I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round (Speed)
and noticed that there are several instances of copyright music being used
without permission.

What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round
> (Speed) and noticed that there are several instances of copyright
> music being used without permission.
> 
> What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).

Two ways for the judges to deal with this:

1)  View animations with the sound turned off.  I already judge the
anims this way (since judges are supposed to ignore sound).

2) Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare of
1-1-1 to every violating entry.  I already plan to do this if I see a
copyright violation in the visual media.

The administrators could reject the entries for being in violation of
the rules.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3E290C7E.5A31CE76@hotmail.com...
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round
> > (Speed) and noticed that there are several instances of copyright
> > music being used without permission.
> >
> > What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).
>
> Two ways for the judges to deal with this:
>
> 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.  I already judge the
> anims this way (since judges are supposed to ignore sound).
>
> 2) Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare of
> 1-1-1 to every violating entry.  I already plan to do this if I see a
> copyright violation in the visual media.
>
> The administrators could reject the entries for being in violation of
> the rules.

Hmm, thanks John, I'll have to take another look soon.  I actually plan on
voting this round (I believe it's the first time I've ever had the bandwidth
and time available to vote on an animation round!)

Regards,

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.

  Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
  The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The problem
is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers turning
sound off does not fix this.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
>
>   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
>   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The
problem
> is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers
turning
> sound off does not fix this.

Yes, that was more my concern, too.

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
>
>   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
>   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not. The
problem
> is that the author of the animation has violated copyright. Viewers
turning
> sound off does not fix this.
>

<rant:hot button issue>

Who's copyright?
This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.

The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
the rest of the world.

Other points:

1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC rules,
for
anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.

2. Though it is customary in some venues in some areas of the world to
always acknowledge that permission by the ip owner has been granted, it
is neither mandantory to do so legally nor is it even peripherally mentioned
in the IRTC rules and guidelines. Who is to say (or who will investigate)
if permission has been given or that royalties have been paid?

3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to modify,
enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC. There is
nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted music other than
to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored unrequired part of an
entry.

4. Should the current state of the rules and guidelines change, I would
suggest
someone volunteer to collate and coordinate all the differeing copyright
laws
vis a vis public domain and be prepared to deal with severe
multi-jurisdictional
issues.

No one can authoritatively write about someone's alleged copyright
infringement
without specific knowledge, undertanding of the contradictrory juridictional
issues,
and without being a party to any allegation.

Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an alleged owner
and without a formal leglal proceeding followed by a judgement in court.

At most, if so inclined, an IRTC judge may choose to alert the ip owner of
what
they might deem to be an infringement. Making any statements beyond
expressing
an opinion that there may be infringement is not useful to anyone.

Notwithstanding the very recent US Supreme Ct. upholding of the
Bono/Disney virtually eternal extension of US copyright, the rest of the
world
is enjoying the public domain status of much music from the 1950's.
Maria Callas, a lot of folk, country, a few Elvis tunes, a whole lot of
jazz,
etc. etc. etc.

If one of our entrants from France or Germany (or other) legally uses what
is
public domain music in their country - just how are American judges and
entrants
going to object?

Finally - I personally believe original music mixed into an original IRTC
anim
entry is best, but I am not about to make any unfounded judgements about
an entrants use of music. It's not a germane part of the judging process and
there are too many unvoiced assumptions being made about the legalities with
respect to any individual entrant's home country laws.


Again - the admin team will have the final word on this issue

- if it is an issue, especially considering that there is no infringement
without
an owner's complaint.

</rant>

Doug Sterrett "yes, I know about the Berne convention and the WTO"

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:03:31 -0500, argus quoth:


> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> 
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> 
> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.
> 
> Other points:

> 3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to
> modify, enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC.
> There is nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted
> music other than to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored
> unrequired part of an entry.

The rules seem quite clear on this.  Animations rules section 3 part d:

>> You may use objects and textures downloaded from the internet or
>> purchased commercially, but it is not encouraged. Similarly you may use
>> other people's images as image-maps or textures within your own work.
>> In all cases, you must get permission from the creator of the object or
>> image. If you use such objects or images, you must make this known with
>> proper acknowledgments in the text file accompanying your submission.
>> You may not violate copyrights of any sort.

That last sentence seems quite explicit to me.

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

argus wrote:
> 
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> > John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > 1)  View animations with the sound turned off.
> >
> >   Ignoring the problem does not remove the problem.
> >   The question is not whether you can listen to the music or not.
> >   The problem is that the author of the animation has violated
> >   copyright. Viewers turning sound off does not fix this.
> 
> <rant:hot button issue>
> 
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> 
> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.

Since one of the people to whom you are responding is Finnish, I
think we know this already.

> Other points:
> 
> 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a
> complaint by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law
> or IRTC rules, for anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC
> entries.

