Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[swiss]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Ok.

I think potential lost revenue would be very difficult to prove, if not impossible. Especially given that using a webcam is so much cheaper than purchasing TrackIR. For some, the webcam is a sunk cost, so they may only spend $5 or $10 on LEDs or nothing at all if those are a sunk cost too. So you would be arguing to a judge that that same person would have otherwise spent +$150 instead of using something that costs nothing. Then that puts all mouse users on the hook as well. Well, you see, there’s nothing to stand on here.

Let's try it the other way around.
At $150 for TIR we're in the range of a decent joystick.
How many of the FT users do have such a stick?
Yes they do benefit, yes they can and do spend this amount for peripherals.

Another comment on the fourth test. If NP wanted to, they could have chosen not to bundle the TrackIR interface code in games. Simply sell it as separate software package with a market price. When it is bundled, there is no value or the value it indeterminate. How can a judge make a determination on value this way? He can't. Since it is bundled, it is easy to make a case that the value is zero, again, since the game can be played with a mouse.

I can't see any relation to the problem, but nice text anyway.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by swiss

I see: if the NP interface is the only one available, you use it with FT.
It's justified because you got the moral "right" too have a second option of your choice?

What W-R wants is basically FT 2.3 without the option of being able to use the np interface.
Yes, that would mean you couldn't use in games like IL2 anymore, but at least there would be nothing left to argue about and this discussion could finally end.

It's obvious what he wants, he's perfectly entitled to his opinion and until we hear otherwise from a qualified lawyer it could or couldn't stand in court, but for the majority of people who are looking at the big picture the issue is not the legalities but the actual usability: we can't let the availability of alternative forms of head tracking in general (besides FT) to rest on that one point of FT doing things the way it does.

If we do, the FT debate will only serve as a "trojan horse" to block all alternatives by trying to make the developer screen each method for copyright issues, which in turn will make the developer not bother at all because it will be too much work. This is what i'm against, we're looking at the tree and missing the forest here.

The thing is, there's an even easier way to do it all and the developer totally "washes his hands" of all responsibility so to speak if they follow this route: 6 generic headtracking axes in the game options that the user can map to whatever control on his own. Get your favorite alternative headtracker set up, map the axes in the game to it (either directly or through emulation like PPjoy as a 2nd joystick) and you're good to go:

1) Is this legal? Perfectly.

2) Will it work with the majority of head tracking solutions without the need to add customized support separately for each one? Most likely so.

3) Will it prevent freetrack from working with it until they remove the naturalpoint emulation? Well, it's not Oleg's job to enforce a solution, so we don't care.

That's all there is to it. We can't expect the developer to individually screen every head tracking method for copyright issues just like we can't expect him to provide customized individual support for each one. However, if they choose to use an in-house generic interface of their own they shift the burden of dealing with the legalities away from them to the end user (that means us) and they also get a working product for everyone, problem solved.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by swiss

Let's try it the other way around.
At $150 for TIR we're in the range of a decent joystick.
How many of the FT users do have such a stick?
Yes they do benefit, yes they can and do spend this amount for peripherals.

The funny thing is that I spend less than $40 in a TM16000M, glue some pvc tube and have the better control rod available for use in IL-2 1946 or IL-2:CoD...

And I use Freetrack with a PS3Eye and can have wide range of movement with 120FPS...

I have the money, but I don't want to give a coin for NP. They have overpriced products.

About generic interfaces, it's the simple way to go, but NP don't like this route. NP like limited HT capabilities, like 3DoF for the "poor" and 6DoF with TIR, things that we all tired to see.

It's pointless this discussion. NP have it's basis in the pathetic atempt to restrain all alternative HT solutions, or talking crap about "hacking", or pushing game-dev to use only NP interface.

That's the way it's work. All can see that W-R and other NP trolls don't want to discuss REAL alternatives, because this REAL alternatives put in risk the market of NP.

[sigur_ros]

§ 102 more relevant.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

§ 102 more relevant.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

You suggest TrackIR interface code is not an original work, but an outgrowth extension? Maybe this is true since HT technology existed before being used in games by TrakIR. So now we have formulated two possible defenses, all to be nullified by the WTO (lol).

[Wolf_Rider]

who invented headtracking for the PC?

[sigur_ros]

...


Yes, computer software protected by copyright law, section 102 of copyright law I repeat here again.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

Yes, computer software protected by copyright law, section 102 of copyright law I repeat here again.

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Article 10 paragraph 1 of TRIPs provides that a computer program is a type of work which is eligible for protection under copyright law:

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)."


and

Article 27 paragraph 1 of TRIPs states that:

"(...) patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. (...) patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced."