Copyright and Orbiter

[Ark]

Incidentally, watching Avatar in 400x300 camcorder resolution on a computer screen is awful. like listening to a symphony with all the E strings out of tune, or looking at the Mona Lisa while drunk. :lol:

 

[combrown]

Truth

Not to derail the thread, but I have a question on combrown's post:

Does that only apply to content you generate yourself, or is that general copyright law? That makes it sound like you can't be legally prosecuted for downloading a movie because there's no concrete evidence you would have brought a copy otherwise, therefore causing them the loss of one copy.

Exactly, :thumbup: I think that comes under 'heresay'.

You answered your own question.
But when has the legal system ever been lawful these days.

I am sure that even if they saw 'heresay' which has no weight they would still be quite happy to ignore it.

Anyway I waive the benefit.
Judges don't like me for some reason, they usually lock me up for the night and then release me in the morning with nothing much else to say.

Still not sure why :lol: I am so nice to them.:hello::tiphat:

Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory.
Whether people believe that or not is for the individual.
It comes under truth.
It is what it is.

---------- Post added at 03:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 AM ----------

Incidentally, watching Avatar in 400x300 camcorder resolution on a computer screen is awful. like listening to a symphony with all the E strings out of tune, or looking at the Mona Lisa while drunk. :lol:

:lol: Yeh

Thats the thing anyway, you get a torrent too soon and it aint good.
Leave it a while when it's done it's dash then the good copies start flowing.
As they will.
I usually get stuff from a fair way back anyway, so I am sure it has probably made a fairly good packet for the production folk.

Willy Shatner does not look like he is going to explode because he is impoverished or in the vacuum of space.

 

[dansteph]

But what if I just go and pay for a movie and I am not satisfied, I can't go and get my money back, or can I.

Art have a cost and an efficiency as any other system, you cannot expect to get back 100% of what you have put into it. IE: If you don't accept to pay somewhat for "bad" or "average" movie you would not have any good movie either because they would be no movie industry at all.

Wanting to pay only for the good part is same as putting only 40% fuel in your cars expecting you'll have 100% efficiency (cars engine have only an 40% efficiency)

I am happy to share my knowledge, aren't you?

Sharing your knowledge isn't your job. hapiness doesn't feed kids
Evil is stomac !

Ultimate proof is that Eve banished humans from paradise by... eating something :lol:

Dan

 

[Andy44]

There is currently a debate going on within libertarian circles about the morality and utility of intellectual property rights (IP). I will write something in my blog about it so as not to clutter up this thread, but it's worth googling.

 

[tblaxland]

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume what an artist/copyright holder wants from his work? I have heard arguments that they should appreciate the publicity, they want to prevent others from making money from their works, etc. If you want to publish something based on their works, just ask them. Legally and morally, they hold the exclusive rights to their works.

So lets just say that you build the Vakyrie Shuttle and start making it open to people on the orbiter forum/hangar freely to use in orbiter.

The Big JC finds out about this and decided to make a claim against the 'person' who made it from scratch and put it in the hangar.

The Big JC would have to show proof upon which relief can be granted.

In other words he has to show where he has suffered a loss because of it.
Where has he suffered harm and loss?
Of course this is just a theory and not taking into consideration how corrupt the courts are these days and the fact that they will probably rule in JCs favour as that is where the money is, but hey they can't squeeze blood from a stone.

This is incorrect. All the copyright owner has to do is prove that a copyright infringement has occurred. For example, Australian copyright law protects certain "moral rights". Those can be infringed without any demonstrable loss occurring. Of course, any obligations between the two parties in the judgement will be strongly dependant upon the nature of the infringement.

 

[eveningsky339]

Hence, the concept of "copyleft"... Created by Richard Stallman, I believe? He is the founder of the GNU Project.

With regards to Orbiter and copyright, some addon source code (I believe the entire CVE-lite library) is released under the GPL, which is considered "copyleft."

 

[tblaxland]

With regards to Orbiter and copyright, some addon source code (I believe the entire CVE-lite library) is released under the GPL, which is considered "copyleft."

Strictly speaking, Orbiter addons/libraries/etc cannot be released under the GPL since they require linking with non-GPL binaries in order to function. The GPL requires that they should only be linked with GPL binaries. That is why my addons are released under LGPL instead.

EDIT: Correction to the above statement: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=145824#post145824

 

[eveningsky339]

Strictly speaking, Orbiter addons/libraries/etc cannot be released under the GPL since they require linking with non-GPL binaries in order to function. The GPL requires that they should only be linked with GPL binaries. That is why my addons are released under LGPL instead.

Perhaps the LGPL is what I was thinking about. h:

Anyway, there has been extensive controversy regarding whether software should be openly available or marketed as a good since the 80s. As I mentioned before, it started with Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation and GNU.

I personally think that "intellectual property rights" are ridiculous in this day and age of digitization.

 

[tblaxland]

Perhaps the LGPL is what I was thinking about. h:

Some authors have used GPL, but incorrectly IMHO.

EDIT: Correction to the above statement: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=145824#post145824

I personally think that "intellectual property rights" are ridiculous in this day and age of digitization.

By what methods do you propose "to promote creativity, and the dissemination and application of its results" (WIPO), or some similar goal? As Dan says "happiness does not feed kids". I know artists/authors who could not survive off their art if it were not for copyright law. There is always the argument that art is not productive (or at least its productive value is hard to measure) and artists should therefore not be afforded the same natural law type protections as, say, a carpenter...

 

[Linguofreak]

There is currently a debate going on within libertarian circles about the morality and utility of intellectual property rights (IP). I will write something in my blog about it so as not to clutter up this thread, but it's worth googling.

I don't agree with Stallman and the FSF on everything, but I definitely agree with them that "Intellectual Property" is a term to be avoided. My opinion on "intellectual property" really depends on what subset of the group of concepts often referred to as "intellectual property" you are talking about, so it really helps to use less ambiguous terms.

 

[ex-orbinaut]

If you want to publish something based on their works, just ask them. Legally and morally, they hold the exclusive rights to their works.

This is a very good point....

I DID, with regard to using some song snippets for an add on, and got the following results (I did this in cooperation with another OF member who I will discretely leave anonymous)...

First to the record company, which incidentally was one that had bought up the original company... Pay 200 dollars to lawyers. I don't believe any of that would go to the artist.

Second... Tried to get in touch with the artists themselves through the official fan site, communicating directly with the admin. Good response from the site, they loved the graphics sent to them and forwarded a message to the artists' producer (I saw the CC). Then silence, except that the news seemed to go around the fan community (not just of that site, either) like a thunderclap and I got inundated with requests for animations of the vessel for websites and videos.

The conclusion. Despite revealing that I had already uploaded a model of a vessel off a record label TO the artist, I got no warnings.... nor any response to proceed or refrain from going through with the song snippets for the next add on.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Ecuador there is something they call "administrative silence". If you express your intention clearly and openly, in writing, to the appropriate authority and receive no answer within a specified time frame, it is to be taken as neglect on their part, and thereby your inferred approval to proceed. Ever heard of it, elsewhere I mean?

This is incorrect. All the copyright owner has to do is prove that a copyright infringement has occurred.

I must be thinking of something else? I also, as combrown, had understood that damages had to be demonstrated. Perhaps it is different for "IP"?

 

[tblaxland]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Ecuador there is something they call "administrative silence". If you express your intention clearly and openly, in writing, to the appropriate authority and receive no answer within a specified time frame, it is to be taken as neglect on their part, and thereby your inferred approval to proceed. Ever heard of it, elsewhere I mean?

Yes, I've heard of it. We even have clauses to deal with it in construction & project management contracts. Summary: sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn't. AFAIK, administrative silence does not apply to copyright law.

I must be thinking of something else? I also, as combrown, had understood that damages had to be demonstrated. Perhaps it is different for "IP"?

Under Australian copyright law, a court may grant the following actions:
1. Injunction; and/or
2. Damages, or an account of profits.

So, taking my example where moral rights are infringed and yet no financial loss is demonstrated, the court may still grant an injunction.

 

[ex-orbinaut]

How about a precedent?

Despite revealing that I had already uploaded a model of a vessel off a record label TO the artist, I got no warnings.... nor any response to proceed or refrain from going through with the song snippets for the next add on.

What I am trying to clarify: could I upload to OHM another vessel made entirely by me and to no profit, inspired off a record label? What is the perspective on album art? After all, it is - what's the word? - an ancillary to the sale of the object media: the music. Okay, maybe the snippets of the songs are a step too far (I concede), but the picture? If full mention of the source of inspiration is made, and full credit given to the artists? I did this with the Zoom ship docs.

 

[combrown]

Art have a cost and an efficiency as any other system, you cannot expect to get back 100% of what you have put into it. IE: If you don't accept to pay somewhat for "bad" or "average" movie you would not have any good movie either because they would be no movie industry at all.

Wanting to pay only for the good part is same as putting only 40% fuel in your cars expecting you'll have 100% efficiency (cars engine have only an 40% efficiency)


So does this come down to choice, are you insinuating that we don't or that we do have a choice.
Or that our choices are limited.
Are our choices being taken away from us and we must just live with whatever gets put in front of us.
Maybe by having the ability to make our own choices is what gives us the ability to choose our outcomes to some degree.

Are we free or are we not?

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume what an artist/copyright holder wants from his work? I have heard arguments that they should appreciate the publicity, they want to prevent others from making money from their works, etc. If you want to publish something based on their works, just ask them. Legally and morally, they hold the exclusive rights to their works.


This is incorrect. All the copyright owner has to do is prove that a copyright infringement has occurred. For example, Australian copyright law protects certain "moral rights". Those can be infringed without any demonstrable loss occurring. Of course, any obligations between the two parties in the judgement will be strongly dependant upon the nature of the infringement.

Like what

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------

Exactly the common painter or a plumber would generally not be too heavily concerned about copyright issues, more that fact that the product they provide is in demand.
A Plumber keeps his/her quality of service up and the painter keeps his/her paintings appealing to the eye so that someone feels inclined to buy it.
Unless the painted art field really does not attract that much business I guess maybe it does, but I don't buy them because they don't interest me.

Dan's Delta Glider Interests me... nice piece of art mate. :tiphat:

Naturally we cannot measure and it seems alot of the time systems are being put in place to measure it and guide us to some sort of control to take away choice.
Se we become the robot and we have to take the good with the bad which is all too apparent anyway.

Anyway just an observation, I could be wrong. :hello:

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

Of course they would cause they need to make money.

---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

Yes, I've heard of it. We even have clauses to deal with it in construction & project management contracts. Summary: sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn't. AFAIK, administrative silence does not apply to copyright law.


Under Australian copyright law, a court may grant the following actions:
1. Injunction; and/or
2. Damages, or an account of profits.

So, taking my example where moral rights are infringed and yet no financial loss is demonstrated, the court may still grant an injunction.

Of course they would cause they need to make money.

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------

This is a very good point....

I DID, with regard to using some song snippets for an add on, and got the following results (I did this in cooperation with another OF member who I will discretely leave anonymous)...

First to the record company, which incidentally was one that had bought up the original company... Pay 200 dollars to lawyers. I don't believe any of that would go to the artist.

Second... Tried to get in touch with the artists themselves through the official fan site, communicating directly with the admin. Good response from the site, they loved the graphics sent to them and forwarded a message to the artists' producer (I saw the CC). Then silence, except that the news seemed to go around the fan community (not just of that site, either) like a thunderclap and I got inundated with requests for animations of the vessel for websites and videos.

The conclusion. Despite revealing that I had already uploaded a model of a vessel off a record label TO the artist, I got no warnings.... nor any response to proceed or refrain from going through with the song snippets for the next add on.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Ecuador there is something they call "administrative silence". If you express your intention clearly and openly, in writing, to the appropriate authority and receive no answer within a specified time frame, it is to be taken as neglect on their part, and thereby your inferred approval to proceed. Ever heard of it, elsewhere I mean?



I must be thinking of something else? I also, as combrown, had understood that damages had to be demonstrated. Perhaps it is different for "IP"?

Estoppel by their acquiescence as it's called.

Law is written by people.
And everyone has the right the create them in their own right.
And there is always honour, you fail that honour and you have committed to an injustice.

Maintain that honour and the law is just..

 

[tblaxland]

How about a precedent?

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/Trademarks/99ArtOlympics.asp

In the Federal Court case of Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games v Pam Clarke last year, the defendant had produced and distributed free t-shirts on behalf of Animal Liberation Tasmania. The t-shirts carried a design ‘depicting a hen in a cage with five eggs’, which, SOCOG alleged, infringed copyright in their Sydney 2000 logo. SOCOG does not always prosecute parodies of their logos: for example the Mambo t-shirt design, ‘It Looks Like a Chook to Me’. However, in Pam Clarke’s case, SOCOG sought and obtained an injunction restraining any further reproduction or sale of the design, and delivery up of all the remaining t-shirts. The fact that the t-shirts were distributed free for ‘donations’ was not a defence.

What I am trying to clarify: could I upload to OHM another vessel made entirely by me and to no profit, inspired off a record label? What is the perspective on album art? After all, it is - what's the word? - an ancillary to the sale of the object media: the music. Okay, maybe the snippets of the songs are a step too far (I concede), but the picture? If full mention of the source of inspiration is made, and full credit given to the artists? I did this with the Zoom ship docs.

"Inspiration" is different to copying. In the world of copyright law, you need to be able to demonstrate the originality of your work. As I understand it, album art is typically copyrighted as a work separate to the music itself. It is a "work" in its own right. I haven't seen the docs your are referring to, but if they are only a small part of your work then there is a chance they are OK. The same goes for the snippets of the songs (analogous to using samples of one song in another, which is allowed in some jurisdictions but not others).

Are we free or are we not?

What does freedom have to do with it? You want to be free not to watch bad movies? Just watch no movies and you will be guaranteed of seeing no bad ones...

Like what

Like what what? Is that a statement or a question? If it is a question, please elaborate. Do you want an example? See above.

we have to take the good with the bad which is all too apparent anyway.

It's life. Do you just want the good without the bad?

 

[Face]

Strictly speaking, Orbiter addons/libraries/etc cannot be released under the GPL since they require linking with non-GPL binaries in order to function. The GPL requires that they should only be linked with GPL binaries.

I don't think this is true. Following your logic here, no GPL Windows software should exists because it always has to link to non-GPL binaries... the Windows-API. And I think seeing only a small hole in the law in this regards, Microsoft-lawyers would have sued the hell out of every Windows open-source provider...

I believe using a GPL license for Orbiter addons is perfectly fine - at least according to european law. Of course I can't really comment on US or australian law...

regards,
Face

EDIT: Reading up on it a bit, the GPL is simply not clear enough what to do with dynamic linking and plugin-architectures. The LGPL is, of course. I'm still convinced that in courts here, the Orbiter/GPL-plugin case would be decided according to the non-viral "system-library" view.

 

[dansteph]

Are we free or are we not

We are "free" only to a certain extent, you depend from other and other depend from you, so you can only achieve ultimate and complete freeness by living alone in forest. (still you'd depend from forest)

Human are social animals highly specialised, each one of us have a role in society and all can live because exchange are fairs: One good for another, one work time for another. Else it's simply parasitism.

This is a natural law: "nothing come for free"

The humain exception is that we sustain the weak that cannot produce anymore (morale & social) while they would simply die in nature and we sustain also things that are not "vital" for our live as art, music, painting, writting etc.

Some say that our society are pervert, I see only natural law, money is only a way to make exchanges more efficient for the benefit of all.

Of course some things are not fairs, as in any big system there is loss and you cannot achieve 100% efficiency, now supress money and come back to exchange and the first one that would die are the weak because the efficiency rate would go down.

Dan's Delta Glider Interests me... nice piece of art mate. :tiphat:

Much thanks mate

But DGIV only exist because honnest peoples have paid my stomac to make sharewares.

Dan

 

[Tschachim]

EDIT: Reading up on it a bit, the GPL is simply not clear enough what to do with dynamic linking and plugin-architectures. The LGPL is, of course. I'm still convinced that in courts here, the Orbiter/GPL-plugin case would be decided according to the non-viral "system-library" view.

Look here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

While you can link Windows libs like kernel32 or user32, you can't link Orbiter.lib (or OrbiterSoundSDK35.lib etc.). To handle that, we Project Apollo - NASSP guys (and Ron Burkey, the author of the Virtual AGC, too) added the following exception to our license statement:

"In addition, as a special exception, the Project Apollo authors and contributors give permission to link the code of this program with the Orbiter SDK (or with modified versions of the Orbiter SDK that use the same license as the Orbiter SDK), or with other libraries designed to work with the Orbiter SDK and/or Orbiter Program, including but not limited to the Orbiter Sound SDK, and distribute linked combinations of these. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than the Orbiter SDK and associated libraries. If you modify this file or document, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version."
http://nassp.sf.net/wiki/ProjectApollo:About

Cheers
Tschachim

 

[Linguofreak]

I don't think this is true. Following your logic here, no GPL Windows software should exists because it always has to link to non-GPL binaries... the Windows-API. And I think seeing only a small hole in the law in this regards, Microsoft-lawyers would have sued the hell out of every Windows open-source provider...

Not really. It's the person who wrote the GPLed software that would (maybe) have the right to sue anybody who linked it with a non-GPL binary. What Microsoft could do with this is, if they got sued for GPL violation after linking in a questionable way, point at GPL'd software that links to non-gpl'ed software to get the case thrown out.

As to my own interpretation, the GPL is meant to maximize user freedom. If Martin were using a GPL'ed library as part of the core requirements for Orbiter, that would be a violation. It is not a violation to write a plugin for Orbiter under the GPL, since it gives the user a choice (to use it or not). And even if it were, it would be a violation against yourself (unless you were using somebody else's GPL'ed code, in which case it could get a bit dicey).

I think the big thing that decides it is whether the GPL'ed code was written first and the non-GPL'ed code was written to link to it, or whether the non-GPL'ed code was first and the GPL'ed code was written to link to it.

Then again, IANAL.

 

[Face]

Look here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

While you can link Windows libs like kernel32 or user32, you can't link Orbiter.lib (or OrbiterSoundSDK35.lib etc.). To handle that, we Project Apollo - NASSP guys (and Ron Burkey, the author of the Virtual AGC, too) added the following exception to our license statement:

"In addition, as a special exception, the Project Apollo authors and contributors give permission to link the code of this program with the Orbiter SDK (or with modified versions of the Orbiter SDK that use the same license as the Orbiter SDK), or with other libraries designed to work with the Orbiter SDK and/or Orbiter Program, including but not limited to the Orbiter Sound SDK, and distribute linked combinations of these. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than the Orbiter SDK and associated libraries. If you modify this file or document, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version."
http://nassp.sf.net/wiki/ProjectApollo:About

I see where that comes from. I still think it is a bit strange to have to give extra permission to include other libraries that are necessary to make the whole thing work at first. Linguofreak's "violation against yourself" is right on target IMHO.

If law were completely logical, I'd say your extra is unnecessary. But as it is not, I can see why you feel better with it. Thanks for the example.

regards,
Face