Previous Topic | Next Topic

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-04 AT 03:15 AM (EST) by Macster (moderator)

If your not sure you understand you know the facts about copyright (as applied in the U.S.) read on.<<http://www.loc.gov/copyright/>>I'm not a copyright lawyer but I've had the need to formally obtain rights from a copyright holder for purposes of commercailly offering a derrivative product. What follows is the understanding of the law that I acquired at that time.Copyright is the protection **automatically** and **immediately** possessed by anyone who creates an original expression and records it. Registration with the government is not required, tho doing so makes clear dates, names, etc. which are important should legal action occur at any later time. There are a few exceptions: systems, processes, the data itself (as opposed to it's presentation), etc. AFAIK none of the exceptions are really relevant to the MSTS community.Copyright is held *in full* by the holder. What this means is there is no permission given to anyone else by silence, omission, ignorance, etc. The copyright holder must explicidly grant permission to others.Copyright protects the original work PLUS the right to create all derrivative works. As an example the release of a movie on yet another form of media is a derrivative work. If a studio has not yet released a particular movie on DVD they still have the protected right to do so -- as in nobody else can put that movie on DVD just because the studio hasn't gotten around to it yet.Copyright law does provide a bit of wiggle room for others to reproduce someone else's work -- it's called fair use. Examples include quotes and/or visual equivalent to quotes (e.g., used in a review). Not included in fair use is changing the original work and getting copyright on the changes.Copyright is not the same as Trademark. For example, a game company can get a Trademark on the name Monopoly as applied to a game. It's not a copyright nor does it preclude using that word elsewhere.Copyright does not cover data, obvious facts, systems, or processes. The best example is, again, the game Monopoly. Any person can publish their own game design/system that plays exactly like the game Monopoly. What they can't do is use the Trademarks of the original game, nor the copyrighted creative appearance, nor the copyrighted phrasing in the rule book. IOW, it has to look different, read different, and be named different from the original but your own written rules can describe a system of play that is exactly the same as the original.Copyright law provides for a public domain. This means there is no copyright holder anymore. Once in the public domain it cannot be copyrighted again. Works may get into the public domain when their holder places it there or when the period of copyright expires. By and large most items created after 1922 are still under copyright protection.The granting of certain rights by the holder may be qualified in any number of ways -- time period, non-exclusivity, payment, etc. Essentially any reasonable restriction the holder wants to use. Grants must be in writing.For the MSTS crowd: All shapes and skins are a form of expression that has been recorded and therefore held in copyright by the creator (or his employer or party to whom the copyright has been transfered). The holder must grant releases for anyone else to make any change whatsoever. Reskinning is the creation of a derrivative work and that too is held by the copyright holder (unless otherwise granted) **even if they're never going to do it**. You must have permission to reskin.Modification of released shapes are also the creation of a derrivative work and that too is held by the copyright holder (unless otherwise granted). You must have permission to modify.Copyright does not protect the original data of something. What this means is if you have your own source of dimensional data for say, a particular boxcar, you can create your own expression of that boxcar w/o regard to the fact someone else had the same idea before you and has released their own expression of that boxcar.
-------------
Personal comments: 'round here is appears to me most of the flamefests around copyright are mostly over pride not money. It might appear unseemly to make a fuss over pride but incontestably the copyright holder has the protection and therefore every right to refuse. No explaination is required, indeed, no reply to a query is even required. As for the 1922 date, give thanks (or blame) to the Disney Corporation who successfully lobbied Congress to change the law regarding time span to continue the protections on Mickey Mouse. I think it's an outrage but there it is anyway.Dave NelsonWP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 100% complete;
SP mainline, Oakland-Stockton: 20% complete;
Aug 1950

