Lots of new GPL tracks here...

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html are they legal or not? I wouldn't know.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html are they legal or not? I wouldn't know.

Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clue to the breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. Basically, the guy running the site believes in the freedom to post whatever he wants regardless of copyright. I note, however, that he does not offer GPL presumably because in that case lawyers would be paying him a visit. Hence, the message sent out in the name of 'freedom' is:- if you have lawyers I will respect you but if you do not I will post whatever I want. The only protection software authors have in the age of the internet is copyright because our work does not have the physical existence of say a painting or a book and can be copied all over the world in seconds. If other sites copy the French Pits then slowly but surely add-ons developed in spare-time will simply disappear. BTW I would very much doubt that Sierra France have the power to give up Papyrus's copyrights. Regards Dave Noonan Karl Zosel <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BH4c5.27911$[email hidden]... > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html > > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > >

maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the others si ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you built suzuka on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you can claim any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s all quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time mod'er c ommunity is not on the way to extinction... David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : 8ksvbs$l ms$[email hidden]...

David.. Do you have a license to sell these converters? If not what you are doin is illegal my friend. :) Why do u sell them anyways? Why not have them available to download? In article <8ksvbs$lms$[email hidden]>, "David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. Theclue to the > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > Basically, the guy running the site believes in the freedom to postwhatever he wants > regardless of copyright. > I note, however, that he does not offer GPL presumably because inthat case lawyers > would be paying him a visit. > Hence, the message sent out in the name of 'freedom' is:- if youhave lawyers I will > respect you but if you do not I will post whatever I want. > > The only protection software authors have in the age of the internetis copyright > because our work does not have the physical existence of say apainting or a book and > can be copied all over the world in seconds. > > If other sites copy the French Pits then slowly but surely add-onsdeveloped in > spare-time will simply disappear. > > BTW I would very much doubt that Sierra France have the power to giveup Papyrus's

Quoted text (15 lines)

> copyrights. > > Regards > > Dave Noonan > > Karl Zosel <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BH4c5.27911$[email hidden]... > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html > > > > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > > > > > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Legality is questionable... morality is downright rock bottom. They leaked the pre-beta of Dave Noonan's Suzuka without even crediting him. Avoid. Jan. =--- Karl Zosel wrote... > <offending link snipped> > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > >

I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave Noonan's copyright protection to that track. So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't like this is free to write their own convertor. This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on the coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue that Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended quite a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site done? Posted some leaked beta efforts? dave henrie "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the otherssi > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you builtsuzuka > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you canclaim > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s all > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time mod'erc > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message :8ksvbs$l > ms$[email hidden]... > >

I do not agree with that at all That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ file with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under microsoft Just does not work that way.. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave Noonan's > copyright protection to that track. > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't like > this is free to write their own convertor. > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on the > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue

that > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended quite > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site done? > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > dave henrie > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and theothers

Quoted text (9 lines)

> si > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you built > suzuka > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you can > claim > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s all > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time

mod'er

Quoted text (10 lines)

> c > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > 8ksvbs$l > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > >

not quite I think: "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might be similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may" be conversing with the pkzip orginator...) I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that includes their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websites have a clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their property. The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it "requires" a copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly operate. That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a) Publize the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect that. b) Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an obviously beta effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast majority of RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A last alternative would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a large group of users writting complaints.) -- dave henrie Free the ICR2 source code! (hmm conflict in logic?) "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... > I do not agree with that at all > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ file > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > microsoft > > Just does not work that way.. > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave Noonan's > > copyright protection to that track. > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't like > > this is free to write their own convertor. > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on the > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue > that > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended quite > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site done? > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > > dave henrie > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the > others > > si > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you built > > suzuka > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you can > > claim > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s all > > > > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time > mod'er > > c > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > > 8ksvbs$l > > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > >

I really stumbled into this French website by accident, and I was amased at what tracks they had, and some I never heard of before. Since I did not know your track convertor (I own Nascar 2 and Indycar 2, but I don't like running GPL on ovals) I didn't really know what the other tracks were. (I guess some are from newer Papyrus titles) I'm really happy with the free tracks you already made available (I got them at THE PITS) and regret if others steal your work. I hope that IF they really love GPL, that they start using common sense! Karl David Noonan <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws 8ksvbs$lms$[email hidden]... > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clueto the > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > Basically, the guy running the site believes in the freedom to postwhatever he wants > regardless of copyright. > I note, however, that he does not offer GPL presumably because in thatcase lawyers > would be paying him a visit. > Hence, the message sent out in the name of 'freedom' is:- if you havelawyers I will > respect you but if you do not I will post whatever I want. > > The only protection software authors have in the age of the internet iscopyright > because our work does not have the physical existence of say a painting ora book and > can be copied all over the world in seconds. > > If other sites copy the French Pits then slowly but surely add-onsdeveloped in > spare-time will simply disappear. > > BTW I would very much doubt that Sierra France have the power to give upPapyrus's

Quoted text (18 lines)

> copyrights. > > > Regards > > Dave Noonan > > > > Karl Zosel <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BH4c5.27911$[email hidden]... > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html > > > > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > > > > > >

It's just a "not found" error page. No reason is given. Main thing is, that site is out of business for now. Victory for Dave! Hooray! ;-) Jan. =--- Phil Lee wrote...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> According to a message on Tim Wheatley's forum, the French Pits > is no more. I followed the link in the original message and it > has indeed been pulled by the ISP. My understanding of French > is limited so I can't tell you exactly what is said on the > message page which appears. > > Someone somewhere seems to have finally found a way to shut this > site down which in my opinion is good news as we do not want to > encourage piracy within the community. > > Cheers > > Phi; > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. > Up to 100 minutes free! > http://www.keen.com >

What is your problem ymenard? Are you trying to find reasons why we shouldnt make tracks? Is that YOUR contribution? DO you think that for any of the 600 GP2 tracks the authors asked for permission? Do you even know if its really necesary? Please answer all these questions Martijn ymenard <[email hidden]> schreef in artikel <V8vc5.91040$[email hidden]>... > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > > We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-) > > It's not really an appropriate track for those vintage F1's. Quiteboring > to race imho. Would be a better Icr2 track (especially considering it's > somehow based on Icr2 track editing, but that's another thing) ;) > > Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights todo a > modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snettertonand > Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of > license? > > I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his > arguments are irrelevant.

>But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the >approval of the track owners themselves Ah, but remember, Dave didn't actually release Suzuka. As long as he doesn't publicly make it available, no license whatsoever is needed. You can do whatever you want with Papy code as long as it stays on your system (or at least you don't release it blatantly ;-) Ah well, the French Pits are gone, woohoo! -Corey Leigh

Oh Gawd....here we go again. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:g4tc5.90612$[email hidden]... > >David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clue > to the > > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > > Hmmm David. Do you have any right actually to do Suzuka, or any of those > tracks you did (except Dubai since it's a fantasy track but could be said as > being a modified Red Rock, and thus the rights goes to Papyrus)? > > Did you contact the owner of the track and ask them? Basically if not, then > you can't copyright something that is illegal no? > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

and there he goes again...being his aggressive self...... Sudesh "�artijn" wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > What is your problem ymenard? Are you trying to find reasons why we > shouldnt make tracks? Is that YOUR contribution? DO you think that for any > of the 600 GP2 tracks the authors asked for permission? Do you even know if > its really necesary? Please answer all these questions > > Martijn > > ymenard <[email hidden]> schreef in artikel > <V8vc5.91040$[email hidden]>... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-) > > > > It's not really an appropriate track for those vintage F1's. Quite > boring > > to race imho. Would be a better Icr2 track (especially considering it's > > somehow based on Icr2 track editing, but that's another thing) ;) > > > > Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights to > do a > > modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snetterton > and > > Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of > > license? > > > > I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his > > arguments are irrelevant.

> Of course there is a major > difference here that I will expand below between GP2 and GPL tracks. I dont quite understand the difference yet. Not only for current F1 tracks do portrait rights apply > > Do you even know if its really necesary? > Unless you don't care about the legal laws, yes. So I am not allowed to model a section of public roads!? > "Necessary" btw can be a > vague term. The reason you have yet to see any track complain about it's > use is simply that those tracks aren't part of the current F1 season > promoted in GP2. Not true. Sepang ie. wasnt in original GP2 and is made (many times) in GP2. You can download whole seasons of updated/changed/new tracks. Surely the FIA could have done anything about it if they cared > Which is why per example third-party tracks have had > problems in the past with the Daytona International Speedway. A software > such as Nascar Racing 3 models the Winston Cup season which itself hassuch > a track in it's calendar. For GP2, all FIA tracks were inside the title. > It is of course not the same exactly for GPL, especially when during that > era we had non-point Formula 1 races. Brands Hatch is one of them per > example. Why would a track owner sue since it cannot happen in reallife? > (Formula 1 cars racing at his track). He wouldnt sue because there is no point sueing. If the trackowner wants, he can have 100% of the net result of the profits I make of a track (which accumulates to zero). And its only to the holder of the copyrights /portrait rights to execute these rights. At least, thats here. The holder would have to have great perseverance to sue if he has to cross borders, and has a guaranteed net result of zero.

Quoted text (8 lines)

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

Uh.. sure.. > We are all happy about those tracks popping everywhere for GPL these past > months, but let's realise the GPL community isn't immune to the law. This > message is much more philosophical than you may think and targets morethe > overall trend of the community and less the track creators themselves. definately. But also be realistic. I mean, I just dont think its such a big deal. And these matters are always VERY complex if you really want to sort it out perfectly. As long as I dont make any money from making a track, I sure as hell wont spend any money on a lawyer to write a legal agreement so that I can make a track. For Papy, it was different as it was a commercial product. Martijn

If you look at the 3rd column on the circuits page you will see the credits and a link to your site. "David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ksvbs$lms$[email hidden]... > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clueto the > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > Basically, the guy running the site believes in the freedom to postwhatever he wants > regardless of copyright. > I note, however, that he does not offer GPL presumably because in thatcase lawyers > would be paying him a visit. > Hence, the message sent out in the name of 'freedom' is:- if you havelawyers I will > respect you but if you do not I will post whatever I want. > > The only protection software authors have in the age of the internet iscopyright > because our work does not have the physical existence of say a painting ora book and > can be copied all over the world in seconds. > > If other sites copy the French Pits then slowly but surely add-onsdeveloped in > spare-time will simply disappear. > > BTW I would very much doubt that Sierra France have the power to give upPapyrus's

Quoted text (18 lines)

> copyrights. > > > Regards > > Dave Noonan > > > > Karl Zosel <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BH4c5.27911$[email hidden]... > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html > > > > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > > > > > >

Yo Frank, We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-) Jan. =--- ymenard wrote... > ><Snip> > Hmmm David. Do you have any right actually to do Suzuka, or any of those > tracks you did (except Dubai since it's a fantasy track but could be saidas > being a modified Red Rock, and thus the rights goes to Papyrus)? > > Did you contact the owner of the track and ask them? Basically if not,then > you can't copyright something that is illegal no

Time to refresh lawschool for you, Ymenard! ymenard <[email hidden]> schreef in artikel <g4tc5.90612$[email hidden]>... > >David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. Theclue > to the > > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > > Hmmm David. Do you have any right actually to do Suzuka, or any of those > tracks you did (except Dubai since it's a fantasy track but could be saidas > being a modified Red Rock, and thus the rights goes to Papyrus)? > > Did you contact the owner of the track and ask them? Basically if not,then

Quoted text (10 lines)

> you can't copyright something that is illegal no? > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > > >

>David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clueto the > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. Hmmm David. Do you have any right actually to do Suzuka, or any of those tracks you did (except Dubai since it's a fantasy track but could be said as being a modified Red Rock, and thus the rights goes to Papyrus)? Did you contact the owner of the track and ask them? Basically if not, then you can't copyright something that is illegal no? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-) It's not really an appropriate track for those vintage F1's. Quite boring to race imho. Would be a better Icr2 track (especially considering it's somehow based on Icr2 track editing, but that's another thing) ;) Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights to do a modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snetterton and Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of license? I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his arguments are irrelevant. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Matthew B.Knutsen" <[email hidden]> wrote > Woo, great speech. > 1) GPLEA haven't made Brands. It was a general message in the direction of all the currend third-party tracks made from real-life ones. I know you guys didn't BH... I just put them all in the same sentence. > 2) Yes, we do have permissions, not licenses, but that's none of yer biz! Good to know you have permission, that's the correct way and that's all we need to know ;) The thing is... I'm unsure about Suzuka, I have my doubts they would give permission. If it does then bravo, but I have my doubts. If it doesn't have any, then it's pointless to talk about a pirated track which itself is illegal. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Fmenard said: > Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights to doa > modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snettertonand > Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of > license? > > I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his > arguments are irrelevant. > Woo, great speech. 1) GPLEA haven't made Brands. 2) Yes, we do have permissions, not licenses, but that's none of yer biz! The only reason we like to keep the tracks at our site; 1) We like to see how many people download the stuff we've spent thousands of hours on. 2) We may very likely goof from time to time, and people will get updates, and the right versions from us. We make $ minus lots of money from this hobby. I just can't see why the people at the French pits can't respect this. The only reason they have given, is that we are ignorant bastards for not making the website in french. Our reply was, we'd gladly post what's needed in all the languages you would want, but we got _0_ replies to this even though it was posted in ras, forum, and emails. I have got mail from lots of people in France and Canada telling us they don not support the activities of that site. So all of my flatulence to the French pits, may they stink forever. Matt/GPLEA

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >David Noonan" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clue > to the > > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > > Hmmm David. Do you have any right actually to do Suzuka, or any of those > tracks you did (except Dubai since it's a fantasy track but could be said as > being a modified Red Rock, and thus the rights goes to Papyrus)? > > Did you contact the owner of the track and ask them? Basically if not, then > you can't copyright something that is illegal no?

Timeout! I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so much that he stops making great tracks" I really don't know much about all this lawyer stuff, but please, why argue for some ignorant who doesn't respect others work ? -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

According to a message on Tim Wheatley's forum, the French Pits is no more. I followed the link in the original message and it has indeed been pulled by the ISP. My understanding of French is limited so I can't tell you exactly what is said on the message page which appears. Someone somewhere seems to have finally found a way to shut this site down which in my opinion is good news as we do not want to encourage piracy within the community. Cheers Phi; ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

"Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote > I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so > much that he stops making great tracks" Naw, it's not my intent. I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't raise some issues here. There is a possibility that the track itself is created in the illegality. If it's not (like per example the GPLEA tracks) then fine. But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the approval of the track owners themselves? This would mean that ALL converted tracks would need approval. Be sure that if you call the Pocono raceway and ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it's not in it", they wouldn't want. Same goes for any other converted track no? With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are quite too difficult for the common mortals but they are much more easier than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future. Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble. I mean cmon guys. We all remember the Daytona clones. GPL isn't immune to all those problems. GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant. I still wish those stupid people at the French pits would delete the tracks, whatever legal or not they are in the first way. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so > > much that he stops making great tracks" > > Naw, it's not my intent. I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't > raise some issues here. There is a possibility that the track itself is > created in the illegality. If it's not (like per example the GPLEA tracks) > then fine. But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the > approval of the track owners themselves? This would mean that ALL converted > tracks would need approval. Be sure that if you call the Pocono raceway and > ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it's not > in it", they wouldn't want. Same goes for any other converted track no? > > > With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are > quite too difficult for the common mortals but they are much more easier > than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future. > Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble. > > > I mean cmon guys. We all remember the Daytona clones. GPL isn't immune to > all those problems. GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different > from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done > without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant. I still wish those > stupid people at the French pits would delete the tracks, whatever legal or > not they are in the first way.

That makes sence. I just got a bad feeling when it suddenly looked like Dave was getting some heat. My post was in no way personal, I just couldn't find a better place to put it :) Maybe your arguments would have worked better in a different context ? -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

"�artijn" <[email hidden]> wrote > What is your problem ymenard? What is your problem for questionning me on my rights to post on a newsgroup with whatever I want to say? eh! > Are you trying to find reasons why we shouldnt make tracks? Of course not Mr. I-assume-such-conspiracy-theories ;) Why so defensive? We are just questionning some values and morals. > Is that YOUR contribution? Err.... Does not compute... I've done more than you think! > DO you think that for any > of the 600 GP2 tracks the authors asked for permission? If they want to be in legality, of course they would do but of course a big majority never did. You can't simply blattently create a track without the permission of the track itself!!! Hello McFly!! Of course there is a major difference here that I will expand below between GP2 and GPL tracks. > Do you even know if its really necesary? Unless you don't care about the legal laws, yes. "Necessary" btw can be a vague term. The reason you have yet to see any track complain about it's use is simply that those tracks aren't part of the current F1 season promoted in GP2. Which is why per example third-party tracks have had problems in the past with the Daytona International Speedway. A software such as Nascar Racing 3 models the Winston Cup season which itself has such a track in it's calendar. For GP2, all FIA tracks were inside the title. It is of course not the same exactly for GPL, especially when during that era we had non-point Formula 1 races. Brands Hatch is one of them per example. Why would a track owner sue since it cannot happen in real life? (Formula 1 cars racing at his track). The point is that with the advent of Nascar Racing 4, I personally feel a very important trend appearing for third-party track creators. The "old-school" editors from the old game engine will have no choice but to update themselves to the new game engine, which means (in a positive way) that plenty of new tracks will be created for both GPL and N4. You will also have the possibility to convert tracks between GPL and N4 in a very easy way (speculating of course but based on serious assumptions of file architecture of the new game engine based on the early alpha previews). We are all happy about those tracks popping everywhere for GPL these past months, but let's realise the GPL community isn't immune to the law. This message is much more philosophical than you may think and targets more the overall trend of the community and less the track creators themselves. At least we know (if we trust the words of the GPLEA people) that all their tracks are created with the legal approval of the track owners themselves, which is a positive way for everybody to promote both virtual reality motorsport and the track that are created. > Please answer all these questions Happy? ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

