have violated a copyright. I don't know that this has been tested in court, but I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a subpoena if they decided to test it. And as you mentioned, there are trademarks and logos that were licensed in the deal. It's been awhile since I reviewed the "fair use" statutes, but I'm pretty sure that the current court interpretation is much narrower than the statute appears to read. In particular, the court has narrowed the fair use of copyright materials for educational uses, and also use by the press. Audio and video clips are typically limited to 15 seconds, and written excerpts restricted to a single paragraph. The IMS track was sold as a separate track pack, which also included a paint kit. I would think it would be relatively easy for Papyrus to make the case that the IMS track itself represented the majority of value of the work. Yes, but they do have value to IMS, who have now licensed their rights to another company. Again, the value is not so much to Papyrus, but to IMS, who holds the ultimate property rights in the product. Again, you have to consider that Papyrus is highly dependent on licenses in its business. If they give an impression of weakness in enforcing those licensed rights by refusing to crack down on infringement, they stand a good chance of losing out to someone more aggressive in that area. The licensing market is very hot right now, sometimes just having the right name on the box can double or triple sales. Imagine what would happen to sales if Papyrus had to release a stock car racing title without the NASCAR name on the box. Dave Sparks IWCCCARS Project: http://www.theuspits.com/iwcccars Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html Hawaii Handle: davids

> <among other things> >Wrong answer - Copyrights pertain to works of art and > literature, not real estate. Better not try to tell that to Bernie Ecclestone! Bart

I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I must stop using that logo or find myself in court. Same with making an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana". Just won't work. But, your welcome to try it :). Just have the money handy for the lawyers you'll need. The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them. If I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it for a ton of money. Adam Levesque General Manager - Papyrus

Quoted text (66 lines)

>[some thoughtful comments snipped throughout for brevity] >>Okay, I am going to try and state my case one more time. First of all for >>your saying that Indianapolis has " intellectual rights" to the likeness >>of it's track. Wrong answer - Copyrights pertain to works of art and >>literature, not real estate. Indianapolis has trademarks.- their logos and >>emblems are protected by law, anything else is not. If one wants to buy a >>piece of property and make a replica of Indianapolis they can. The thing >>that they cannot do is use the name, logos, or emblems that belong to >>Indianapolis. >It's not clear to me exactly what property rights IMSC licensed to Papyrus, >since I don't have access to their license agreement. I believe that IMS >could very well make the case that their speedway is the expression of an >idea, and if somewhat creates an exact likeness of it, then they have >violated a copyright. I don't know that this has been tested in court, but >I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a subpoena if they >decided to test it. And as you mentioned, there are trademarks and logos >that were licensed in the deal. >>1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a >>non-profit, educational or of a commercial value. If one gives someone a >>copy of these files it is a nonprofit and a non commercial nature. >It's been awhile since I reviewed the "fair use" statutes, but I'm pretty >sure that the current court interpretation is much narrower than the >statute appears to read. In particular, the court has narrowed the fair use >of copyright materials for educational uses, and also use by the press. >Audio and video clips are typically limited to 15 seconds, and written >excerpts restricted to a single paragraph. >>2) The amount and importance of the material in relation to the work as a >>whole. These are just a few files in relation to the program as a whole. >The IMS track was sold as a separate track pack, which also included a >paint kit. I would think it would be relatively easy for Papyrus to make >the case that the IMS track itself represented the majority of value of the >work. >>3) The nature of the copyrighted work. These are files that are no longer >>of any use to Sierra. >Yes, but they do have value to IMS, who have now licensed their rights to >another company. >>4)The effect of the use on the potential market or value of the >>copyrighted work. Their is no potential market, because Sierra no longer >>sells this product. The copyrighted work also has no value, because they >>can no longer sell this product. >Again, the value is not so much to Papyrus, but to IMS, who holds the >ultimate property rights in the product. >Again, you have to consider that Papyrus is highly dependent on licenses in >its business. If they give an impression of weakness in enforcing those >licensed rights by refusing to crack down on infringement, they stand a >good chance of losing out to someone more aggressive in that area. The >licensing market is very hot right now, sometimes just having the right >name on the box can double or triple sales. Imagine what would happen to >sales if Papyrus had to release a stock car racing title without the NASCAR >name on the box. >Dave Sparks >IWCCCARS Project: [link lost in import] >Late Night League: http://www.sequoia-dev.com/Hawaii/latenite.html >Hawaii Handle: davids

<<I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of their track. It's called "Tradedress".>> Thanks, Adam -- that was the term I didn't know when I was making the point in this thread about Bernie Ecclestone. If people here think Tony George and IMS have a tight grip on their various holdings, he's a veritable communist (in the property-sharing, not the big "C" political sense) compared to Ecclestone. Anyone who thinks copyright laws extend only to "works of art or literature" is living in the 18th century. If someone replicated the "smell" of an F-1 race and tried to sell it, Ecclestone' lawyers would be all over them with licensing torts and cease-and-desist orders. Bart Brown

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of > their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in > determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the > property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it > "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what > I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I > must stop using that logo or find myself in court.

