Analogies, trains and FIRST-Racing...

"Malc" wrote:

> Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an
> analogy even worse than Tonys.

Thanks Malc

Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too* good
a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense!

It's not an analogy, it's case law.

"Malc" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in message
> news
> > All you intellectual property buffs might wanna head on over to
Catwoman:
> > Copycat, he
> >
> > http://www.bluetights.net/copycat/
> >
> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick,
> they're
> > bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable....
>
> Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an
> analogy even worse than Tonys.
>
> Malc.
>
>
> > "Malc" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tony Rickard" > wrote in message
> > > .uk...
> > > > My train analogy for FIRST Racing:
> > > >
> > > > The customers continue to modify and convert the old trains but are
> > > waiting
> > > > expectantly for the new generation passenger trains to fill the 7
year
> > > void.
> > > > At which point the old stock will finally head for the sheds.
> > >
> > > Nothing wrong with what you wrote but you appear to miss the point.
> Money
> > > makes a company work, good PR is a nice thing to have, but it won't
put
> > > bread on the table for long if people don't keep buying new trains.
Why
> > buy
> > > a second, new train if you can get a free second train by just
modifying
> > the
> > > original train?
> > >
> > > Don't forget a real train can only be changed, if you change it the
> > original
> > > train is gone unless you change it back. You still only have one
train.
> > Mod
> > > a sim & you have the mod, plus the original sim is still there if you
> are
> > > interested in it.
> > >
> > > For example on my HD I have at least 5 mods for F12K2 plus the
original
> > sim
> > > but I only paid for one CD.
> > >
> > > Malc.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus worked
hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the (wholly
unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually
encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea. But,
like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR (they
shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention of
3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor,
F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to have
learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield,
which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and
Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an era when
console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off the face
of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting modding with
contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of the Physics
Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta clue.

"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in
> news >
> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick,
> > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable....
> >
>
> I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the 1.201
> patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave
off
> EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are
> close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on Papyrus'
> promise.
>
> dave henrie
>

"Tony Rickard" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Malc" wrote:
>
> > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find an
> > analogy even worse than Tonys.
>
> Thanks Malc
>
> Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too*
good
> a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense!

I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then.

Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought
process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is essentially a
second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim - this
has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audience but
the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced.

It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong to the
original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly
okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit
it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't
really do anything other than accept that.

If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don't really
see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation
reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have
already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respect FIRST's
decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting
hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod.

Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like
straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to suit
your needs.

Malc.

I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm objecting to
their prior restraint of what others have produced. The rights you seem so
eager to protect here are not being violated. There is no commercial
intent. F1RST would have to prove that TR's mod (or BR's or C'One's or
anybody's) are hurting the sales of that which they undeniably own the
rights to, namely, NASCAR Racing 2003. But...N2003 isn't being sold (at
least not by F1RST), so they would have to prove that these mods would hurt
*future* sales of some as-yet-undefined F1RST product, which obviously
can't--or won't--be done.

I smell a rat when F1RST jumps in to not only protect their rights, but when
they also force TR to remove references to Sauber/Mercedes, Jaguar, Mazda
and Toyota. Is F1RST the agent, assign, counsel, heir, or party to any of
these manufacturers? No, they are, IMO, just throwing their weight around
to show they "mean business."

I know all about property rights. I introduced a property called the Swiss
Army Watch here in the U.S. I was contacted by the bullies, thugs, and
goons of Forschner, who distibuted the Swiss Army Knife in this country.
They told me, among other things, that I could not sell a watch with a red
dial (!) and that I could not claim that the watch was made in Switzerland
(which it was, in the hamlet of Porrentruy). This kind of intimidation is
standard in this business. I forced them to change their name to Swiss Army
*Brands* (their product had never been endorsed by the Swiss Army), but they
forced me out of business because I could not afford to defend my little
company against the onslaught of their mighty legal brigade. After I quit
the field, they gobbled up my idea and profited from it to the tune of
several million dollars a year. And still do.

If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on
the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner of
the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for the
love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very people
he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if he
ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually otherwise
want.