[email hidden] wrote: > > David.. > Do you have a license to sell these converters? If not what you are > doin is illegal my friend. :) Why do u sell them anyways? Why not > have them available to download? Uhm, what makes you think he don't have Papy's permission to sell them, besides, David Noonan is a professional programmer who has been living in the copyright world for years now, doing work for himself and others, he knows his way when it comes to copyrights, so lets just drop the whole theme about DN's converters and legality, that's between him and Papy, and since Papy hasn't shut him down yet...... As for your second point, by making a few dollars selling his converters, he can devote time to create new stuff from scratch, makes sense to me, charge for some stuff and let other stuff be available for DL Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.thenorwaypits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

actually Dave 99.9% of the add-ons out there are provided free, so I don't see how this will make the add-ons go away? The only add-ons I know of that are charged for is your converter, and Shaun Sullivan's FPS BBPRO and FBPRO editors (which are now free. GPLEA pots out tracks that they made from scratch (Box mix maybe) and give them away for free, while your take outright papy tracks, making them work with another game and charging for it. While you definitely have the right (in my mind) to charge for it, I find the out and out capitalism in this case to be morally questionable as well. How many hours did you put in this converter? Now how many hours did all the people who have made the editors that you use for free put in? I would think that at the least you would provide your converter free to those people. I guess I tend to believe that the sim community is better served by thinking as a community, and not as individuals trying to make a buck. I feel the same way about or world, in that if we were all a little less (looking for a better work than selfish, since that a little to strong) we would all benefit. We all know how add-ons help a genre, but what if everyone charged for every add-on, it would really hurt the genre. Ok, so don't get me wrong, I don't think that the French site should be distributing your work for free if you don't want them too. It is your choice whether you want to charge for it, (as long as it's legal) and fully support the shutting down of the site. David Noonan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ksvbs$lms$[email hidden]... > Suzuka, and the 'converted tracks' are breaches of my copyright. The clueto the > breach is that nobody is credited with suzuka or the converted tracks. > > Basically, the guy running the site believes in the freedom to postwhatever he wants > regardless of copyright. > I note, however, that he does not offer GPL presumably because in thatcase lawyers > would be paying him a visit. > Hence, the message sent out in the name of 'freedom' is:- if you havelawyers I will > respect you but if you do not I will post whatever I want. > > The only protection software authors have in the age of the internet iscopyright > because our work does not have the physical existence of say a painting ora book and > can be copied all over the world in seconds. > > If other sites copy the French Pits then slowly but surely add-onsdeveloped in > spare-time will simply disappear. > > BTW I would very much doubt that Sierra France have the power to give upPapyrus's

Quoted text (18 lines)

> copyrights. > > > Regards > > Dave Noonan > > > > Karl Zosel <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:BH4c5.27911$[email hidden]... > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/thefrenchpits/index2.html > > > > are they legal or not? I wouldn't know. > > > > > >

Bill Gates has been in the software business, and understand all the rules full and well... that doesn't mean that he doesn't have an anti-trust suit against his company. Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: > > > > David.. > > Do you have a license to sell these converters? If not what you are > > doin is illegal my friend. :) Why do u sell them anyways? Why not > > have them available to download? > > Uhm, what makes you think he don't have Papy's permission to sell them, > besides, David Noonan is a professional programmer who has been living > in the copyright world for years now, doing work for himself and others, > he knows his way when it comes to copyrights, so lets just drop the > whole theme about DN's converters and legality, that's between him and > Papy, and since Papy hasn't shut him down yet...... > > As for your second point, by making a few dollars selling his > converters, he can devote time to create new stuff from scratch, makes > sense to me, charge for some stuff and let other stuff be available for > DL > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.thenorwaypits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Easily explained: Papy could not grant him the rights to do the conversions because they don't hold the rights themselves! One of the Papy guys told me so, when I asked about the possibility of a professional converter. As Dave's work doesn't hurt Papy (probably helps:) I guess they don't act (my wild guess). When Papyrus licenced the ICR2 tracks they obtained the licence *only* for ICR2 and not to use the track in any other sim. If I recounted this wrongly, please correct me Papyrus. So, hey, we *do* have copyrights embreachments by Mr. Noonan here with regard to the track owners :) But, who cares? -Thorsten Rueter Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: [email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: > > > > David.. > > Do you have a license to sell these converters? If not what you are > > doin is illegal my friend. :) Why do u sell them anyways? Why not > > have them available to download? > > Uhm, what makes you think he don't have Papy's permission to sell them, > besides, David Noonan is a professional programmer who has been living > in the copyright world for years now, doing work for himself and others, > he knows his way when it comes to copyrights, so lets just drop the > whole theme about DN's converters and legality, that's between him and > Papy, and since Papy hasn't shut him down yet...... > > As for your second point, by making a few dollars selling his > converters, he can devote time to create new stuff from scratch, makes > sense to me, charge for some stuff and let other stuff be available for > DL > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.thenorwaypits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Kai Fuller wrote: > > Bill Gates has been in the software business, and understand all the rules > full and well... that doesn't mean that he doesn't have an anti-trust suit > against his company. Good point, but that's big business, and in big business you are cutting corners and trying to cover your tracks afterwards, it's like a friend of mine said, a shrewd business man is just a crook that noone has caught yet :-) They can hire lawyers to cover up for them or at least minimize the damage and make it worth the risk, I don't see DN having that kind of money, so he has to do his research before hand and make sure he don't get sued, or if he does, that he will win Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.thenorwaypits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

Hear! Hear! Well stated, Matthew. (I particularly like the last comment!) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Matthew B.Knutsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wkwc5.14840$[email hidden]... > Fmenard said: > > > Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights to do > a > > modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snetterton > and > > Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of > > license? > > > > I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his > > arguments are irrelevant. > > > > Woo, great speech. > 1) GPLEA haven't made Brands. > 2) Yes, we do have permissions, not licenses, but that's none of yer biz! > > The only reason we like to keep the tracks at our site; 1) We like to see > how many people download the stuff we've spent thousands of hours on. 2) We > may very likely goof from time to time, and people will get updates, and the > right versions from us. > > We make $ minus lots of money from this hobby. I just can't see why the > people at the French pits can't respect this. The only reason they have > given, is that we are ignorant bastards for not making the website in > french. Our reply was, we'd gladly post what's needed in all the languages > you would want, but we got _0_ replies to this even though it was posted in > ras, forum, and emails. > > I have got mail from lots of people in France and Canada telling us they don > not support the activities of that site. > > So all of my flatulence to the French pits, may they stink forever. > > Matt/GPLEA > > > >

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:01:59 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >But a FIA license gives the usage of only the tracks available in the season >that the software models. When getting basic game FIA license, you can't >simply say "ok so let's do the 1976, 88, 93, 99, 2000 seasons with all those >different cars from all era's". You are granted the right to model the >tracks, cars, drivers, etc.. of the season you have the license. "You" being Microprose, Sierra, or the entity writing the product. >I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying. The A1-Ring is >having legal problems with the GPL version of the O-Ring? If so, then the >whole thing I want to say in this thread comes true. GPL is not immune to >legal problems because it's an historical sim and is quite small in >popularity. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but my point is that the A1-Ring already is an F1 track and covered under the FIA license to whoever buys the rights. However there is no complaint about the Osterreichring. So too with Brands Hatch, possibly also to be an F1 track soon. >Of course I want all those tracks. But let's keep an eye open to the legal >problems that could happen with them if we don't take precautions. It sucks >that we can't model those tracks freely. There should never be any kind of >profit for tracks, but that's the power they have. The most likely route for legal problems is creating a fuss here, and primarily by asking the tracks themselves for permission. That, to my mind, would generate an automatic "nyet" and keep a few more lawyers in sharp suits and mobile 'phones looking out for any transgressions. Thus far it's been fine, just cross the bridge if it ever appears in front of us. John

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:18:37 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I think we can rule Suzuka out since it was never released by him (nice >funny point yet true by Corey Leigh). But your point is what I hope the >whole third-party track creation becomes. I'm all for free tracks, whatever >they have a license or not. Screw the track owners, I want my >Mont-Tremblant or Jarama into GPL, even if the track owner's don't want if >they are free. But when you make a profit for X tracks, then it's >different.

