1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[Letum]

Not a single line of NP's software is distributed with freetrack.

It does make use of NP's old interface, but only in the same way that your
mouse uses microsoft's interface or your joystick uses 1C's interface when
you play IL2.

[MikkOwl]

Wolf Rider, thanks for the excellent large amount of information concerning some of NaturalPoint's positions.

From what I understand from skim/reading through these last posts, NaturalPoint was first objecting that FreeTrack used NP code in it's distribution. That is a fair argument considering today's silly laws.

But then if FreeTrack does not distribute their code, and only uses whatever is available from the softwares installed on a user's computer, I do not think there is any fair claim of foul play. Users can do what they want with their software and hardware as far as I am concerned.

If I write a program that can talk with games that use NaturalPoint-made API's and play games like that with headtracking, it is completely absurd if they said "no, you have to pay us 270 dollars to play the game you bought in that way". It is none of their business. I will supply analogies:

1. Not allowing people who don't buy Adidas latest shoes to interface with (play) a basketball game - that they bought, because Adidas is a sponsor of that game.
2. Not allowing people who are of asian ethnicity to play a game, because sponsors of that game don't think asians should be allowed to have fun with that game (that they bought) (yes maybe racist, but it's the concept that counts here, not the other details).
3. Not allowing someone to go to the bathroom because some 'license' involved in buying a game said so.

It's all BS nonsense. Licenses try to replace the concept of owning what you buy, to ridiculous levels. If NP are scared someone will make use of software distributed freely, for their own non-commercial purposes, then they should require three different dongles, invasive anti-use malware and require one to be online at all times to do anything with the code they made (constant checking hardware so that no webcam etc is connected) - or just not distribute it at all and keep it to themselves.

[julian265]

EDIT - Mikk - you beat me to the analogies! but your post wasn't there when I started

Here's an analogy of the situation.

Some games would only talk to a tracker that sounds like it's TIR. So freetrack talks to games "like TIR" to get around it.

Whether we think that it's a "rip off" or not is one thing - but this situation would not exist if games accepted normal axis inputs for head tracking.

But of course, NP would rather this situation exist, than compete against a cheap DIY system.... If you apply the same logic to joysticks, people could not make their own sticks (which I do), because games would ignore them.

If games accepted generic head axis inputs, and all head trackers used it, NP would have absolutely no legal avenue for pursuing the other trackers, which is why they don't want this to happen.

It is ethically wrong that games should only accept input from one brand of device. It costs the game developers nothing to allow generic axis inputs, and yet they are often disabled, which we have seen in the case of DCS:BS to be a direct result of NP requests. I suspect that there are more games with similar situations.

You can say "it's just business", which it most certainly is, but some of us actually respect our customers, and have their interests in mind when designing products.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Letum

Not a single line of NP's software is distributed with freetrack.

It does make use of NP's old interface, but only in the same way that your
mouse uses microsoft's interface or your joystick uses 1C's interface when
you play IL2.

you see, that is what I was saying... 1c's interface for USB (which by the way, the drivers for which are licensed from a single 3rd party source?) devices and NP's interface... which is for NP TrackIR


Mikkowl, your analogies... 1, 2 and 3 are complete crap. You also seem to agree with your rhetoric on "dongles" that NP is entitled to protect their software and prevent any "unlicensed/ illegal" connecting to it, and you've also made an excellent point; "being online to do anything ~" - regarding pirating.


Is 1c, in your mind, also disallowed from protecting their software? should you it insist it be open architecture, so any punk can just come along and do what the heck they want with it after they've bought (cough not bloody likely cough) a license to it?

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?
If the game/ sim developers included their own support for other trackers, there would be no problem except any possible hardware copyright infringements, which is a completely different story.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Mikkowl, you're analogies... 1, 2 and 3 are complete crap. You also seem to agree with your rhetoric on "dangles" that NP is entitled to protect their software and prevent any "unlicensed/ illegal" connecting to it.

"Dongles", not dangles. Also, you just said that I am analogies!

Why are the analogies crap? Doesn't the companies in those examples have a right to protect their software then if NP can refer to the same reasons?

You misunderstand the differences in the rhetoric - they have a right to try to stop people from using it by implementing stopping measures in the software itself. The question then of course is - who would want to use it? And then, I also think it's completely OK if someone managed to use it despite the triple dongle, invasive malware and internet requirement protection. All it says it that they can put in these things, but not trying to use the state police power to forcefully interfere with what people do privately with their own hardware and software.

EDIT (because he edited too):

Is 1c, in your mind, also disallowed from protecting their software? should you it insist it be open architecture, so any punk can just come along and do what the heck they want with it after they've bought (cough not bloody likely cough) a license to it?

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?

1C can protect their stuff with as much crap they want (to make it hard for people to use it). It then comes to the point of how much people are willing to put up with to pay them money for them to supply a copy of it. This is an ongoing thing with different publishers and developers.

Selling someone elses work is not acceptable however. For example, someone trying to sell and profit copies of Storm of War. Or NaturalPoint's software.

EDIT 2 (Because I forgot to reply to the last bit, oops): It is fair to say they don't want people to do anything than pay them lots of money, but the question is how far they can legally and ethically take it. 'Hacking into' is no different than interfacing with something. Just because they don't want people to do it does not give them a right to stop people from doing it. That is exactly where my analogies 1.2.3. came in, they are no different.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

"Dongles", not dangles.


'Hacking into' is no different than interfacing with something. Just because they don't want people to do it does not give them a right to stop people from doing it.

1st point...
"When the argument is lax attack the spelling errors", eh?

2nd point...
you've killed any further credible input you may have had with point 1, but you've further killed off any credible input you may have had with just those two last sentenctes quoted.... It gives them every right to stop someone hacking into their software, whether you like it or not.

Why do you support hacking?

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

I don't think there's a case for this being about copyright. Copyright is about 'making copies' rights, not use rights.

Wolf, I think it is 'license' related rather.

copyright [ kóppi rīt ]


noun (plural copyrights)

Definition:

creative artist's control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary...copyright.html


where did your "definition" come from Mikkowl??

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Julian265.... would it be fair to say NP doesn't want others hacking into/ taking advantage of their software, in any form?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

If the game/ sim developers included their own support for other trackers, there would be no problem except any possible hardware copyright infringements, which is a completely different story.

Yes, but copyright infringements? If the law 'thinks' it can stop people coming up with their own algorithms and maths for multi-point tracking, the law can get stuffed.

[Wolf_Rider]

you obviously don't understand copyright then because people can write their own... as long as it doesn't replicate any other which has been written. If freetrack did that... and didn't access anything to do with NP, then no problem
even musicians now, are starting to be sued (and winning) for other musos ripping off a couple of bars from someone else's work (Larrakin Music v's Men At Work) let's hope Clemete's estate doesn't get wind of this , everyone will end up sued
plagiarism, with regard to books... the same

Software is no different.

You don't own the software, the developer does
You don't own the music, the writer does
You don't own the contents of the book, the author does

[MikkOwl]

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."

I don't think there's a case for this being about copyright. Copyright is about 'making copies' rights, not use rights.

Wolf, I think it is 'license' related rather.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

1st point...
"When the argument is lax attack the spelling errors", eh? [..]you've killed any further credible input you may have had with point 1

True if I avoid your best arguments and argue that your spelling somehow affects your arguments (it does not). But I replied to all your points and did not indicate any evil things. I am a grammar nazi and you wrote some humorous things (you said I was analogies! ).

2nd point...
[..] you've further killed off any credible input you may have had with just those two last sentenctes quoted.... It gives them every right to stop someone hacking into their software, whether you like it or not.

Why does it kill off credibility? Arguments stand by their own merit rather than the person making them. I still want to know why the analogies are BS. And why does it give them every right? Hacking isn't evil by definition.

Why do you support hacking?

If we speak of hacking as in cracking software protection or interfacing with software on our computers without express permission of the original creator (instead of hacking into someone's home network and reading things from their private hard drives): I just don't see anything ethically wrong with it. It's like if I buy a car and then interface with the engine computer unit (ECU?) to alter it's behaviour. Sure, they may void my warranty which is reasonable. But to say I can't do that?

____

Storm of War 'will' support the latest hardware stuff, as they stated. And they do use TrackIR's with it in the videos we have seen. Being such a big player, I do think they can avoid any kind of bad deals like promising not to let anything else do headtracking than TrackIR. Most likely in the form of the native FreeTrack support.

I think the biggest evidence that IC/Maddox Games' policy is to support not just TrackIR, is that ArmA 2, who did special promotion for TrackIR on youtube now has native support for FreeTrack. They are also a major player and they could do it. Surely our Storm of War can too.

EDIT:

Copyright
creative artist's control of original work: the legal right of creative artists or publishers to control the use and reproduction of their original works
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/dictionary...copyright.html
where did your "definition" come from Mikkowl??

From thefreedictionary.com. I'll look up some others. Wikipedia too.

EDIT 2: The results. I could not find anything different in the wikipedia article than what is stated in the further quotes below

"..the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
- Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary

"The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"A grant of an exclusive right to produce or sell a book, motion picture, work of art, musical composition, software, or similar product during a specified period of time."
- The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

"The exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright on a work to make and distribute copies, prepare derivative works, and perform and display the work in public"
- The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing

"a person's exclusive right to reproduce, publish, or sell his or her original work of authorship"
- dictionary.com legal entry, featured on numerous websites such as clickandcopyright.com

It is clear that copyright is pertaining to making copies, and profiting from others' works. Common in Asia that companies actually make copies (physical as well as digital) that they sell, exploiting the work of others. Like trying to pass off locally made clothing as expensive brand label clothing, as well as selling DVD movies for profit.

But I think that NaturalPoint might have some support from evil licensing or intellectual property right laws in some countries in this matter.