"Malc" > wrote in message
...
> "Tony Rickard" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Malc" wrote:
> >
> > > Well I guess congratulations are in order Steve, you managed to find
an
> > > analogy even worse than Tonys.
> >
> > Thanks Malc
> >
> > Kaemmer started all the train analogy stuff you know. I just did *too*
> good
> > a job in my efforts to show it was all nonsense!
>
> I take it all back, Steve found an analogy even worse than DK's then.
>
> Steve, This thread was started to offer an explanation of the thought
> process behind sim designers allowing people to create what is essentially
a
> second complete sim that can double the value of their original sim - this
> has the benefit of making the sim potentially appeal to a wider audience
but
> the downside that the need to buy new sims may be reduced.
>
> It should be pretty clear to most that the intellectual rights belong to
the
> original design team & there is a gentlemen's agreement that it's broadly
> okay to mod a sim even though usually the EULA will specifically prohibit
> it. If the designer chooses not to look the other way the community can't
> really do anything other than accept that.
>
> If it ended up in court the designer would win every time, so I don't
really
> see how case law has anything to do with this situation. If the situation
> reaches the point where case law history is required the modders have
> already lost, and nobody likes a poor loser. Just accept and respect
FIRST's
> decision & aim to influence the genres they simulate rather than getting
> hung up on the modding. There are plenty of other sims to mod.
>
> Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like
> straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to suit
> your needs.
>
> Malc.
>
>

The majority of the mods you mention there, Steve, extend the current code
and do not alter the actual core code and that's where FIRST is drawing the
line. FIRST is only going after mods that alter the .exe. While I'm not
especially happy about it (I was looking forward to the 1970's mod and the
2005 update) FIRST not only is fully within their rights, I wouldn't be
surprised if they legally have to. I can't remember what flight sim it was
where some airline had a cow about people putting replicas of their
airplanes into it. Let's say one of of the car manufacturers that were in
the original GTP mod decided they didn't like their cars in the mod and went
after Redline over it. If FIRST did not do anything to prevent Redline's
original mod then I'm sure some lawyer out there could twist it that they,
too, were culpable.

"Steve Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus
> worked
> hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the
> (wholly
> unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually
> encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea.
> But,
> like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR
> (they
> shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention
> of
> 3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor,
> F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to have
> learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield,
> which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and
> Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an era when
> console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off the face
> of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting modding with
> contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of the Physics
> Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta
> clue.
>
> "Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
> . 97.136...
>> "Steve Smith" > wrote in
>> news >>
>> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick,
>> > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable....
>> >
>>
>> I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the
>> 1.201
>> patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave
> off
>> EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are
>> close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on
>> Papyrus'
>> promise.
>>
>> dave henrie
>>
>
>

"Steve Smith" > wrote in
:

> I'm not objecting to what F1RST might or might not produce; I'm


FIRST. Not F1RST, which is a completely different bunch of guys.
Let's face it, FIRST don't give a toss whether mods improve sales of
NR2003, because I doubt they get anything from any sale of NR2003 in the
shops. They bought the rights, not the money it's already made.

Any talk about how Papyrus/Vivendi were happy for mods to come about has to
be taken in the context that it was FIRST, under the guise of PWF, that
engineered the situation to put CTS/TA/Busch code in the nr2003.exe, giving
the illusion that exe modding would be ok, because papy did it for people
anyway.

Then DK+PWF > FIRST.

A canny manouver, for sure.

cheers
John

"Steve Smith" wrote:

> If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on
> the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner
> of the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for
> the love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very
> people he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that
> is, if he ever gets a product out the door that these people might
> actually otherwise want.

I agree. In reality the niche group who mod and play mods probably isn't
going to make a difference to John Henry's bottom line so embracing the
modders or eliminating them "just in case" doesn't really matter.

However, it doesn't feel like the developers playing nicely with their
greatest fans does it nor come across particularly well in demonstrating
Henry as an "avid participant in the auto racing simulation community"?

It seems a bit like a car manufacturer going after one of its enthusiast
owners clubs members for modifying their engines, a tiny percentage of
customers but hardly good PR.

Quite how the developer run "Federation of International Racing and
Sanctioning Trust" will work remains to be seen.

"Steve Smith" > wrote in message
.. .

> If this mod dispute landed in court, F1RST would win in a walk, but not on
> the merits of the case, but because Kaemmer's financial muscle (the owner
of
> the Red Sox) would crush the individual modders who ply their trade for
the
> love of the game. Too bad Mr. Kaemmer doesn't realize that the very
people
> he is stomping on here are the core of his future audience...that is, if
he
> ever gets a product out the door that these people might actually
otherwise
> want.