I doubt that Dave would consider that he made a profit considering the amount of time expended on this project compared to what someone of his talents would have been paid had he actually "worked" those hours for a software house. As you yourself said, GPL is a "little" product, so if a little of the owners of a little product all pay a little money, the end result is not very much. Then too, is the profit made on the tracks or on the programming work? Dave sells a very cheap converter which you make the choice to apply to a track or not. Any violation of the law is either yours, or whoever converts a track and posts the resultant converted track on the web. >Good point. We need to keep a low-key approach to what happens here. But >like I said in some another message, N4 will bring a whole new market to the >new game engine (GPL and N4 will be closely related in terms of architecture >somehow). Probably, but there's a bridge to cross if it appears. >Yes but how can we be so sure they don't mind? Some day if we try to keep >everything secret a track owner will see the whole scheme. It will happen >someday, and after that we're screwed. I don't want this to happen, and I >just feel third-party track creators/converters don't take much precautions. >It already happened with Daytona for stock-car based Papyrus simulators. >GPL isn't different. It doesn't need to be. There was nothing wrong with the Daytona incident other than that Jan'n'Jed and the guys had a whole lot of time wasted. The end result was that one track did see and object, so everyone had to throw up their hands, apologise and stop work. If that happens in the future the same will need to apply, but until then we have to work on the assumption that people don't mind for the reason I described. >The thing is that people that create let's say BH for NFS might actually not >know it's illegal in a certain way. It's stealing a property which has the >right to the track shape and likeness that it has. But track owners don't >care yet, at the exceptions of some. GPL isn't worse, it's equal as every >other software on the market, but that doesn't mean what everybody else does >is legal and we should do like them, since it's not. I don't see why GPL track designers have to be so scrupulous, more so than NFS or the like. In fact GPL stays far more within the law than others since what is distributed is a program which creates a likeness of the track, not the likeness of the track itself. >Making a profit isn't important, it's stealing the track likeness. But >screw them, we will all continue to make tracks until they hit on us :) >Someday it will happen. We'll soon find out if N4 is released without >Daytona. So, just convert it... Oops, shhhhhh! ;-) John

Not that you'll really care but it's 41, to be exact. I looked it up on the internet. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Pierre Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3973ef72.1434652@news... > How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...?

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:18:41 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Naw, it's not my intent. I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't >raise some issues here. There is a possibility that the track itself is >created in the illegality. If it's not (like per example the GPLEA tracks) >then fine. But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the >approval of the track owners themselves? They are certainly not created with the DISapproval of the owners. Whole maket segments survive this way - look at car modelling, with some small manufacturers able to make tobacco logos or particular cars without paying licensing money. The reason being that they are small and providing a service, so this is overlooked. If they were to ask it would be automatically refused since it would be tacit acceptance for everyone to follow, but that doesn't make it wrong. >This would mean that ALL converted >tracks would need approval. Be sure that if you call the Pocono raceway and >ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it's not >in it", they wouldn't want. Same goes for any other converted track no? No. The difference is that Pocono may or may not mind someone like Dave doing it, but if Dave was to ask they would _have_ to say no. Otherwise how can they ask Papyrus or EA for money for this likeness? >With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are >quite too difficult for the common mortals but they are much more easier >than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future. >Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble. Only if he continues to do so after being asked to stop. I remember a similar furore over a certain Indianapolis track for example. >I mean cmon guys. We all remember the Daytona clones. GPL isn't immune to >all those problems. GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different >from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done >without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant. Tracks like Rouen don't officially exist, nor do Reims, Solitude, Avus etc etc etc. There's lots of scope for devloping famous tracks without any infringement at all. Personally I feel the only concern should be Papy's copyright. After all, what about all the games like NFS etc which come ready-supplied with a track editor? Isn't that inciting people to break the law? How can I make a copy of Brands Hatch in NFS yet Dave, by your standard, can't make one for GPL? There's lots of copies of lots of tracks on the 'net for download, why is GPL any worse. In any case, such arguments only push GPL further above the parapet to be first in-line for a slapping, and I for one don't want to be deprived of future tracks. John

On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:07:14 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote: >What is your problem for questionning me on my rights to post on a newsgroup >with whatever I want to say? eh! Er, by your sentence above you automatically confer upon him the right to question anything he wants. McFly? >Of course not Mr. I-assume-such-conspiracy-theories ;) Why so defensive? We >are just questionning some values and morals. "We"? >If they want to be in legality, of course they would do but of course a big >majority never did. You can't simply blattently create a track without the >permission of the track itself!!! I have this vision of you standing on the grid at Suzuka asking permission of "the track itself".... ;-) >Hello McFly!! Of course there is a major >difference here that I will expand below between GP2 and GPL tracks. Legally, none whatsoever. >Unless you don't care about the legal laws, yes. "Necessary" btw can be a >vague term. The reason you have yet to see any track complain about it's >use is simply that those tracks aren't part of the current F1 season >promoted in GP2. Melbourne is available for download, not available in GP2 and part of the current F1 season. So too the A1-Ring and Sepang. >It is of course not the same exactly for GPL, especially when during that >era we had non-point Formula 1 races. Brands Hatch is one of them per >example. Why would a track owner sue since it cannot happen in real life? >(Formula 1 cars racing at his track). Watch the news, it may happen very soon. It already is happening at the Osterreichring (now called A1-Ring). >At least we know (if we trust the words of the GPLEA people) that all their >tracks are created with the legal approval of the track owners themselves, >which is a positive way for everybody to promote both virtual reality >motorsport and the track that are created. That sounds unlikely, or at least may explain why GPLEA have made tracks which are far "lesser" than the Osterreichring etc. No major track would ever be able to give such permission, which means you will be stuck driving NASCARs around places like Knockhill forevermore. No thanks, I'll take Fuji, Paul Ricard etc any day. John

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:h2Xc5.131046$[email hidden]... [snip] Man, your logic makes my head hurt at times :-) Stephen

That is totally false.. If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David) ownership of my new tape (track) Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track.. After it does that, it is out of davids hands. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7hqc5.18421$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> not quite I think: > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might be > similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may" be > conversing with the pkzip orginator...) > I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that includes > their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websites have a > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their property. > The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it "requires"

a > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly > operate. > That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a) Publize > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect that.b) > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an obviouslybeta > effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. > Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast majorityof

Quoted text (14 lines)

> RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the > sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A last alternative > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a large > group of users writting complaints.) > -- > dave henrie > Free the ICR2 source code! > (hmm conflict in logic?) > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... > > I do not agree with that at all > > > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ

file

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter > > > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > > microsoft > > > > Just does not work that way.. > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave

Noonan's > > > copyright protection to that track. > > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn'tlike > > > this is free to write their own convertor. > > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on > the > > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue > > that > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expendedquite > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site > done? > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > > > dave henrie > > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the > > others > > > si > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. youbuilt > > > suzuka > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of youcan > > > claim > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that sall

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > > > > > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time > > mod'er > > > c > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > > > 8ksvbs$l > > > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

You really do go on a bit at times, Frank. If Mr. Noonan, or anyone else for that matter, takes the time and effort to design and produce a circuit for (say) GPL from a real-life circuit that is still in existence, then good bloody luck to them. I, for one, won't refuse the offer simply because I don't know if Mr. Circuit Owner has given permission to digitise his bit of real estate. That's an issue to be sorted between him and the creator of the electronic version. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RbAc5.91637$[email hidden]... > "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so > > much that he stops making great tracks" > > Naw, it's not my intent. I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't > raise some issues here. There is a possibility that the track itself is > created in the illegality. If it's not (like per example the GPLEA tracks) > then fine. But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the > approval of the track owners themselves? This would mean that ALL converted > tracks would need approval. Be sure that if you call the Pocono raceway and > ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it's not > in it", they wouldn't want. Same goes for any other converted track no? > > > With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are > quite too difficult for the common mortals but they are much more easier > than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future. > Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble. > > > I mean cmon guys. We all remember the Daytona clones. GPL isn't immune to > all those problems. GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different > from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done > without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant. I still wish those > stupid people at the French pits would delete the tracks, whatever legal or > not they are in the first way. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

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

Quoted text (103 lines)

> That is totally false.. > > If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a > movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David) > ownership of my new tape (track) > > Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track.. After > it does that, it is out of davids hands. > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7hqc5.18421$[email hidden]... > > not quite I think: > > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might be > > similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may" be > > conversing with the pkzip orginator...) > > I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that includes > > their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websites have a > > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their property. > > The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it "requires" > a > > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly > > operate. > > That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a) Publize > > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect that. > b) > > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an obviously > beta > > effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. > > Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast majority > of > > RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the > > sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A last alternative > > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a large > > group of users writting complaints.) > > -- > > dave henrie > > Free the ICR2 source code! > > (hmm conflict in logic?) > > > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... > > > I do not agree with that at all > > > > > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ > file > > > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter > > > > > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > > > microsoft > > > > > > Just does not work that way.. > > > > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > > > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave > Noonan's > > > > copyright protection to that track. > > > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts > > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't > like > > > > this is free to write their own convertor. > > > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on > > the > > > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue > > > that > > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended > quite > > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site > > done? > > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > > > > dave henrie > > > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the > > > others > > > > si > > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you > built > > > > suzuka > > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you > can > > > > claim > > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time > > > mod'er > > > > c > > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > > > > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > > > > 8ksvbs$l > > > > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...? Who gives a shit...? David Noonan did us a favor and came up with a program that converts tracks from ICR2/Nascar and such...he asks for a bit of money to support further work and indeed to reward his past work. Cheap bastards steal his work and post it... I dont care to argue the legalities of it all but I do know this unless the guys who stole it can program this stuff themselves if we condone it we will soon not have the benefit of it since David wont be doing it again. Its called simple respect for another work...nothing legal, nothing deep...simple respect. That French site is run by a bunch of shit bags who dont respect others work. Piss on that.... PAPA DOC

You seem to be arguing simply to argue and to cover up for that french sites head being up their disrespectful asses. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (13 lines)