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Copyright, Swissie, Nov-06-03, 03:29 PM, (1) RE: Copyright, pwillard, Nov-06-03, 04:15 PM, (2) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-06-03, 06:33 PM, (3) RE: Copyright, Swissie, Nov-07-03, 04:35 AM, (17) RE: Copyright, Casey_999, Nov-06-03, 06:40 PM, (4) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-06-03, 07:05 PM, (5) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-06-03, 07:19 PM, (6) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-06-03, 07:38 PM, (7) RE: Copyright, pwillard, Nov-06-03, 07:55 PM, (8) RE: Copyright, MikeSimpson, Nov-06-03, 08:27 PM, (9) RE: Copyright, pwillard, Nov-06-03, 08:39 PM, (10) RE: Copyright, Casey_999, Nov-06-03, 10:34 PM, (11) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-07-03, 00:10 AM, (14) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-06-03, 11:30 PM, (12) RE: Copyright, MikeSimpson, Nov-07-03, 04:50 PM, (22) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-06-03, 11:56 PM, (13) RE: Copyright, lnghairedwizard, Nov-07-03, 00:50 AM, (15) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-07-03, 01:18 AM, (16) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-07-03, 12:11 PM, (18) RE: Copyright, plainsman, Nov-07-03, 12:28 PM, (19) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-07-03, 02:01 PM, (20) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-07-03, 03:00 PM, (21) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-07-03, 05:46 PM, (23) RE: Copyright, dansherman, Nov-07-03, 06:29 PM, (24) RE: Copyright, plainsman, Nov-07-03, 08:05 PM, (26) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-07-03, 07:58 PM, (25) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-07-03, 08:42 PM, (27) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-07-03, 09:41 PM, (28) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-08-03, 06:59 PM, (31) RE: Copyright, brucek, Nov-09-03, 01:04 AM, (34) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-09-03, 11:39 AM, (35) RE: Copyright, rgarber, Nov-09-03, 03:20 PM, (37) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-10-03, 07:13 PM, (38) RE: Copyright, Kip, Nov-12-03, 02:32 AM, (39) RE: Copyright, muskokaandtahoe, Nov-12-03, 12:07 PM, (40) RE: Copyright, Kip, Nov-12-03, 03:02 PM, (41) RE: Copyright, DTA, Nov-12-03, 04:03 PM, (42) RE: Copyright, tcain1, Nov-17-03, 06:48 AM, (43) RE: Copyright, brucek, Nov-07-03, 10:18 PM, (29) RE: Copyright, Hobart, Nov-08-03, 12:19 PM, (30) RE: Copyright, griffinmt, Nov-08-03, 08:09 PM, (32) RE: Copyright, brucek, Nov-09-03, 00:59 AM, (33) RE: Copyright, CGW409, Nov-09-03, 12:12 PM, (36) RE: Copyright, gnrail, Jan-29-04, 05:12 AM, (44)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-03 AT 03:38 PM (EST)

Very well summarized, Dave. Thanks & worth making it sticky.> Personal comments: 'round here is appears to me most of the flamefests around copyright are mostly over pride not money. That's one of the common mistakes: Occasionally someone mixes up intellectual property rights and commercial rights. Authorship & copyright (and similar IP rights) are independent from the question of a commercial use thereof. Full stop, the law is clear. It is up to the IP right holder to define less restrictive terms, for example by explicitly - repeat that keyword: explicitly - allowing for a non-commercial re-distribution. Any unauthorised usage of a good protected by an IP right is a breach thereoff - the only practical difference being that if the abuse includes a commercial re-utilisation of a protected product this is financially more "interesting" in terms of damage claims for the holder of the violated IP right.With regard to MSTS, less restrictive terms in the sense of two paragraphes above are frequently defined in the read-me texts of the add-on in question. Examples are omnipresent. Some read-me's on the other hand state clearly that the author retains his full IP rights and therefore explicitly forbids any modifications. This also applies if no terms on a re-circulaiton of the add-on (conditions under which to repaint etc.) are given: Without any further statement, the author simply retains his IP rights. Note: He does retain these rights, he does not only "wish to retain" them... Given this statement, the law is clear. Now we all know that some will silently disregard it as far as a personal copy of the add-on in question is concerned. If the person is wise, he will never give any hint to anybody about it, so the item in question is about as tangible as "Schroedingers cat in the box".While - similarily - no author will sue a reader of his book who changes its copyrighted contents by annotating it with personal remarks as long as this is for the readers own private use, these people will most probably slip away and be left alone as long as their "work" which infringes the author's rights is not published or being made public (e.g. in the form of a screenshot). That may seem unfair to those who obey the letter of the law. Yet, assuming or even knowing that others do infringe on the protected right in the way described above gives nobody the right to do the same. Which, again, some people forget. Unfortunately. Btw: No excuse for copyright violaters intended or given with the above paragraphs (holding authors' rights myself in various aspects of my "real" live). So remember, it is the same as on the freeway: If the patrol stops you for speeding, it's no excuse that others broke the law, too, and got away with it. You remain fully responsible for your drinving...Lukas a.k.a SwissieEdited for a typo or two

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

This falls right in line with what I mentioned in a previous post. Even if there was no mention of copyrights, restrictions, the authors wishes or even if there was a complete lack of documentation, the authors original work remains the property of the original author and a default set of "rights" applies. Lack of clear verbiage is not permission.Pride / Money ... nearly the same emotional response... Pete Willard


http://www.trainsimstuff.com for beta releases, fonts, and project news.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I just love armchair lawyers! They know bugger all.I will give you one example:Every payware route I have bought, has stuff from the original MSTS/KUJU routes and sim. They are all making use of copyright material.What annoys me, is that people who produce great freeware routes feel afraid to charge a reasonable fee for their work. The Ohio line, the Skipton route, The East Midlands line to name but three. All are brilliant routes with great activities.
Then you get the Cajun pass and Kicking horse payware routes, which are somewhat boring, and a lot of the activities don't work. And both use original files. Work that one out you lawyers!BTW what do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?A bloody good idea! LOLDavid

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

David,just read the EULA's MS has provided. They contain the license how to use and the restrictions how not to use the original files. In a nutshell: None of the original files must be used in a pay-ware add-on while modifications and redistribution of the original files in a non-comercial way is allowed under certain guidelines. MS/KUJU therefore deliberately created the folder "Samples" in your Train Simulator directory which contains all the templates needed to start repainting, MS/KUJU therefore packed MakeAceWin.exe and a few other tools into the whole bundle, MS/KUJU therefore made a lot of the simulation in such a way that it can easily be modified & developed further, MS/KUJU therefore lets the speaker in the first lessons telly you that "you can even create and paint your own trains" etc. etc. Nuthin' ill eagle in here...An old saying from lawschool (no armchairs there): read the documents on your desk before you open your mouth. Thanks for reminding me Another observation: Why is it that those people which adamantly swear about "those bloody lawyers" are always the first ones to call a 1-800-sue-them number and claim 18 billion $ of damages if the airline has once more delivered their bag one day late?Lukas a.k.a Swissie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Casey_999
Charter Member

Nov-06-03, 06:40 PM (EST)

4. "RE: Copyright"
In response to message #1

so...in lamen terms, according to the information you provided in regards to copyrights and MSTS....85% to 95% of the train-sim library is illegal and violates copyright laws???

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Is that Laymens terms? If so, no. The majority of the the train-sim library consists of engines and wagons etc. The routes are somewhat different. While I do not have a copy of every route available, I would expect all of them to have some of the original files in them. I doubt Microsoft will be taking legal action though, It is difficult to sue against the original rubbish KUJU files. There are so many basic ground tiles in all the commercial routes, and I have never seen a commercial route with unique ground tiles.David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Shoot! You can't even get lawyers to agree on what's law and what's not any more. What's the difference between an arm chair lawyer and a real one? Most law nowadays is more about what gets enforced and if you got the money to afford enforcing it.But lookie here. Most routes uploaded in the old days were done as freeware for a couple of reasons. First, there's a mix of 3rd party add-ons and default. Even if kuju had allowed us to sell routes with default objects on it we still couldn't have because most folks don't want someone else making money off of their own work as noted in most readmes. Second, for a long time most of us worked under the premise we couldn't sell routes because of the default objects on it. And this was because for no other reason than 3dtrainstuff suggesting they had a call from Microsoft forbidding them to release their first T route with default objects on it. There was some concession that a number of objects like roads, track and pickups could be included. No one outside of 3dTS was privy to that conversation so the rest of us took what happened as gospel and uploaded our routes for free. Third, a good many folks didn't want to do their routes for money. I know I didn't. So that's our decision. If I don't have a problem with that I don't understand why someone else should. Lastly, I still don't know what you can and cannot do in regards to that stupid EULA. And besides, who wants to pay for those stupid default objects again anyway?Most folks figure payware should have a greater value than a freeware route. This is understandable. At the same time I can tell you it's no simple matter putting a payware route together. It's pretty tough. Even a small payware route is much harder to do than doing a freeware route. I've done both and I can attest to that without a smirk of exaggeration. One of the best compliments I got was someone to compare my Canton route up against Ohio Rail. Let me tell you I do miss the days of starting a route and having a whole library of goodies to reach into to populate all that bland green space with. On a payware route I even have to create my own bland green just 'to start with.'And listen to you suggesting those great freeware routes charge money. You do more fussing over everything you've ever bought! LOL! You're fussing over what is probably the most technically brilliant created route ever in Severn Valley. And why? Because they modeled the speed limit! Okay, I've had my fun, I gotta get back to work.
Rich GMy payware route has all unique ground tiles btw

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I have no idea.Obviously some creators have put things into the public domain and others have granted certain permissions so derrivations within those scopes are completely in the clear.And no doubt there is other stuff that is a derrivative item for which no permissions were granted. They're not in the clear at all.Which is which? Only the creator and/or copier really know for sure.Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Very True...

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Actually I find these sorts of threads are pointless. Unless you are someone like Microsoft you are unlikely to have the resources to sue someone for breach of copyright.In my own case, I created Route-Riter as freeware but kept the copyright and have now included content by quite a number of other programmers who have helped with code over the past couple of years.Since version 4, I have stated quite clearly on the opening screen and in the Help file, that permission to use Route-Riter to produce Commercial and Payware routes was dependent upon my receiving a copy of said routes.Since then, I have actually received one Commercial route and 2 payware ones. Yet I would guess that virtually all routes now being produced use Route-Riter in their production, and it will actually save Commercial authors quite a lot of money in trimming unused files from the routes and checking for missing files.Unfortunately, as stated above, to sue anyone over such a matter would be totally impractical, therefore such discussions are really academic. As for lawyers, they would make good underwater scenery for Sea View v5 Mike

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

So... to hades with human decency and we all start stealing from each other... well, that's all the input needed...

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Casey_999
Charter Member

Nov-06-03, 10:34 PM (EST)

11. "RE: Copyright"
In response to message #10

****Is that Laymens terms? If so, no. The majority of the the train-sim library consists of engines and wagons etc. The routes are somewhat different. While I do not have a copy of every route available, I would expect all of them to have some of the original files in them.
I doubt Microsoft will be taking legal action though, It is difficult to sue against the original rubbish KUJU files. There are so many basic ground tiles in all the commercial routes, and I have never seen a commercial route with unique ground tiles.******Dave,
Understand your point here, but how does Microsoft really have a claim when they give your the Editor and tools programs with the game. Which of course gives all you need to modify the routes. The question is the install.bat file the always comes with any custom route? This can't be a pirating tool. It copies files for a route to work for a game that you already purchsed and have anyway.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Microsoft has the copyright. If not them then Kujo. The fair use doctrine would probably allow you to reuse files freely so long as you didn't redistribute them. Which of course leads into the libraries here. In all likelyhood Microsoft doesn't care about the reuse of terrain textures, track shapes, etc., by consumers as access and reuse of those things by this community probably enhance the value of the MSTS product to Microsoft. It's a trade off that works for both sides.Different example is the music industry. They care a lot about copies and IIRC argue there isn't any fair use copy.But back to MSTS... if those protected items would up in a competators product, well, I'll bet you a nickle MS lawyers would be all over the other company in a blink of an eye.Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Mike,I've got v4 here on my machine which I installed in the last days of developing Canton (late June), and there's no mention anywhere of any copyright info you eluded to I can find. If I'm not mistaken, the release of v4 happened back when I was doing Canton, so, if I got my thinking straight here, there hasn't been that many commercial routes released since Canton. Are you asking by any chance that anybody having used any version of Route Riter send you a copy of their route? BTW, the only feature I used of RR was the world tile compression because when you do a payware route, you don't use any of the msts default stuff. Most of that except for roads and track get deleted. You know me, I did things the old fashion way with Ohio Rail so RR is pretty new to me. With Canton I did use the remove extra files stuff, just once, because I had some default objects running around that I didn't want to get rid of on my own. I think RR got rid of most of them. That's about the extent of my own usage of RR.Be more than happy to send you a copy of Canton if you want one.Rich Garber

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Richard,Sorry, my posting should have said since v4.1.12 - that wording was not in v4 as you correctly say, and it was only aimed at those who use RR to package their Commercial/Payware routes using the Write .bat option in RR which does not include your Canton route.I was not aiming this at those like yourself who have given hundreds of hours work free to the MSTS community, but to some who have sent me requests for additions to RR, then when their route comes out it is charged for. They were in effect getting me to write utilities for their route building and profiting on the results Actually there have been several commercial/payware routes released in Europe recently with several others under preparation.Mike

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

FWIW you're not describing a copyright violation but one of licensing. And I agree that enforcement attempts (on either) are usually pointless absent your willingness to spend bucks on legal fees. But it does seem that the SIM forums here would remove from the library a fileset once it is understood to be violating somebody's IP. And there is the tool of public shame too.Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Re: DTA wrote: "Every payware route I have bought, has stuff from the original MSTS/KUJU routes and sim. They are all making use of copyright material."I would like to know once and for all if this is true or not?....ARE or CAN Payware manufacturers use default msts terrain textures, trees, vehicles (cars in spawner), RR Signals and Buildings/structures in their payware route????....either by copying them via batch file or even including them on their disk or download???Let's settle this people??? I think every single legitimate MSTS owner has a right to know!!!Bill Bzak aka Longhairedwizard"The Keystone Works"

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LOL!!! Inquiring minds want to know, right? But just in case you're serious about this, nobody really knows the answer to whether you can or cannot use default objects in a payware route. We only have hunches and one telephone call to go by. See my post above.By the way, awesome steel mill shots. Super impressive. The interior shot was absolutely incredible!Rich G.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> Bill writes:
> CAN Payware manufacturers use default msts terrain textures....Read the Eula for the editors:3. COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the Software Product (including but not limited to any images, photographs, trademarks, logos, train designs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the Software Product or other Train Simulator Content), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the Software Product are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. The Software Product is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat the Software Product like any other copyrighted material.So all that says is they own the stuff. Then they add releases for what is important to us:Personal Use: Subject to the following, you may use the Editors to modify the Train Simulator Content provided that your use of the Train Simulator Content is limited to personal, non-commercial use on your home computer. You may share the modified Train Simulator Content with family or friends but you may not sell or otherwise distribute the modified Train Simulator Content in exchange for monetary or other value or in any commercial manner. Commercial Use: You may use the Editors to modify and add functionality to Original Content, provided Original Content is not derivative of the Train Simulator Content or other materials found in the Software Product. You may use and/or distribute the Original Content for both personal and/or commercial purposes. IOW commercial products cannot use any MS or Kujo files. Doesn't mean they cannot go ask Microsoft for that permission. Who knows, they may get w/o any trouble at all.Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I think the community in general has to continue to expect MicroSoft to exercise good judgement in enforcing it's copyright. For example, how may comercial products have been released that alias a default cabview. Obviously the add on equipment is a big benifit for MS just as it has been for Flight Simulator products. Imagine the difference in sales of FS2004 if you only could obtain the default aircraft?
My pet peeve is when someone copies a default .eng file and only changes the name and then claims a copyright on it.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> My pet peeve is when someone copies a default .eng file and only changes the name and then claims a copyright on it. It's not valid because it's a) a derrivative product and b) there in almost every case there is no creativity involved -- changing some initials and numbers is not creative, it's just data and data is not copyrightable. Calling it "Jeannette's Tiny Heiny" does involve creativity but is it enough? I dunno.A different example tho is a reskinning. If you do all the artwork yourself that artwork is creative and copyrighted. But obviously the locomotive shape and other files are still Microsoft's.

Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

It's more complicated than that Dave. The question that plagued route developers wasn't whether we could distribute default objects or not, but if you could include a default object on a distributed route. Remember, typically a downloaded route doesn't come packaged with default objects. Rather we use a dos batch file to copy files from one folder on the user's hard drive to another folder and then the object is called via the world file. The point being is what drove us all crazy was how can something that's on the user's hard drive be consider an infringement just because it's called? That's a rhetorical question, btw. With the discussion on intellectual copyright since, I think we all have a better understanding of this mess. But back then we didn't, and hence with much pouting and shouting, we abided by the spirit of the discussion and you don't typically see routes from payware outfits having default objects on it. Not that we agreed with it, we just did the prudent thing and nobody challenged the consensus.Things have changed since. Now, having done my own payware route and made my own objects, I wouldn't want to use a default object again. So the argument now is kinda mute. But the whole issue was an obstacle and why payware routes are still today very difficult to produce and maybe why MSTS will never see the popularity the flight sims do. We have a sim that gives us the potential to do more, but also the legal liability which invariably will be the reason why we have less.Rich G

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I don't think I was that fussy about the Severn Valley route, Rich. I have been on it quite a few times for real with the family and we have all enjoyed it. While it is not my cup of tea personally, I did say the trains on their own were worth the money. The track has some obvious errors, which I have not mentioned before. Perhaps, as one of the beta testers, you should have seen it! LOL!I like activities, both creating and playing them. Currently,I am using most of the Severn Valley trains to make and change activities on other routes. I have no idea if it is legal or not, but I enjoy it.My original statement suggested that some some of the best freeware routes should have been payware, including your Bo Diddley. On a legal framework, the original additions could have been the payware part, while the Kuju/Microsoft portions could be a freeware addition!And I still maintain that most of the commercial stuff I have contains KuJu stuff.David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Guess I might as well jump in too. I'm probably going to get toasted, but.....According to my attorney (who isn't a copyright specialist)if MS/KUJU allows you to violate their copyright on all of this stuff, that is their business. If, at a later date, they decide they are going to enforce their copyright, they will have a hard time doing so because they didn't enforce it originally. (Look up the Bayer aspirin case for one.( I know, the Bayer case was over a trademark, but it involves the same principal.)) By letting everyone copy at will, they then have little recourse later. They are basically saying that they have placed the items in the public domain. If you want to keep your copyright, you have to defend it.The way I look at it is that copyrights are like having a lock on your front door, it keeps the honest people honest. If you violate someone else's copyright you are stealing from him the same as if you reached into his pockets.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I think in this case the rather loosely enforced copyright actually adds value to MicroSoft since noone can run the add ons without the original product, and MS does not currently have any competing expansion addons. MS will sell a lot more copies of Train Simulator if there are hundreds of routes and thousands of locomotive types to entice every preference of user. The development cost on these additions is virtually nil to MS but they sell a lot more copies of the simulator. Under these circumstances, I would expect MS to encourage rather than deter most responsible attempts to add utility to Train Simulator, as long as the need to use the original base copy is maintained. It actually puts money in MS's pocket.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

That part about me being a beta tester for Severn Valley is a typo. Tim Court and I talk frequently about our projects on the phone and somehow I wound up as a beta tester but I just got the route today for the first time."My original statement suggested that some some of the best freeware routes should have been payware, including your Bo Diddley. On a legal framework, the original additions could have been the payware part, while the Kuju/Microsoft portions could be a freeware addition!"I'm pretty sure I get what you mean by this but like I said, while Ohio Rail may be of that quality, you can't yet still make comparisons between payware and freeware routes just yet. Here's why. Neither a freeware or payware route is easy to build. Each has advantages and disadvantages. A freeware route winds up being a freeware route when it could be payware for any number of reasons. Using Ohio Rail as an example, the route uses a ton of buildings I didn't make. Even if kuju allowed us to sell default buildings, all those 3rd party freeware objects contributed by generous folks to Ohio Rail aren't mine to sell. Doing my own objects now, I am able to sell a route. But I'm forced to create everything from scratch so it takes much longer to do a route. Most of the time I'm doing a route now, I'm not in the RE, I'm in a 3d rendering package. And this is key to understand. My Canton route has over 250 objects in it that I made. Most of those objects were not there at the beginning of the route when I first started out. You can see the change in the route as you move further into the route because as I made more buildings, I was able to have more diversity in the placement of scenery. So building up a library to place objects from is important. Even the other payware outfits haven't been around long enough to develop too sophisticated of a library. So there's a lot of catching up to do. Eventually they'll get there and the quality will go up dramatically. And if it was just objects, we all were up against, we'd be happier. But everything about the sim is like a temptest in the teapot. It's absolutely amazing how one sim can be so right and so wrong at the same time. Ed Hawkins just sent me an email full of quotes, and here's one from a Ed Furgol that sums up MSTS so well..."My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery,
people would stop dying." - Ed FurgolI just can't think of one thing or feature in MSTS that doesn't require a work around. I ask myself every day, why in the world did I ever buy this thing!?Rich GarberPS. I have no idea who Ed Furgol is btw.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You just got the Severn Valley route for the first time today, but you reckon its one of the best ever made? A somewhat quick conclusion! It makes the EMRR look like a high speed line!Ed Furgol is/was a golfer who won the US open in 1954 I think.You mention multiple inputs to a route. No problem there. The commercial routes all have many who work on various aspects of it. I assume they all get a cut of the profits (if there are any, LOL!).Tim Courts East Midland line is another that should have been commercial. Ok, so all of the work may not have been his, but sharing out the profits would not be that difficult. The same applies to Pat Daltons routes for Carlisle to Skipton. Several people involved but the profits could be shared.It comes down to marketing. When you consider the amount of rubbish that has been sold like Hi Speed trains, and Scenic Railways, to name just two, and the latest Japanese routes, it must be possible for good routes to be sold so that the authors get a reasonable return for their efforts.David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You just got the Severn Valley route for the first time today, but you reckon its one of the best ever made?You bet! And I'll stand behind it, back it up, repeat it over and over again until I'm blue in the face. I just got done running the route again and it is nothing less than amazing. Absolutely incredible!I haven't seen many other routes but I do know route building having done five routes now and working on my sixth. Here's a little of my latest:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=3714&mesg_id=3714&page=
http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=3695&mesg_id=3695&page=
http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=3654&mesg_id=3654&page=To see how good SV is, do the Canton test. Get your engine going ( I used the Canton RD3 by Dick Cowen), press the Shift + 1 key combo in the cab and stand ten feet back from the monitor. If you get to thinking you are watching a video, you got some impressive stuff there. And that's what I did with SV and it looks great! Especially when you get to the stations, they are awesome. I plan to do a write-up on the SV when I get the chance.Now it does say it's a tourist route so I would imagine operations will be limited. I didn't see much in the way of spur tracks or industry so the route has to hold its own by way of capturing the feel of authenticity. And man it does! And it should. With over 5000 photographs taken of the real thing and each of the members having to go out to the SV, that shows commitment. Even more amazing is Tim who did the route, is situated here in the US working for PI Engineering (makers of Raildriver) and in the US is where the route was made.Now I would imagine someone can nitpick and find a few flaws. I seen a few things that could be corrected too. But as a whole, SV is awesome! It's like one of those tin can special offer deals like you get with Castle Wolfenstein or a FS2004. It's a collector's item. Everything from the flowers, the staions (man they are gorgeous!), the stone bridges, the extra cars parked along the tracks to the animation (neat Lancaster flying overhead) and hot air balloons blend with each other seemlessly.And add to that the excellent quality of night textures and in the end, what's really not to like? Well, if you don't care for tourist railroads... but when I evaluate a route, I'm looking at the route and now what I want to see or do with my own routes. I'm talking technique, the atmosphere... (gosh I'm sounding like some goofy artist type now, never cared much for art majors, always thought they were weird)...It's a fantastic route, well worth having. Rich Garber

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yes, it is a tourist route only. It's the Engines and wagons I got it for, and I have certainly got my moneys worth there. Although the route has a 25mph limit, the sounds at 60 and 70 mph on other routes are just as good. The cabviews are the best for UK trains I have ever seen and the engine detail is also excellent. The route was never going to be my thing; while not a speed freak, I prefer things slightly above 25mph, but that may suit others. I bought it for the trains, and I am more than happy with them.David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Quote:- I haven't seen many other routes ......Have you run The Cambrian Route, Rich?
Absolutely gorgeous.Bruce.

AustRail

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> The question that plagued route developers wasn't whether we could distribute default objects or not,
> but if you could include a default object on a distributed route.I think it's fairly clear from the EULA that MS doesn't grant rights to anyone to sell or otherwise use their IP as payware. They're letting consumers have broad fair use for themselves and freinds (all of us here) and enabling commercial vendors to create their own IP.As an example: Say a payware route is developed that extends the default Marias Pass route in both directions from the original. But the middle isn't included. A .bat file copies all the stuff from the gap into the new route directory. I think it's very clear that while no MS IP was redistributed there was obvious infringement because the payware route is getting value from MS IP content. But if the same thing is done as freeware there is no infringement because MS has already given permission to use their IP as freeware.
Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

But you know what Dave? You wrote 'I think it's fairly clear... You're being just fairly clear of what is the same as what people were saying back then to coming from both sides of the issues. No disrespect intended but tell us something we don't know. It's like asking a doctor 'Hey, this pill you gave me, can I take it on an empty stomach?' And they give you an answer like 'You should be able to.' If you're smart, you'll call the doctor. We were looking for certainty Dave. Remember, MS wasn't answering questions about MSTS back then. They certainly didn't address any of our issues concerning the sim, editors or documenation, why should we have guessed they answer us about anything in regards to selling a route? I'm sorry, but we had much better things to do than waste our time with them. The best solution whether the net effect was right or not, was to just flat out and avoid any possible run-ins with them.But you missed my point. I wrote in the very next line that you didn't include in your quote was the question you referred to was a rhetorical one. "That's a rhetorical question, btw. With the discussion on intellectual copyright since, I think we all have a better understanding of this mess. But back then we didn't, and hence with much pouting and shouting, we abided by the spirit of the discussion and you don't typically see routes from payware outfits having default objects on it. Not that we agreed with it, we just did the prudent thing and nobody challenged the consensus."I'm not trying to rehash the debate. Back then IP was unknown to us. Or maybe better, we didn't see how IP was applicable to our situation. Mostly my responses were historical represenations of our thinking back then why we didn't try to sell some of the freeware routes a fella suggested we could've.Rich Garber

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Basically, you could have sold Bodidley as a commercial enterprise. There was very little that wasn't original, and what there was, only had a minor contribution. I suggest you finish your final extension to the Ohio route, and release it as payware. You deserve it.What makes me laugh, is the authors of the Cajun route, where a lot of the activities don't work, and they blamed the white out area to Kuju, when it was their bad programming. To sell that route was a ripoff. David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-03 AT 02:32 AM (EST)

You know...I have read your (DTA) posts for awhile now and have come to the conclusion (rather late mind you) that you are a bitter and angry man (If you are a man, or a girl. Don't know, don't care). Your statement about 3DTS's Cajon (not Cajun, thougn I'm sure that was deliberate on your part) was a little harsh, but it was your opinion...sort of speak. However, I have also come to the conclusion that you are a {man} of little intelligence and have no idea what entails in making a route from scratch. It takes several people several months to make a route like Cajon and Tehachapi. In my opinion, these 2 routes are the best in the Train-Sim market. Granted, there are several other routes that are payware and freeware alike that are pretty damn close or perhaps just as good. Having built a route myself (nothing so grand, but enjoyable to some) I can attest to the efforts and determination it takes for just one individual to do that. Cajon Pass was 3DTS's first major route sale (Not including Tehachapi Developers Edition). It did have a rocky start, but good reviews still came in. 3DTS in fact addressed the problems and fixed them as soon as they were found. Then...Tehachapi came along. Wonderfully done route. Good detail, etc. Cajon was a good "test bed" for Tehachapi because lessons were learned from Cajon. Tehachapi was released rather "bugless", or at least I found none in the route itself. There were a few glitches in the stock. I got those fixed courtesy of 3DTS. But...you got ripped off. Well my heart bleeds peanut butter for you. Just a sad case from a sad bitter, angry {man}. However, if and when I see your route released free or not and it exceeds the wonderments of other well built routes, then....THEN mind you, I might retract what I have said here. This post may be off-topic, or strayed away form the original premise, if so then give me my proverbial 30 lashes with a wet noodle. {sigh}If I get banned or reprimanded by a moderator...I can take it, but I won't lose sleep over it.Kip

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Kip, a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. IMO it isn't worth the time or effort to debate price or value with such persons.Dave Nelson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I agree wholeheartedly. In this case...I slipped up.Kip

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-03 AT 04:14 PM (EST)

Cajon fixed them? I don't think so. (no it wasn't deliberate, just a typo). They were selling the original Cajon Pass right to the end, with the white out error, and activities that just did not work, albeit cheaply. If I pay for a route, I don't expect it to have errors over a year after it was released.Some might be cynical and say, surely they didn't sell off the original CDs they had made, cheaply, with the original faults? That seems to be exactly what they did do. Unless the faults were never corrected. I have the 1.6 release, and I cannot find any update to that.I have both the UK Branch collection, and the Cambrian route, and both are excellent. David

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Commercial Use: You may use the Editors to modify and add functionality to Original Content, provided Original Content is not derivative of the Train Simulator Content or other materials found in the Software Product. You may use and/or distribute the Original Content for both personal and/or commercial purposes. Actually this statement indicates you can use and distribute the original content even for commercial purposes. You can't however modify it and call it your own!!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

What all you "armchair lawyers" are failing to recognise - or at least failing to acknowledge - is that Copyright Law gives the holder of said copyright the legal ability to sue for infringement if they so desire.There's a big, BIG difference between actually going to court and having the right to do so if one so desires.The point of this is that if Microsoft were ever faced with a situation which they considered to be "litigation-worthy" (if someone ripped-off MSTS and sold it under a different name, for example) then you can rest assured that the floodgates would open wide.However, they are hardly likely to trot you or I into court because we've included some of their files in the umpteenth update to the Marias Pass route.As I said, Copyright gives the creator the right to take legal action against plagiarists; it doesn't mean that they have to take such action.Bruce.

AustRail

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

If I buy a chainsaw and then strike it big selling chainsaw sculptures can they sue me because I didn't buy their "commercial version"?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Sure they can if the agreement under which you purchased the chainsaw was that you could nod derive any monitary profit from its useage (or words to that effect).Martyn T. Griffin
griffinmt@mindspring.com
http://www.geocities.com/tcmrrc/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Quote:- can they sue me because I didn't buy their "commercial version"?No.
They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.Bruce.

AustRail

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hobart
Only if you buy Abacus brand chainsaws,If you want a chainsaw you can count on,It's gotta be an Abacus! Gary S

42 year old future curmudgen(Hey you kids get offa my lawn!!)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I'm about to distribute the route I've been making for well over a year now. It was originally just for my own amusement but as it now includes a branch line which is run by a steam preservation society (registered charity) on which my wife and I work as volunteers, it seemed like a good idea if the route could be sold in the railway shop for the benefit of society funds with NO profit to me.I have now got round to reading what I can find about EULA conditions for the MSTS. I have bought a registered copy of the Clickteam installer which allows insertion of a license page during installation of the route and I wondered what I should put on this. Having read the editors EULA and also all of the letters on the subject here on the forum I am pretty confused!!My route uses some default terrain textures, buildings and vegetation as well as a lot of original material created with TSM. However, surely the default stuff couldn't be regarded as a rip off because it all exists in the Train Sim itself which has to be purchased in order to use my route at all. No-one seems to have put it quite like that in the other letters I think.I would welcome any advice on what, if anything, I should put in the license section or any views at all.Thanks
Roger (gnrail) UK btw.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.