Too bad you don't realise that the sims are more important than the mods.
Sure the mods are important, but you can't mod something that doesn't exist,
and if the community puts the creators in a position where they are no
longer financially interested in creating the sims in the first place the
whole community loses out anyway. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If it's good enough we'll buy the sims anyway whether they can be modded or
not. There is a compromise as I stated earlier that the lack of mods may
restrict sales a little (I wouldn't have bought F1C or F12k2 were it not for
the mods, I only bought NR2k3 & NR4 to pay my Papy tax) but if restricting
the mods allows DK & buddies to secure a better financial footing &
therefore produce more sims then that benefits us all. Maybe in the future
'if we behave' we'll be given something that can be legitimately modded as a
reward, as we were with the extra code in NR2k3.

Some people may want mods for the sake of it but mostly what I think the
community wants are sims that model what they are interested in. Would you
rather have that sim made by DK or the modding community? Both can produce
great stuff but given the choice between buying a sim then modifying it to
suit my needs, or buying a sim that suits my needs in the first place I'll
go with the latter every time.

Malc.



> "Malc" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Give FIRST a chance to actually produce something that you might like
> > straight out of the box before complaining that you can't alter it to
suit
> > your needs.

Anything's possible, as my 12-year-old sez. Yes, I tell him, but is it
probable?

If somebody tried to *sell* an American Airlines (or even Pan-Am) add-on a/c
for MSFS, they'd need a license (altho Nick Watts can paint a picture of a
Ferrari at Le Mans and sell prints for $250 each without Ferrari's
permission or paying Ferrari a royalty). But if somebody made an add-on and
gave it away, that's protected by the First Amendment. NASCAR can protect
their "likenesses and images" because, like the NFL, they operate within
stadiums and nobody ever reads the fine print on the ticket. But AA and
Pan-Am operate in the public arena. If you can paint a picture of their
airliners or put their name and descrip in a novel, you can also make a
model or render a virtual model - that all falls in the domain of fair use.
What you do in private is different from what you do in public.
"Narrow-casting" (semi-peivate distribution) of "art" is the gray area we're
talking about, and who'd win a suit would depend on who had the deeper
pockets.

"Michael Horton" > wrote in message
news:8o9%d.76131$gJ3.25853@clgrps13...
> The majority of the mods you mention there, Steve, extend the current code
> and do not alter the actual core code and that's where FIRST is drawing
the
> line. FIRST is only going after mods that alter the .exe. While I'm not
> especially happy about it (I was looking forward to the 1970's mod and the
> 2005 update) FIRST not only is fully within their rights, I wouldn't be
> surprised if they legally have to. I can't remember what flight sim it was
> where some airline had a cow about people putting replicas of their
> airplanes into it. Let's say one of of the car manufacturers that were in
> the original GTP mod decided they didn't like their cars in the mod and
went
> after Redline over it. If FIRST did not do anything to prevent Redline's
> original mod then I'm sure some lawyer out there could twist it that they,
> too, were culpable.
>
> "Steve Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Going back to IndyCar Racing and the original NASCAR Racing, Papyrus
> > worked
> > hard to discourage mods. I presented Kaemmer with evidence that the
> > (wholly
> > unintentional) "modability" of Microsoft's Flight Simulator actually
> > encouraged that sim's growth. Eventually, Papyrus embraced the idea.
> > But,
> > like SimBin, which started out as modders and now discourage it in GTR
> > (they
> > shut down a promising BMW M3 expansion car and won't even permit mention
> > of
> > 3rd-party tracks on their forums), Papy's legal and spiritual successor,
> > F1RST, has joined the ranks of the Blue Meanies. They don't seem to
have
> > learned anything from the mods of games like Half-Life and Battlefield,
> > which would prolly have ceased to exist w/o mods like Counter-Strike and
> > Galactic Conquest. It's been the salvation of racing sims in an era
when
> > console games and ring-tones for cells almost wiped PC gaming off the
face
> > of the earth. Even Unreal Tournament is on board, promoting modding
with
> > contests like Make Something Unreal. Kaemmer may be Master of the
Physics
> > Engine, but abt. what makes the gaming world go around, he ain't gotta
> > clue.
> >
> > "Dave Henrie" > wrote in message
> > . 97.136...
> >> "Steve Smith" > wrote in
> >> news > >>
> >> > These guys are not merely ripping off somebody else's whole shtick,
> >> > they're bragging about it. Talk abt. hacking the executable....
> >> >
> >>
> >> I only remember that Papyrus was ENCOURAGING mod groups when the
> >> 1.201
> >> patch was released. THey were almost begging for modders to help stave
> > off
> >> EA's juggernaut. Now I know FIRST is NOT PAPYRUS legally, but they are
> >> close enough in my mind that it feels like FIRST is going back on
> >> Papyrus'
> >> promise.
> >>
> >> dave henrie
> >>
> >
> >
>
>