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

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:45:46 GMT, "J. P. Hovercraft" <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, it doesn't, but they -do- still own the rights to the movie you taped, and >you -don't- have the right to post the movie to a website for download just >because you used -your- tape and -your- VCR to record -their- movie. Yep, the copyright is still on the converted tracks. Andre

Quoted text (109 lines)

> >J. P. Hovercraft > >Cliff Roman wrote: > >> That is totally false.. >> >> If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a >> movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David) >> ownership of my new tape (track) >> >> Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track.. After >> it does that, it is out of davids hands. >> >> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:7hqc5.18421$[email hidden]... >> > not quite I think: >> > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might be >> > similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may" be >> > conversing with the pkzip orginator...) >> > I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that includes >> > their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websites have a >> > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their property. >> > The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it "requires" >> a >> > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly >> > operate. >> > That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a) Publize >> > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect that. >> b) >> > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an obviously >> beta >> > effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. >> > Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast majority >> of >> > RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the >> > sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A last alternative >> > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a large >> > group of users writting complaints.) >> > -- >> > dave henrie >> > Free the ICR2 source code! >> > (hmm conflict in logic?) >> > >> > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... >> > > I do not agree with that at all >> > > >> > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ >> file >> > > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter >> > > >> > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under >> > > microsoft >> > > >> > > Just does not work that way.. >> > > >> > > >> > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... >> > > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave >> Noonan's >> > > > copyright protection to that track. >> > > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts >> > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't >> like >> > > > this is free to write their own convertor. >> > > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on >> > the >> > > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue >> > > that >> > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended >> quite >> > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site >> > done? >> > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? >> > > > dave henrie >> > > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the >> > > others >> > > > si >> > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you >> built >> > > > suzuka >> > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you >> can >> > > > claim >> > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s >> all >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time >> > > mod'er >> > > > c >> > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... >> > > > > >> > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : >> > > > 8ksvbs$l >> > > > > ms$[email hidden]... >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >

"�artijn" <[email hidden]> wrote > So I am not allowed to model a section of public roads!? That's not a race track. Race tracks are owned by somebody, they are a business entity. Let's say you want to model in a FPS Walt Disney World. Do you REALLY think you don't need to ask? So what's the difference with that and a race track? None. > Not true. Sepang ie. wasnt in original GP2 and is made (many times) inGP2. Sepang was not part of the season which GP2 models. Brands Hatch was part of the Formula 1 season modeled in GPL (they raced a non-point race there). End of this portion of discussion. Still, the converters themselves are also in the illegality, and that I'm 100% sure. Do you really think all those track owners have granted permission to use those 30 tracks in GPL? Of course not. > You can download whole seasons of updated/changed/new tracks. Surely the > FIA could have done anything about it if they cared "If they cared" is the single most important thing of this whole thread. > He wouldnt sue because there is no point sueing. If the trackowner wants, > he can have 100% of the net result of the profits I make of a track (which > accumulates to zero). And its only to the holder of the copyrights > /portrait rights to execute these rights. > At least, thats here. The holder would have to have great perseverance to > sue if he has to cross borders, and has a guaranteed net result of zero. If so, then explain the whole fuss with the Daytona track. There is a potential profit loss that tracks lose by having them available illegally. They could have had license money (although it's not directly related to the game itself but the FIA in F1 sims). > definately. But also be realistic. I mean, I just dont think its such abig > deal. And these matters are always VERY complex if you really want to sort > it out perfectly. As long as I dont make any money from making a track, I > sure as hell wont spend any money on a lawyer to write a legal agreementso > that I can make a track. For Papy, it was different as it was a commercial > product. True but his converter is a commercial product no? ;) Even if it's free it doesn't mean it's legal. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote > I have this vision of you standing on the grid at Suzuka asking > permission of "the track itself".... ;-) Hehe ;-) "Hello track, can I model you?" > >Hello McFly!! Of course there is a major > >difference here that I will expand below between GP2 and GPL tracks. > Legally, none whatsoever. Somehow, your right. GPL doesn't have a Formula 1 license let's remember. Technically, it's not forced to have tracks raced during the season which it models. > Melbourne is available for download, not available in GP2 and part of > the current F1 season. So too the A1-Ring and Sepang. But a FIA license gives the usage of only the tracks available in the season that the software models. When getting basic game FIA license, you can't simply say "ok so let's do the 1976, 88, 93, 99, 2000 seasons with all those different cars from all era's". You are granted the right to model the tracks, cars, drivers, etc.. of the season you have the license. > Watch the news, it may happen very soon. It already is happening at > the Osterreichring (now called A1-Ring). I'm not quite sure if I understand what you are saying. The A1-Ring is having legal problems with the GPL version of the O-Ring? If so, then the whole thing I want to say in this thread comes true. GPL is not immune to legal problems because it's an historical sim and is quite small in popularity. > >At least we know (if we trust the words of the GPLEA people) that alltheir > >tracks are created with the legal approval of the track ownersthemselves,

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >which is a positive way for everybody to promote both virtual reality > >motorsport and the track that are created. > > That sounds unlikely, or at least may explain why GPLEA have made > tracks which are far "lesser" than the Osterreichring etc. No major > track would ever be able to give such permission, which means you will > be stuck driving NASCARs around places like Knockhill forevermore. No > thanks, I'll take Fuji, Paul Ricard etc any day.

Of course I want all those tracks. But let's keep an eye open to the legal problems that could happen with them if we don't take precautions. It sucks that we can't model those tracks freely. There should never be any kind of profit for tracks, but that's the power they have. I could go into the "Track charges money for getting publicity", but that's a whole different thing ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote > You seem to be arguing simply to argue and to cover up for that french > sites head being up their disrespectful asses. Oh please Pierre. That would be like saying an American would be trying to cover up for that UK site if it would had happened that way. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote > They are certainly not created with the DISapproval of the owners. > Whole maket segments survive this way - look at car modelling, with > some small manufacturers able to make tobacco logos or particular cars > without paying licensing money. The reason being that they are small > and providing a service, so this is overlooked. I think we can rule Suzuka out since it was never released by him (nice funny point yet true by Corey Leigh). But your point is what I hope the whole third-party track creation becomes. I'm all for free tracks, whatever they have a license or not. Screw the track owners, I want my Mont-Tremblant or Jarama into GPL, even if the track owner's don't want if they are free. But when you make a profit for X tracks, then it's different. > If they were to ask it would be automatically refused since it would > be tacit acceptance for everyone to follow, but that doesn't make it > wrong. Good point. We need to keep a low-key approach to what happens here. But like I said in some another message, N4 will bring a whole new market to the new game engine (GPL and N4 will be closely related in terms of architecture somehow). > No. The difference is that Pocono may or may not mind someone like > Dave doing it, but if Dave was to ask they would _have_ to say no. > Otherwise how can they ask Papyrus or EA for money for this likeness? Yes but how can we be so sure they don't mind? Some day if we try to keep everything secret a track owner will see the whole scheme. It will happen someday, and after that we're screwed. I don't want this to happen, and I just feel third-party track creators/converters don't take much precautions. It already happened with Daytona for stock-car based Papyrus simulators. GPL isn't different.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Tracks like Rouen don't officially exist, nor do Reims, Solitude, Avus > etc etc etc. There's lots of scope for devloping famous tracks without > any infringement at all. Personally I feel the only concern should be > Papy's copyright. After all, what about all the games like NFS etc > which come ready-supplied with a track editor? Isn't that inciting > people to break the law? How can I make a copy of Brands Hatch in NFS > yet Dave, by your standard, can't make one for GPL? There's lots of > copies of lots of tracks on the 'net for download, why is GPL any > worse.

The thing is that people that create let's say BH for NFS might actually not know it's illegal in a certain way. It's stealing a property which has the right to the track shape and likeness that it has. But track owners don't care yet, at the exceptions of some. GPL isn't worse, it's equal as every other software on the market, but that doesn't mean what everybody else does is legal and we should do like them, since it's not. Making a profit isn't important, it's stealing the track likeness. But screw them, we will all continue to make tracks until they hit on us :) Someday it will happen. We'll soon find out if N4 is released without Daytona. > In any case, such arguments only push GPL further above the parapet to > be first in-line for a slapping, and I for one don't want to be > deprived of future tracks. I think we all agree on that. We want tracks, MORE tracks ;-) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:23:09 +0100, John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Tracks like Rouen don't officially exist, nor do Reims, Solitude, Avus >etc etc etc. There's lots of scope for devloping famous tracks without >any infringement at all. Personally I feel the only concern should be >Papy's copyright. After all, what about all the games like NFS etc >which come ready-supplied with a track editor? Isn't that inciting >people to break the law? How can I make a copy of Brands Hatch in NFS >yet Dave, by your standard, can't make one for GPL? There's lots of >copies of lots of tracks on the 'net for download, why is GPL any >worse.

I'm starting to feel like a certain component here would feel a lot more comfortable if we were all sitting on our hands quietly in a dark room. Otherwise we might be inclined to excercise that pesky free will of ours. I waiting for the post that demands that we each send a nickel to the rightful owner of a track every time we refer to that track in a post here. I'm with you, John. There's too many nervous nellies in this world. All the tracks that Dave's converter converts probably each get another nickel every time somebody goes out and purchases a dusty old copy of ICR2/N2/etc. out of a discount bin somewhere. They'd have to be screaming idiots to run around telling people, "no, no, no!! You can't do that!" I must say though, that the occasional sanctimonious ass does bring a certain degree of entertainment to the NG from time to time. Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Thorsten Rueter wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Easily explained: Papy could not grant him the rights to > do the conversions because they don't hold the rights > themselves! One of the Papy guys told me so, when > I asked about the possibility of a professional converter. > As Dave's work doesn't hurt Papy (probably helps:) I guess they > don't act (my wild guess). > When Papyrus licenced the ICR2 tracks they obtained > the licence *only* for ICR2 and not to use the track in > any other sim.

Good call I'd say, I don't know how things have been done between Papy and David, but if Papy hasn't shut him down even though they know about his work, then...... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Thorsten Rueter wrote: > > > > Easily explained: Papy could not grant him the rights to > > do the conversions because they don't hold the rights > > themselves! One of the Papy guys told me so, when > > I asked about the possibility of a professional converter. > > As Dave's work doesn't hurt Papy (probably helps:) I guess they > > don't act (my wild guess). > > When Papyrus licenced the ICR2 tracks they obtained > > the licence *only* for ICR2 and not to use the track in > > any other sim. > > Good call I'd say, I don't know how things have been done between Papy > and David, but if Papy hasn't shut him down even though they know about > his work, then......

I raced Randy Cassidy on Brands Hatch once, so I guess the problem isn't that big :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

"Olav K. Malmin" wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: > > > Good call I'd say, I don't know how things have been done between Papy > > and David, but if Papy hasn't shut him down even though they know about > > his work, then...... > > I raced Randy Cassidy on Brands Hatch once, so I guess the > problem isn't that big :)

Yeah, but if we're going to nitpick, that's not a *converted* track....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote > Man, your logic makes my head hurt at times :-) My head hurts also. I'm unsure myself of my coherence in this thead. I think the only conclusion we will get from this thread is "We want more tracks!" ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" wrote: > > > > Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > Good call I'd say, I don't know how things have been done between Papy > > > and David, but if Papy hasn't shut him down even though they know about > > > his work, then...... > > > > I raced Randy Cassidy on Brands Hatch once, so I guess the > > problem isn't that big :) > > Yeah, but if we're going to nitpick, that's not a *converted* > track....:-)

Damned, the problem with that one might be the BH managment, not papy. This is getting complicated after a 8 hour day of "work" :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

"Olav K. Malmin" wrote: > > Damned, the problem with that one might be the BH managment, not > papy. This is getting complicated after a 8 hour day of "work" :) Yup, good thing we actually get paid while we're sitting here reading this NG eh ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > I demand that we each send a nickel (or whatever your smallest coin is) to > the rightful owners of all the tracks that we've blatantly and illegallyand > wrongfully and ymenardly stolen over the past three-hundred years so helpme The Indianapolis Motor Speedway would be much more wealthy that way <vbg to myself> ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" wrote: > > > > Damned, the problem with that one might be the BH managment, not > > papy. This is getting complicated after a 8 hour day of "work" :) > > Yup, good thing we actually get paid while we're sitting here reading > this NG eh ? :-)

No comments :) Hopefully very soon I will be a part of a project about racing sims and learning processes for driving real cars. I may actually get paid for testing sims for a few weeks :) -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

"Olav K. Malmin" wrote: > > No comments :) Hopefully very soon I will be a part of a project about > racing sims and learning processes for driving real cars. I may > actually get paid for testing sims for a few weeks :) I know, "dirty job but someone's gotta do it" eh ? I knew I should have gotten an education......... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

hmm that VCR u own which has a record button... do u need permission to tape something from the television?, or to make a copy of that movie? Dave's converter = the VCR if u ask me, it gives u the ability to convert a track, but does not give u anything that belongs to someone else. It also doesn't give you the permission to use those tracks, it just allows u to convert them from 1 program to another. Audio cassette recorders, VCR's, CDR's... its all the same sht if u ask me and they don't give that stuff away Martyn_D ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (55 lines)

> "�artijn" <[email hidden]> wrote > > So I am not allowed to model a section of public roads!? > > That's not a race track. Race tracks are owned by somebody, they are a > business entity. Let's say you want to model in a FPS Walt Disney World. > Do you REALLY think you don't need to ask? So what's the difference with > that and a race track? None. > > > Not true. Sepang ie. wasnt in original GP2 and is made (many times) in > GP2. > > Sepang was not part of the season which GP2 models. Brands Hatch was part > of the Formula 1 season modeled in GPL (they raced a non-point race there). > End of this portion of discussion. > > Still, the converters themselves are also in the illegality, and that I'm > 100% sure. Do you really think all those track owners have granted > permission to use those 30 tracks in GPL? Of course not. > > > You can download whole seasons of updated/changed/new tracks. Surely the > > FIA could have done anything about it if they cared > > "If they cared" is the single most important thing of this whole thread. > > > He wouldnt sue because there is no point sueing. If the trackowner wants, > > he can have 100% of the net result of the profits I make of a track (which > > accumulates to zero). And its only to the holder of the copyrights > > /portrait rights to execute these rights. > > At least, thats here. The holder would have to have great perseverance to > > sue if he has to cross borders, and has a guaranteed net result of zero. > > If so, then explain the whole fuss with the Daytona track. There is a > potential profit loss that tracks lose by having them available illegally. > They could have had license money (although it's not directly related to the > game itself but the FIA in F1 sims). > > > definately. But also be realistic. I mean, I just dont think its such a > big > > deal. And these matters are always VERY complex if you really want to sort > > it out perfectly. As long as I dont make any money from making a track, I > > sure as hell wont spend any money on a lawyer to write a legal agreement > so > > that I can make a track. For Papy, it was different as it was a commercial > > product. > > True but his converter is a commercial product no? ;) > > Even if it's free it doesn't mean it's legal. > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

What an ungratefull asswipe you are,, Noonon did free tracks, his converter took time to do, and time is money, he has every right to charge a few dollars for it, if you dont like it, don't buy it, this does not give you the right to steal from him, and to steal from papy, if you downloaded the tracks already converted, with out having purchased ICR2, n2, ect,, With out the effort of Dave Noonan, and the GPLEA, we would be racing on only 11 tracks, instead of having 50 to choose from. So, dont hold your fucking breath for a responce to your smart ass question about Suzuka,,, dickweed ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote > > We do want him to finish Suzuka, right? ;-) > > It's not really an appropriate track for those vintage F1's. Quite boring > to race imho. Would be a better Icr2 track (especially considering it's > somehow based on Icr2 track editing, but that's another thing) ;) > > Still, I'm awaiting his answer about Suzuka. Does he has the rights to do a > modeling of the track? What about Goodwood, Imola, Solitude, Snetterton and > Brands Hatch? Does GPLEA have got the rights to create them, some sort of > license? > > I really do hope he has the rights to create Suzuka legally, or else his > arguments are irrelevant. > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Righty-oh, John! Wait no more! I demand that we each send a nickel (or whatever your smallest coin is) to the rightful owners of all the tracks that we've blatantly and illegally and wrongfully and ymenardly stolen over the past three-hundred years so help me God. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Brett C. Cammack <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I waiting for the post that demands that we each send a nickel to the > rightful owner of a track every time we refer to that track in a post > here. >

LOL! :-D Matt > The Indianapolis Motor Speedway would be much more wealthy that way <vbgto

Quoted text (10 lines)

> myself> ;) > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

LOL! :-D Matt

Exactly.. it would be the company that made the movie that would own the copywrite to the taped movie.. not the company that made the vcr. In this case with the tracks, it would be the original owners of the track that would still own the copywrite.. not David who made the converter. Notice I never said that the company would lose the copywrite, I said the company that made the VCR would not have the copywrite. You agree and now you see why David has no ownership to the converted tracks.. the ownership is held by the owners of the original track. That would more than likely be Papy. "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:45:46 GMT, "J. P. Hovercraft" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >No, it doesn't, but they -do- still own the rights to the movie youtaped, and > >you -don't- have the right to post the movie to a website for downloadjust

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >because you used -your- tape and -your- VCR to record -their- movie. > > Yep, the copyright is still on the converted tracks. > > Andre > > > > >J. P. Hovercraft > > > >Cliff Roman wrote: > > > >> That is totally false.. > >> > >> If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a > >> movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David) > >> ownership of my new tape (track) > >> > >> Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track..

After > >> it does that, it is out of davids hands. > >> > >> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:7hqc5.18421$[email hidden]... > >> > not quite I think: > >> > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument mightbe > >> > similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may"be > >> > conversing with the pkzip orginator...) > >> > I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line thatincludes > >> > their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websiteshave a > >> > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, theirproperty. > >> > The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it"requires" > >> a > >> > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly > >> > operate. > >> > That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a)Publize > >> > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respectthat. > >> b) > >> > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as anobviously > >> beta > >> > effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. > >> > Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vastmajority > >> of > >> > RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the > >> > sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A lastalternative > >> > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just alarge

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> > group of users writting complaints.) > >> > -- > >> > dave henrie > >> > Free the ICR2 source code! > >> > (hmm conflict in logic?) > >> > > >> > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> > news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... > >> > > I do not agree with that at all > >> > > > >> > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a

ARJ > >> file > >> > > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of theconverter

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> > > > >> > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > >> > > microsoft > >> > > > >> > > Just does not work that way.. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> > > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > >> > > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave > >> Noonan's > >> > > > copyright protection to that track. > >> > > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who

converts > >> > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone whodoesn't > >> like > >> > > > this is free to write their own convertor. > >> > > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who isriding on > >> > the > >> > > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you couldargue > >> > > that > >> > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he hasexpended > >> quite > >> > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the Frenchsite > >> > done? > >> > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > >> > > > dave henrie > >> > > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 andthe > >> > > others > >> > > > si > >> > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you > >> built > >> > > > suzuka > >> > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name ofyou > >> can > >> > > > claim > >> > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, thats > >> all > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and sparetime > >> > > mod'er > >> > > > c > >> > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > >> > > > > > >> > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans lemessage :

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> > > > 8ksvbs$l > >> > > > > ms$[email hidden]... > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:13:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:45:46 GMT, "J. P. Hovercraft" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>No, it doesn't, but they -do- still own the rights to the movie you taped, and >>you -don't- have the right to post the movie to a website for download just >>because you used -your- tape and -your- VCR to record -their- movie. > >Yep, the copyright is still on the converted tracks. > >Andre

Still, the converted tracks is used in a different program, for which the rights were never bought by Papy. Just to use the tracks in a single program (well, at least that's what I assume, that they didn't get the rights to just use it for anything). Ofcourse this situation is just good for Papy, since their simulator gets used more (and perhaps bought more) because of it; look at the way Doom/Quake almost DEPENDED on this for their success. And the track owners; well, they're the ones probably missing out on the (or a bit of) cash. But perhaps they don't care too much. Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +57.44 MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:41:05 GMT, SKurj <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>hmm that VCR u own which has a record button... do u need permission to tape >something from the television?, or to make a copy of that movie? > >Dave's converter = the VCR if u ask me, it gives u the ability to convert a >track, but does not give u anything that belongs to someone else. It also >doesn't give you the permission to use those tracks, it just allows u to convert >them from 1 program to another.

Yup, technically. Probably in a virtual court session this would be the problem to be determined. On the other hand, it certainly pushes things towards actually USING the track, which would be illegal since no-one paid any rights to the track owner to use that track in GPL. Just like UltraHLE is legal in itself, but ofcourse it pushes people to try to get roms illegally. And gamecopyworld, which is probably MAINLY used by people to illegally copy discs, instead of the foretold 'right to backup your software'. Ruud van Gaal >Audio cassette recorders, VCR's, CDR's... its all the same sht if u ask me >and they don't give that stuff away > >Martyn_D Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.53 MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

What's this "u" stuff? Are you into ham radio? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- SKurj <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > hmm that VCR u own which has a record button... do u need permission to tape > something from the television?, or to make a copy of that movie? > > Dave's converter = the VCR if u ask me, it gives u the ability to convert a > track, but does not give u anything that belongs to someone else. It also > doesn't give you the permission to use those tracks, it just allows u to convert > them from 1 program to another. > > Audio cassette recorders, VCR's, CDR's... its all the same sht if u ask me > and they don't give that stuff away >

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:09:34 GMT, "Matt Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The A1-Ring isn`t the same track layout as the Osterreichring so any >computer representation of the Osterreichring isn`t a likeness of the >existing track. Why not? Is it only a likeness if I steal the whole likeness, or if I steal only the prancing horse from the Ferrari bade and leave the surround will their lawyers be okay with that? It is undeniably the same track. By your theory Papy wouldn't need to license Silverstone, because the Luffield section, Beckets, Vale are all new so the track is no longer the same. So too with Monza, Mexico etc. >I have a suspiscion also that the A1-Ring isn`t owned by the >same people as owned it in it's Osterreichring days (But that isn`t based on >any definate knowledge). Maybe this gets around the legal problems? Personally I think that if I bought "the product Silverstone", then I own the name, the track, the likeness, the previous likenesses etc. That's what I'd expect to be buying, but I'd want my lawyer to confirm it, as I'm not sure what the legal extent is. John

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but my point is that the > A1-Ring already is an F1 track and covered under the FIA license to > whoever buys the rights. However there is no complaint about the > Osterreichring. So too with Brands Hatch, possibly also to be an F1 > track soon. The A1-Ring isn`t the same track layout as the Osterreichring so any computer representation of the Osterreichring isn`t a likeness of the existing track. I have a suspiscion also that the A1-Ring isn`t owned by the same people as owned it in it's Osterreichring days (But that isn`t based on any definate knowledge). Maybe this gets around the legal problems?

"Scott Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote > What an ungratefull asswipe you are,, Noonon did free tracks, hisconverter took > time to do, and time is money, he has every right to charge a few dollarsfor > it, if you dont like it, don't buy it, this does not give you the right tosteal > from him, and to steal from papy, if you downloaded the tracks already > converted, with out having purchased ICR2, n2, ect,, Wha? I think you lost track of this thread my boy. I was one of the first one stating that those guys did something wrong, yet that doesn't mean we can't question any validity of a software. What insinuated from my tree branch in this thread was an obvious questioning which brought many good and bad arguments, and in the end I think created a consensus stating that free tracks should always be continued to be created, and that asking legally to track owners would be equal a definitive "no" and attract the attention of track owners to the problem. > With out the effort of Dave Noonan, and the GPLEA, we would be racing ononly 11 > tracks, instead of having 50 to choose from. Well duh! But should we all do this at the expense of doing this legally? That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down all those track creators. Of course you can't see such point it seems. > So, dont hold your fucking breath for a responce to your smart assquestion > about Suzuka,,, dickweed It wasn't me you "dickweed". It was somebody else. Half-plonk to you also. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > Francois....PLEASE!......for pity's sake....have another look at the loadof > waffle in that post and try and sort it into something that is, at thevery > least, intelligible, would you? It's very intelligible Bruce. You just need to make the effort and read my comments in "smart-arse" mode. It's the way I alluded subtly the message. You would be surprised how my posts have second-level meanings Bruce. It's not just the standard "I speek French so Iz wrot very bhadly in INNNglish". Couple of redundance, lousy sentence structure and I should had replaced "any" by "the". I was bored at that time, but please don't tell me you don't have the capacity to understand the words I have wrote.

Quoted text (15 lines)

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

legally? > > That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down allthose > > track creators. Of course you can't see such point it seems. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"John Wallace" wrote: > > Personally I think that if I bought "the product Silverstone", then I > own the name, the track, the likeness, the previous likenesses etc. > That's what I'd expect to be buying, but I'd want my lawyer to confirm > it, as I'm not sure what the legal extent is. >Hey John - if you do buy Silverstone can I have a go!

Francois....PLEASE!......for pity's sake....have another look at the load of waffle in that post and try and sort it into something that is, at the very least, intelligible, would you? It's like a nightmare clause out of a legal document.......in Anglo-Franco! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K5xd5.139630$[email hidden]... > "Scott Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote > > What an ungratefull asswipe you are,, Noonon did free tracks, his > converter took > > time to do, and time is money, he has every right to charge a few dollars > for > > it, if you dont like it, don't buy it, this does not give you the right to > steal > > from him, and to steal from papy, if you downloaded the tracks already > > converted, with out having purchased ICR2, n2, ect,, > > > Wha? I think you lost track of this thread my boy. I was one of the first > one stating that those guys did something wrong, yet that doesn't mean we > can't question any validity of a software. What insinuated from my tree > branch in this thread was an obvious questioning which brought many good and > bad arguments, and in the end I think created a consensus stating that free > tracks should always be continued to be created, and that asking legally to > track owners would be equal a definitive "no" and attract the attention of > track owners to the problem. > > > > > With out the effort of Dave Noonan, and the GPLEA, we would be racing on > only 11 > > tracks, instead of having 50 to choose from. > > Well duh! But should we all do this at the expense of doing this legally? > That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down all those > track creators. Of course you can't see such point it seems. > > > > > > So, dont hold your fucking breath for a responce to your smart ass > question > > about Suzuka,,, dickweed > > It wasn't me you "dickweed". It was somebody else. Half-plonk to you also. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > > >

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:19:43 GMT, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"John Wallace" wrote: >> >> Personally I think that if I bought "the product Silverstone", then I >> own the name, the track, the likeness, the previous likenesses etc. >> That's what I'd expect to be buying, but I'd want my lawyer to confirm >> it, as I'm not sure what the legal extent is. >> >Hey John - if you do buy Silverstone can I have a go!

Sure, as long as you don't remember it afterwards since that would be a recording of my copyrighted likeness and as such a blatant breach of my copyright - you thief! ;-) John

In article <zskd5.6466$[email hidden]>, "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Exactly.. it would be the company that made the movie that would own > the copywrite to the taped movie.. not the company that made the vcr. > In this case with the tracks, it would be the original owners of the > track that would still own the copywrite.. not David who made the > converter. > You agree and now you see why David has no ownership to the converted > tracks.. the ownership is held by the owners of the original track. > That would more than likely be Papy.