You mean "McDougals"..... Sorry, reference to "Coming to America".... ~G

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of > > their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in > > determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the > > property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it > > "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what > > I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I > > must stop using that logo or find myself in court. > You mean "McDougals"..... > Sorry, reference to "Coming to America".... > ~G

Coming to America: I thought it was McDowells. mykey

Quoted text (19 lines)

> I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of > their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in > determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the > property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it > "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what > I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I > must stop using that logo or find myself in court. Same with making > an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana". Just won't work. But, > your welcome to try it :). Just have the money handy for the lawyers > you'll need. > The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't > protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them. If > I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they > don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it > for a ton of money. > Adam Levesque > General Manager - Papyrus

Adam, I agree with you on your points about IMS and likenesses and so forth, but I've got a question. About 4 years ago, there was a Super NES game out called ESPN Speedworld. I don't know how many of you remember it, but it was a pretty crappy game, even though at the time it was the closest I could get to simracing NASCAR. It even had Jerry Punch on it! Anyway, it had 16 tracks (I believe) and they had a Tally, a Daytona, and an Indianapolis-type track. All were not even close to being true representations of the real tracks, but they were "likenesses" of the real thing. "Indiana" had the four turns and short chutes of Indy, "Florida" had the high speeds and tri-oval of Daytona, and "Alabama" had the same features of Talledega. So how can the makers of this game get away with making these tracks for their game without getting busted for it, and Papy (or anyone else for that matter) could get the death penalty for changing bankings a few degrees, creating not-quite-the-same objects around the track, and calling them by a different name ? I'm not saying that's what I would want; I'd rather have the licenses and the real thing. But I thought of that game that sits in my entertainment system gathering dust, and wondered how it got away with "simracing ***" :) Darin Carr Night Owls racer who seems to always end up having to be out of town on Friday nights >:(

Bart seems to think he's an attorney. Man, did you ever hear of Ontario Motor Speedway. It's a track that was very close to the one that Penske has built. It was the same exact dimensions as Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Copyrights do only deal with works of art and literature. You people are so fool of yourselves. Go read a law book instead of using this thoughtless conjecture.

This is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. The way a piece of pavement is laid out has nothing to do with intellectual property. Ontario Speedway in California was an exact replica of Indy. Check out History, many tracks have been modeled after others.

> This is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. The way a piece of > pavement is laid out has nothing to do with intellectual property. Newflash here: Trademarks are a form of intellectual property. ---Jim

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Bart seems to think he's an attorney. Man, did you ever hear of Ontario > Motor Speedway. It's a track that was very close to the one that Penske > has built. It was the same exact dimensions as Indianapolis Motor > Speedway. > Copyrights do only deal with works of art and literature. You people are > so fool of yourselves. Go read a law book instead of using this > thoughtless conjecture.

You can continue to refuse to face the truth, and believe what you want. If you're bound and determined to freely e-mail copies of the track to others without legal right, you're going to justify it even if Johnny Cochran himself jumps in here and informs you of the consequences. "If da track's not legit, Then you're gonna hafta quit!" God Bless, Steve

> Coming to America: > I thought it was McDowells. > mykey hey, i was close....

Actually, if I remember correctly, they did have to get permission. It was probably something worked out between ESPN and those tracks. But, even if they didn't get their approval, that's what we have been doing for a long time now. If all of a sudden, we did some tracks without their approval, if they did take us to court, it would be tougher for us. Not to mention we would be angering some pretty big people in the racing industry. Since we do licensed products, that could hurt much more than not doing the track. Adam Levesque General Manager - Papyrus

Quoted text (50 lines)

>> I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of >> their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in >> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the >> property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it >> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what >> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I >> must stop using that logo or find myself in court. Same with making >> an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana". Just won't work. But, >> your welcome to try it :). Just have the money handy for the lawyers >> you'll need. >> The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't >> protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them. If >> I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they >> don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it >> for a ton of money. >> Adam Levesque >> General Manager - Papyrus > Adam, I agree with you on your points about IMS and likenesses and so >forth, but I've got a question. > About 4 years ago, there was a Super NES game out called ESPN >Speedworld. I don't know how many of you remember it, but it was a >pretty crappy game, even though at the time it was the closest I could >get to simracing NASCAR. It even had Jerry Punch on it! > Anyway, it had 16 tracks (I believe) and they had a Tally, a Daytona, >and an Indianapolis-type track. All were not even close to being true >representations of the real tracks, but they were "likenesses" of the >real thing. "Indiana" had the four turns and short chutes of Indy, >"Florida" had the high speeds and tri-oval of Daytona, and "Alabama" had >the same features of Talledega. > So how can the makers of this game get away with making these tracks >for their game without getting busted for it, and Papy (or anyone else >for that matter) could get the death penalty for changing bankings a few >degrees, creating not-quite-the-same objects around the track, and >calling them by a different name ? > I'm not saying that's what I would want; I'd rather have the licenses >and the real thing. But I thought of that game that sits in my >entertainment system gathering dust, and wondered how it got away with >"simracing ***" :) >Darin Carr >Night Owls racer who seems to always end up having to be out of town on >Friday nights >:(

Ok Adam, What's your excuse for not getting Datona after this July? Sega's rights expired then. If you spent the bucks that us hard working people have been spending, hoping for the day we could run on the Superbowl of Nascar tracks. Then you should have one ready by fall? Tony George may be an jerk but Bill France seems to be a smart man with regards to marketing the product. I sure he'd sell the right's for a percentage of the profit's. Then you'd sell the game even more and it would be complete.

Quoted text (69 lines)

>Actually, if I remember correctly, they did have to get permission. >It was probably something worked out between ESPN and those tracks. >But, even if they didn't get their approval, that's what we have been >doing for a long time now. If all of a sudden, we did some tracks >without their approval, if they did take us to court, it would be >tougher for us. Not to mention we would be angering some pretty big >people in the racing industry. Since we do licensed products, that >could hurt much more than not doing the track. >Adam Levesque >General Manager - Papyrus >>> I'll jump in here. IMS absolutely has the rights to the "likeness" of >>> their track. It's called "Tradedress". The main factor in >>> determining this is, could some mistake the work as representing the >>> property. In other words, If I started a burger chain, called it >>> "McClellans" and had the arch's reversed, you bet your you know what >>> I'd get a letter the next day from McDonald's attorney's stating I >>> must stop using that logo or find myself in court. Same with making >>> an identical IMS and calling it "Indiana". Just won't work. But, >>> your welcome to try it :). Just have the money handy for the lawyers >>> you'll need. >>> The important thing to remember here is that if the property doesn't >>> protect their mark and rights, then they can actually "lose" them. If >>> I make a track like that, IMS doesn't do anything about it, then they >>> don't have much legal room when the next guy makes a copy and sells it >>> for a ton of money. >>> Adam Levesque >>> General Manager - Papyrus >> Adam, I agree with you on your points about IMS and likenesses and so >>forth, but I've got a question. >> About 4 years ago, there was a Super NES game out called ESPN >>Speedworld. I don't know how many of you remember it, but it was a >>pretty crappy game, even though at the time it was the closest I could >>get to simracing NASCAR. It even had Jerry Punch on it! >> Anyway, it had 16 tracks (I believe) and they had a Tally, a Daytona, >>and an Indianapolis-type track. All were not even close to being true >>representations of the real tracks, but they were "likenesses" of the >>real thing. "Indiana" had the four turns and short chutes of Indy, >>"Florida" had the high speeds and tri-oval of Daytona, and "Alabama" had >>the same features of Talledega. >> So how can the makers of this game get away with making these tracks >>for their game without getting busted for it, and Papy (or anyone else >>for that matter) could get the death penalty for changing bankings a few >>degrees, creating not-quite-the-same objects around the track, and >>calling them by a different name ? >> I'm not saying that's what I would want; I'd rather have the licenses >>and the real thing. But I thought of that game that sits in my >>entertainment system gathering dust, and wondered how it got away with >>"simracing ***" :) >>Darin Carr >>Night Owls racer who seems to always end up having to be out of town on >>Friday nights >:(

Gee, dosen't anyone keep up with these things? Sega renewed their rights to the track last Fall for a 3-year term. =P Marc

just a track geez

> Ok Adam, > What's your excuse for not getting Datona after this July? > Sega's rights expired then. Actually, they don't expire then. Papyrus spends more money and effort on licensing than you'll ever begin to realize. If you'd like to share your idea with Mr. France, the speedway's number is 1-904-253-RACE. Sega waived an incredible amount of money at ISC to get the Daytona rights; ISC did what they had to do, what any other person would do when considering the bottom line. I can't blame them a bit, even though I wish as much as you do that Daytona could be in NASCAR 2. God Bless, Steve

Can we open a different can of worms for a while. Instead of looking for a track "exactly" like Daytona, or Indianapolis what about a track designed for Nascar2. The real tracks are designed with real cars in mind. Nascar2 cars however don't perform exactly like real cars so why not design tracks around the strengths of Nascar2 to promote good modem/network/NROS racing. Who cares if it's not like a real track, if it's a blast to race on that is what I would really like. Just my opinion. mykey

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > Ok Adam, > > What's your excuse for not getting Datona after this July? > > Sega's rights expired then. > Actually, they don't expire then. > > If you spent the bucks that us hard > > working people have been spending, hoping for the day we > > could run on the Superbowl of Nascar tracks. Then you > > should have one ready by fall? > Papyrus spends more money and effort on licensing than you'll ever begin > to realize. > >Tony George may be an jerk > > but Bill France seems to be a smart man with regards to > > marketing the product. I sure he'd sell the right's for a > > percentage of the profit's. Then you'd sell the game > > even more and it would be complete. > If you'd like to share your idea with Mr. France, the speedway's number > is 1-904-253-RACE. Sega waived an incredible amount of money at ISC to > get the Daytona rights; ISC did what they had to do, what any other > person would do when considering the bottom line. I can't blame them a > bit, even though I wish as much as you do that Daytona could be in > NASCAR 2. > God Bless, > Steve

I disagree with that for one reason. ISC could have licenced Daytona to both Sega and Papy and made a lot of money. After all, ISC owns Daytona and since the demand for Daytona is high, ISC could have set their own rules and do the multiple licensing thing.

Well, then ask yourself why they didn't do that? They aren't stupid. Suppose Sega was willing to pay $3 million for the exclusive rights and $1 million for non-exclusive rights. I'm sure that, as much as I'd like for Papy to have gotten the rights to Daytona, that ISC got the best deal they could. That deal was an exclusive deal with Sega, and that's where we are today. Sega's the bigger kid on the block; live with it. ---Jim

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Can we open a different can of worms for a while. > Instead of looking for a track "exactly" like Daytona, or > Indianapolis what about a track designed for Nascar2. > The real tracks are designed with real cars in mind. > Nascar2 cars however don't perform exactly like real cars > so why not design tracks around the strengths of Nascar2 to > promote good modem/network/NROS racing. > Who cares if it's not like a real track, if it's a blast > to race on that is what I would really like. > Just my opinion. > mykey

That's where they draw the line between simulation and arcade game.. Papyrus advertised NASCAR2 as a sim, not an arcade game, so they have to make everything like they are in real life.. So the AI isn't perfect, they said they are working on it for future releases.. If I remember correctrly, NASCAR '98 will have some fictional tracks, you should have fun then.. just MY opinion.. -- Dave Otterness

Quoted text (30 lines)

>> Ok Adam, >> What's your excuse for not getting Datona after this July? >> Sega's rights expired then. >Actually, they don't expire then. >> If you spent the bucks that us hard >> working people have been spending, hoping for the day we >> could run on the Superbowl of Nascar tracks. Then you >> should have one ready by fall? >Papyrus spends more money and effort on licensing than you'll ever begin >to realize. >>Tony George may be an jerk >> but Bill France seems to be a smart man with regards to >> marketing the product. I sure he'd sell the right's for a >> percentage of the profit's. Then you'd sell the game >> even more and it would be complete. >If you'd like to share your idea with Mr. France, the speedway's number >is 1-904-253-RACE. Sega waived an incredible amount of money at ISC to >get the Daytona rights; ISC did what they had to do, what any other >person would do when considering the bottom line. I can't blame them a >bit, even though I wish as much as you do that Daytona could be in >NASCAR 2. >God Bless, >Steve

i think it cost about 1 or 2 million to get the daytona license. Papyrus only sell their game for about 50 bucks. How many do they need to sale to pay for the license fee.

: I disagree with that for one reason. ISC could have licenced Daytona to : both Sega and Papy and made a lot of money. After all, ISC owns Daytona : and since the demand for Daytona is high, ISC could have set their own : rules and do the multiple licensing thing. And since Sega would not be getting an "exclusive" license, do you think ISC could have gotten as much money from Sega? Maybe Sega wouldn't play unless they got an "exclusive" license. In that case Papy would have had to match Sega's offer or ISC would have played with Sega. Which is more than likely what happened. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I don't think this was in the cards...Consider this: If ISC grants license to both Sega and Papyrus, but Sega says "no deal", then what's ISC to do?...I believe Sega wanted 'exclusive' rights to the name and *likeness*<g> of Daytona...nothing less. Marc