Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Extreme_One]

WR I'm curious, perhaps all along you have been agreeing with those that are requesting native Freetrack support?

You clearly have a problem with FT making use of ("hacking") NP's interface.

OK, fine, but the reason the present situation exists is that there is currently no alternative for those that can't or won't buy NP hardware but still wish to "head track" in-game.

Would you still have a problem with people using FT if game developers supported FT's own .dll without FT having to resort to using TrackiR's interface?

eg. in 1L2FB1946 we could have something like the following in config.ini

trackIRUse=0
FreetrackUse=1

Would you still object to this?


BTW my TIR is in the post on it's way to me so I am not as biased against NP as you might have originally suspected.

[MadBlaster]

In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of the anticircumvention provisions added as Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, Congress specifically recognized reverse engineering needed for interoperability as an exception to the anticircumvention rules:
A person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program (i.e., purchased a copy of IL-2 computer game) may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program (i.e., interoperability of the Freetrack program) with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. {FN98: 17 U.S.C. §1201(f)}
In its Committee Report explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary specifically cited Sega v. Accolade and indicated: “The purpose of this section is to foster competition and innovation in the computer and software industry.” {FN99: Sen. Rep. No. 105-190 at 12}


Source: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1...5.html#secV.B.

But it's a hack.

[swiss]

I have to mention it again - if you want sue someone it's the devs of COD, they are the ones blocking alternatives, not NP.

trackIRUse=0
FreetrackUse=1

We agreed to this several dozen posts ago.
If there was a FT 2.3 without TIR support everything would be fine.
Problem is, this FT 2.3 wouldn't support IL2 anymore, as FT relies on TIR interface in IL2 - which is unacceptable for guys like lobi.

[TheGrunch]

Ok, I won't point out the fact that there was never any need to use an interface other than DirectInput for head-tracking anyway... I saw in one of Oleg's posts that CoD will allow the use of joystick axes to change head position, though. Which is awesome.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of the anticircumvention provisions added as Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, Congress specifically recognized reverse engineering needed for interoperability as an exception to the anticircumvention rules:
A person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program (i.e., purchased a copy of IL-2 computer game) may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program (i.e., interoperability of the Freetrack program) with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. {FN98: 17 U.S.C. §1201(f)}
In its Committee Report explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary specifically cited Sega v. Accolade and indicated: “The purpose of this section is to foster competition and innovation in the computer and software industry.” {FN99: Sen. Rep. No. 105-190 at 12}


Source: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1...5.html#secV.B.

But it's a hack.

§117. Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs (a)
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2)
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b)
Lease, sale, or other transfer of additional copy or adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner. (c)
Machine maintenance or repair. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if--
(1)
such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and (2)
with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
(d)
Definitions. For purposes of this section--
(1)
the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and (2)
the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.






§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USC § §106 and 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2)
the nature of the copyrighted work; (3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[MadBlaster]

Spamming now? Btw, the judge ruled against Sega based on section 107. Maybe that is why you posted it. You must of had an epiphany.

[Wolf_Rider]

Disclaimer
The material is intended to provide my view of the current state of the law protecting digital information. It is not being offered as legal advice, and if you have a specific legal question, you should contact an attorney qualified by both experience and bar membership to provide legal advice.

http://digital-law-online.info/notice.htm

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

A person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. {FN98: 17 U.S.C. §1201(f)}


Source: http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1...5.html#secV.B.

no where does it say, you can use what you have identified and achieving interoperability would apply to the sim/ game itself...

* Edit

but in light of the fact that interoperability can be achieved without reverse engineering, you're running down a the wrong road....

Sega was a hardware platform manufacturer similar to XBox

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Disclaimer
The material is intended to provide my view of the current state of the law protecting digital information. It is not being offered as legal advice, and if you have a specific legal question, you should contact an attorney qualified by both experience and bar membership to provide legal advice.

http://digital-law-online.info/notice.htm






no where does it say, you can use what you have identified and achieving interoperability would apply to the sim/ game, or to the TIR hardware itself, provided there are no no infringements

Obviously, there's no point in discussing anymore if you are just going to make stuff up. Have fun spamming away the truth in your quest for the moral highground.

[MadBlaster]

Before I leave, remember 20 or so pages back you seemed to know that copy rights applies to software, not hardware. So it is obvious to me you are now being disengenious putting hardware in the arguement to spam the truth away. People can read the Sega case for themselves. It dealt with the reverse engineering of sega's software by a commercial enterprise. Spin it all you want. You can't change history or the law.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Extreme_One

WR I'm curious, perhaps all along you have been agreeing with those that are requesting native Freetrack support?

I have said many times that games should be available for any and all aternative forms of headtracking.. this is the consensus reached and was reached very early in the piece, here is however a sticking point

Originally Posted by Extreme_One

You clearly have a problem with FT making use of ("hacking") NP's interface.

that is the sticking point

Originally Posted by Extreme_One

OK, fine, but the reason the present situation exists is that there is currently no alternative for those that can't or won't buy NP hardware but still wish to "head track" in-game.

Alternative forms of headtracking is a relative newcomer but hacking is hacking

Originally Posted by Extreme_One

Would you still have a problem with people using FT if game developers supported FT's own .dll without FT having to resort to using TrackiR's interface?

eg. in 1L2FB1946 we could have something like the following in config.ini

trackIRUse=0
FreetrackUse=1

Would you still object to this?

That is almost word for word what I have said all along. Sadly though other sims/ games have that option (as LoBi will advise us) but quite often that option gets passed over in favour of the NP software.

Originally Posted by Extreme_One

BTW my TIR is in the post on it's way to me so I am not as biased against NP as you might have originally suspected.

well, good for you