Incorrect. The reason why, is that you are assuming that the converter merely makes Papy tracks work between versions. It does not. It adds David's reworked pieces to create the new track. Papy may have purchased a copyright from the track owners, but without David's reworked pieces, it would never work on the new sim. Therefore some of the copyright for the converted track DOES belong to David. Now, a track owner could call his bluff, saying that he never paid for a copyright to render a new version of the track, such as ISC did with Jed's original N1 version of Daytona. If in that case, we would all be sorry, as it would mean no converting of tracks. Cheers! Jan Kohl The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Okay. I don't have the capacity to understand the words you have wrote. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KzGd5.140692$[email hidden]... > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Francois....PLEASE!......for pity's sake....have another look at the load > of > > waffle in that post and try and sort it into something that is, at the > very > > least, intelligible, would you? > > > It's very intelligible Bruce. You just need to make the effort and read my > comments in "smart-arse" mode. It's the way I alluded subtly the message. > You would be surprised how my posts have second-level meanings Bruce. It's > not just the standard "I speek French so Iz wrot very bhadly in INNNglish". > Couple of redundance, lousy sentence structure and I should had replaced > "any" by "the". I was bored at that time, but please don't tell me you > don't have the capacity to understand the words I have wrote. >

no but it is intellectual property. Just as your web site is your design with Microsoft Frontpage, you wouldn't expect someone else to post a copy of your site somewhere else on the web and claim it is theirs. Get the point. Jim Dunphy The Pits www.theuspits.com "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> I do not agree with that at all > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ file > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > microsoft > > Just does not work that way.. > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave Noonan's > > copyright protection to that track. > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who converts > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't like > > this is free to write their own convertor. > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is riding on

the > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you could argue > that > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended quite > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French sitedone?

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > > dave henrie > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the > others > > si > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you built > > suzuka > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you can > > claim > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s all > > > > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare time > mod'er > > c > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > > 8ksvbs$l > > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > >

No, but if you start giving away those copied tape you are indeed breaking copyright law. Movies, music, software are all copyrighted material which allow the licenced user of said media to make a "personal" copy only. You have only bought the right to use the media and not the media its self. Jim Dunphy The Pits www.theuspits.com "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:klOc5.6158$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> That is totally false.. > > If I buy a VCR (Davids Converter) and I then use it to copy (convert) a > movie (a track), it does not give the company that made the VCR (David) > ownership of my new tape (track) > > Dave sells the converter to perform a service.. converting the track..

After

Quoted text (10 lines)

> it does that, it is out of davids hands. > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7hqc5.18421$[email hidden]... > > not quite I think: > > "IF" you had written the zip to arg convertor then the argument might be > > similar. (better be careful here:> with the reach of the net I "may" be > > conversing with the pkzip orginator...) > > I am sure somewhere in Microsoft's EULA's they have a line that

includes > > their copywright in all you do. I know many of the "free" websites havea > > clause that makes EVERYTHING you place on their servers, their property. > > The convertor is NOT something that is readily available, it"requires" > a > > copy of the original copyrighted material(ie the ICR2 cd) to properly > > operate. > > That being said, Dave Noonan has only a couple of options: a)Publize

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > the fact the tracks violate his copyright and "hope" users respect that. > b) > > Ignore the whole thing and watch his reputation suffer as an obviously > beta > > effort delutes his past efforts. c) Hire a lawyer. > > Since two of these are very very bad, I would "hope" the vast majority > of > > RAS users and web-surfers will respect what Noonan has done for the > > sim-racing community and not visit the french site. A last alternative > > would be to flood the ISP with complaints.(not a dns attack, just a

large

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > group of users writting complaints.) > > -- > > dave henrie > > Free the ICR2 source code! > > (hmm conflict in logic?) > > > > "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:DIpc5.5528$[email hidden]... > > > I do not agree with that at all > > > > > > That is like saying that if I take a Zip file and convert it to a ARJ > file > > > with a converter, my ARJ file is under the copywrite of the converter > > > > > > Or if I use Frontpage to make a webpage, my webpage now falls under > > > microsoft > > > > > > Just does not work that way.. > > > > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:rBpc5.18191$[email hidden]... > > > > I would think the moment you ran the convertor you added Dave > Noonan's > > > > copyright protection to that track. > > > > So yeah, Papyrus produced the original track, but anyone who

converts > > > > it...does so with the permission of Mr. Noonan. Anyone who doesn't > like > > > > this is free to write their own convertor. > > > > This guy seems to me to be just a cheap flag waver who is ridingon > > the > > > > coat-tails of others efforts. And yesssss, in a sense you couldargue

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > that > > > > Dave Noonan is riding on Papyrus's coat-tails, but he has expended > quite > > > > a-bit of effort to produce his convertors. what has the French site > > done? > > > > Posted some leaked beta efforts? > > > > dave henrie > > > > "koko" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > maybe code source still belongs to papy. but GPL (and icr2 and the > > > others > > > > si > > > > > ms involved there) business exploitation belongs to Sierra. you > built > > > > suzuka > > > > > on your own, ok it s your but I don t know who in the name of you > can > > > > claim > > > > > any copyright on the converted tracks. you built the conv, that s > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quake or half life mods are spread all over the net, and spare

time > > > mod'er > > > > c > > > > > ommunity is not on the way to extinction... > > > > > > > > > > David Noonan <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > 8ksvbs$l > > > > > ms$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

GOD DAMN!! Couldn't have said it better!!!!! Jim Dunphy The Pits www.theuspits.com "Pierre Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3973ef72.1434652@news...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...? Who gives a > shit...? David Noonan did us a favor and came up with a program that > converts tracks from ICR2/Nascar and such...he asks for a bit of money > to support further work and indeed to reward his past work. Cheap > bastards steal his work and post it... > > I dont care to argue the legalities of it all but I do know this > unless the guys who stole it can program this stuff themselves if we > condone it we will soon not have the benefit of it since David wont be > doing it again. > > Its called simple respect for another work...nothing legal, nothing > deep...simple respect. That French site is run by a bunch of shit bags > who dont respect others work. Piss on that.... > > PAPA DOC

Actually we should just fuck you all and cease all work on all new tracks, including Suzuka. Then all this shit will end. Then where would all you thieves be??!! Jim Dunphy The Pits www.theuspits.com "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K5xd5.139630$[email hidden]... > "Scott Holmes" <[email hidden]> wrote > > What an ungratefull asswipe you are,, Noonon did free tracks, his > converter took > > time to do, and time is money, he has every right to charge a fewdollars > for > > it, if you dont like it, don't buy it, this does not give you the rightto

Quoted text (9 lines)

> steal > > from him, and to steal from papy, if you downloaded the tracks already > > converted, with out having purchased ICR2, n2, ect,, > > > Wha? I think you lost track of this thread my boy. I was one of the first > one stating that those guys did something wrong, yet that doesn't mean we > can't question any validity of a software. What insinuated from my tree > branch in this thread was an obvious questioning which brought many good

and > bad arguments, and in the end I think created a consensus stating thatfree > tracks should always be continued to be created, and that asking legallyto

Quoted text (21 lines)

> track owners would be equal a definitive "no" and attract the attention of > track owners to the problem. > > > > > With out the effort of Dave Noonan, and the GPLEA, we would be racing on > only 11 > > tracks, instead of having 50 to choose from. > > Well duh! But should we all do this at the expense of doing this legally? > That's my point boy, that doesn't mean I say we should tear down all those > track creators. Of course you can't see such point it seems. > > > > > > So, dont hold your fucking breath for a responce to your smart ass > question > > about Suzuka,,, dickweed > > It wasn't me you "dickweed". It was somebody else. Half-plonk to you

also.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > > >

Now who has lost track of the original intent of this thread. It was if I still remember..... Oh yes the theft of intellectual property. That being Davids! Jim Dunphy The Pits www.theuspits.com "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RbAc5.91637$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Olav K. Malmin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I feel this thread is turning into a "Let's discourace Dave Noonan so > > much that he stops making great tracks" > > Naw, it's not my intent. I love his tracks, but that doesn't mean I can't > raise some issues here. There is a possibility that the track itself is > created in the illegality. If it's not (like per example the GPLEA

tracks) > then fine. But are really BH, Suzuka or any other tracks created with the > approval of the track owners themselves? This would mean that ALLconverted > tracks would need approval. Be sure that if you call the Pocono racewayand > ask them "if you could convert their old track from N2 to N3 since it'snot

Quoted text (10 lines)

> in it", they wouldn't want. Same goes for any other converted track no? > > > With the editing tools being more and more user-friendly (well they are > quite too difficult for the common mortals but they are much more easier > than before), it is a problem that is very likely to happen in the future. > Some person will create a track for GPL and put himself in trouble. > > > I mean cmon guys. We all remember the Daytona clones. GPL isn't immune

to > all those problems. GPL tracks are the same thing, they aren't different > from any other tracks, so I'm just insinuating that if X track is done > without approval, than the whole argument is irrelevant. I still wishthose > stupid people at the French pits would delete the tracks, whatever legalor

Quoted text (11 lines)

> not they are in the first way. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >