Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

I suppose it would have to be the north pole, considering you've taken all the space at the bottom of the garden.

what is sect: 107? its more than just the first paragraph

It is the "Fair Use" clause of the Act. The Act is old. Though, even with the implementation of the Digital Rights Acts, it still applies.

Anyway, I don't see dollar bills coming out of my computer everytime I use Freetrack software. There is no commercial benefit to anyone. The FT website is still up. The FT software, still freely available. It has to be this way because NP simply does not have a case in U.S. courts. Everyone is sue happy in the U.S., so they would do it if they could I think. And NP is in Oregon, so U.S. copyright laws apply.

[Wolf_Rider]

quote the full section....

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

quote the full section....

Please, just go to wikipedia or U.S. law book and check for yourself. Non-commercial use is just one of the factors that can be weighed by a judge in determining a fair use exclusion on copyright protection. I think a strong case can be made on another factor that can be weighed by the judge, but I don't want to go into that. Each can form their own opinion when they do their own research. I'm out.

[Wolf_Rider]

come on now, its not that hard,,, just copy and paste

[swiss]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

The FT website is still up. The FT software, still freely available. It has to be this way because NP simply does not have a case in U.S. courts. Everyone is sue happy in the U.S., so they would do it if they could I think. And NP is in Oregon, so U.S. copyright laws apply.

Freetrack is French, or last their homepage registrant is.
Have fun suing him in a U.S. court.


Edit: If you can justify FT using the np interface with 107 I'll eat my shorts.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 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.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Effect upon work's value

The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,[15] where the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In the aforementioned Nation case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled this factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has indeed enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[16] that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation.

In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market of the original work: First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work. In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Acuff-Rose Music they decisively stated that, "when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.[17] Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-pack for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.[18]

Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism.

[MadBlaster]

1) I don't know about tracking him down. Alternatively, they can go after the validity of the GPL/GNU license. Get the license revoked and the public won't download the software because they will think it is illegal. And if it is declared illegal, they can probably get the website blocked in the U.S.

(2)

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature

Yes, this is the factor in the fair use judicial balancing test I was refering to. Now tell me how my using Freetrack to play IL-2 with my webcam is of a commercial nature/benefit to me, the end user, or the Freetrack developer? Or, if you instead agree that the usage is non-commercial, then prove how this non-commercial usage of the TrackIR interface is harmful to Naturalpoint?

As to the fourth factor that you expand on, I had no idea there was a market for TrackIR interface code? I guess you buy that on E-bay. Remember, NP has no patent on hardware and their patent-pending language offers no legal protection.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

then prove how this non-commercial usage of the TrackIR interface is harmful to Naturalpoint?

It replaces their product while using their interface?

But you're right, I should ask in the NP forum.
In case I get useful replies, I'll let you know.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by swiss

It replaces their product while using their interface?

But you're right, I should ask in the NP forum.
In case I get useful replies, I'll let you know.

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.

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.

[Wolf_Rider]

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.

you just proved it


*Edit

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."

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)."

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

you just proved it


*Edit



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)."

Whatever floats your NWO boat.