Dude, we are not talking about hauling the copyright violators into
court.  Are are talking about whether and how to exclude copyright
violations from the contest.

> 2. Though it is customary in some venues in some areas of the world to
> always acknowledge that permission by the ip owner has been granted,
> it is neither mandantory to do so legally nor is it even peripherally
> mentioned in the IRTC rules and guidelines. Who is to say (or who will
> investigate) if permission has been given or that royalties have been
> paid?

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> 3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to
> modify, enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC.
> There is nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted
> music other than to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored
> unrequired part of an entry.

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> 4. Should the current state of the rules and guidelines change, I
> would suggest someone volunteer to collate and coordinate all the
> differeing copyright laws vis a vis public domain and be prepared to
> deal with severe multi-jurisdictional issues.

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?

> No one can authoritatively write about someone's alleged copyright
> infringement without specific knowledge,

You are.  You're saying it's okay.

> Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an alleged
> owner and without a formal legal proceeding followed by a judgement in
> court.

This is as absurd as saying that there was no robbery because the
victim didn't file a police report.

> Notwithstanding the very recent US Supreme Ct. upholding of the
> Bono/Disney virtually eternal extension of US copyright,

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?  If it is illegal anywhere, it is prohibited in
the IRTC.

> If one of our entrants from France or Germany (or other) legally uses
> what is public domain music in their country - just how are American
> judges and entrants going to object?

Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
you not understand?  If it is illegal anywhere, it is prohibited in
the IRTC.

> Finally - I personally believe original music mixed into an original
> IRTC anim entry is best, but I am not about to make any unfounded
> judgements about an entrants use of music. It's not a germane part of
> the judging process and there are too many unvoiced assumptions being
> made about the legalities with respect to any individual entrant's
> home country laws.

And the biggest assumption is one that you're making:  That an abuse
by one entrant won't get the whole IRTC dragged into copyright court.

The IRTC should amend the rule on use of IP to state that all material
not created by the entrant must be declared in the .TXT file that comes
with the entry, and that all permissions to use material created by
others must include permission to borrow for commerical use (since
IRTC CD-ROMs are sold).

> - if it is an issue, especially considering that there is no
> infringement without an owner's complaint.

And no rape without a police report by the victim.  Sheesh.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
> Who's copyright?
> This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.

> The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> the rest of the world.

  I don't know of many musical art which is copyrighted in the USA and not
copyrighted anywhere else.

> 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
> by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC rules,
> for
> anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.

  You seem to completely miss the point.
  It's not about pursuing the copyright violators. It's about avoiding
the IRTC admins from being sued because they are distributing copyrighted
material on their web server.
  Do you think that they are willing to take that risk?

  That's why there's a clear clausule in the IRTC rules that no copyrighted
material whatsoever may be used in the entries.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"argus" <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote in message news:3e29f965@news.povray.org...

> Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an
> alleged owner and without a formal leglal proceeding followed
> by a judgement in court.

Any group of persons can say, "You can only upload things on my server on
the condition that it doesn't even make me think about copyright issues."
They have the right to say keep the rubbish off my server.  You don't have
the right to say, Take it unless You're sued or I'll sue you.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in 
news:3E2A6554.419F9EB2@hotmail.com:

> Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
> you not understand?  
> 

If you want a Bill Clinton inspired answer:

   'Depends on how you define the meaning of the word "violate"'

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:12:46 +0100, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>2) Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare
                                                               --^--

Heh, nice typo :)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] gtenet...
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:03:31 -0500, argus quoth:
>
>
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:3e294b0b@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Who's copyright?
> > This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> >
> > The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> > the rest of the world.
> >
> > Other points:
>
> > 3. It is, and always will be, the prerogative of the admin team to
> > modify, enhance, change or otherwise express the rules of the IRTC.
> > There is nothing, at present, that addresses the use of copyrighted
> > music other than to suggest it is an unnecessary and likely ignored
> > unrequired part of an entry.
>
> The rules seem quite clear on this.  Animations rules section 3 part d:
>
> >> You may use objects and textures downloaded from the internet or
> >> purchased commercially, but it is not encouraged. Similarly you may use
> >> other people's images as image-maps or textures within your own work.
> >> In all cases, you must get permission from the creator of the object or
> >> image. If you use such objects or images, you must make this known with
> >> proper acknowledgments in the text file accompanying your submission.
> >> You may not violate copyrights of any sort.
>
> That last sentence seems quite explicit to me.
>

Explicit on the surface, but if someone raises the question about copyright,
then how does any reasonable person determine the issue? Is it acceptable
to just assume violation and assign a <1,1,1> and encourage all voters
to do the same?

Making an accusation and proceeding blindly to punishment is not
acceptable. Those who have a penchant for assuming guilt before
sufficiently informing themselves of any available facts need to
rexamine their attitudes.

I tried to point out that the reality of copyright violation is not a simple
matter and raising the issue should only have been done AFTER

1. maybe asking the entrant if they had permission
2. determining if the used work may or may not be in the public
domain according to the entrants home laws

and several other points.

IANAL and all that, but I think an attempt to deal reasonably with
unfounded accusations of copyright violation should involve more
than merely accepting someone's blind finger-pointing and attempt
to influence a vote.

Copyright violation is not a simple subject and we owe it to ourselves
to not deal with the subject in a ham handed and oblivious manner.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e2a9535@news.povray.org...
> argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
> > Who's copyright?
> > This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
>
> > The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> > the rest of the world.
>
>   I don't know of many musical art which is copyrighted in the USA and not
> copyrighted anywhere else.
>

I did point out several bodies of work that are now in the public domain in
most of Europe and Scandinavia. (Maria Callas, a lot of fifities jazz,
early rock and roll, folk, etc.) That was my point. The person accusing an
entrant of coypyright violation didn't bother checking any facts. There may
be violation, but at this point no one can have any confidence in the
accuracy of the accusation.

> > 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> > property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a complaint
> > by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law or IRTC
rules,
> > for
> > anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC entries.
>
>   You seem to completely miss the point.
>   It's not about pursuing the copyright violators. It's about avoiding
> the IRTC admins from being sued because they are distributing copyrighted
> material on their web server.
>   Do you think that they are willing to take that risk?
>

No, I'm not missing the point. I am trying to get a few people to undetake
the difficult task of learning how to make a basis for an accusation before
attempting to influence others votes.

As far as I know the admins can deal easily with a copyright infringement
notice brought by an interested person who has standing to make a complaint.
It is an everyday issue. Two points abouit that though - and I will
reiterate
those points so they are not lost in the noise -
1. You have to be the property owner or represent that owner to make a
complaint. The way the law works, even in the USA under the draconian
DMCA, is that online content providers (like the ISP servicing the IRTC)
have safe harbor protections that provide that simple removal of allegedly
violative work is sufficient to immunize the provider. It is that simple and
the admin team has no exposure beyond that responsibility.
2. It should be obvious, but it seems clear that finger pointing by an
uniformed person can not be sufficient reason to cause an intelligent
person to vote as the finger pointer wishes.

A small effort to determine any applicable facts would be helpful.


>   That's why there's a clear clausule in the IRTC rules that no
copyrighted
> material whatsoever may be used in the entries.
>


Is it really clear though? I applaud the admin team for respecting copyright
and I believe that the admin team would act appropriately when they are
either noticed in a proper and legal manner by an interested party, or when
a question has risen to the level of incontrovertible believabilty. In the
present case neither caveat applies. Is the work pointed at guilty of
any violation? Is the music used puiblic domain or not? Has anyone
even bothered to identify the music so interested people could do
a little fact checking?

Has anyone bothered to check the foundation for VanSickle's accusation?

Has anyone?

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)56590@ao:-)l.com> wrote in message
news:3e2b19a8$1@news.povray.org...
> "argus" <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote in message news:3e29f965@news.povray.org...
>
> > Remember, there is no infringement without a complaint by an
> > alleged owner and without a formal leglal proceeding followed
> > by a judgement in court.
>
> Any group of persons can say, "You can only upload things on my server on
> the condition that it doesn't even make me think about copyright issues."
> They have the right to say keep the rubbish off my server.  You don't have
> the right to say, Take it unless You're sued or I'll sue you.
>

What does getting sued have to do with anything?

An accusation has been made by one person who hasn't checked any
facts that an IRTC entrant's` work should be voted <1,1,1> by every
voter.

As explained elsewhere the admin team had minimal exposure here.

What is important is dealing with what may very well be a violation
of the IRTC anim rules.

If there is any foundation for the accusation I will consider re-evaluating
my vote.

Show me some facts - don't expect me to vote the way someone wants
me to based on nothing.

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3E2A6554.419F9EB2@hotmail.com...
> argus wrote:
> >
[snips]

> > Who's copyright?
> > This is the IRTC, eh? Not the AmericanRTC.
> >
> > The point is that what may be protected in the USA is public domain in
> > the rest of the world.
>
> Since one of the people to whom you are responding is Finnish, I
> think we know this already.
>
> > Other points:
> >
> > 1. Copyright infringement is a pursuit for those who believe their
> > property has been infringed. No action is ever taken without a
> > complaint by the ip owner. It is not the job, or duty,  by either law
> > or IRTC rules, for anyone to police copyright issues vis a vis IRTC
> > entries.
>
> Dude, we are not talking about hauling the copyright violators into
> court.  Are are talking about whether and how to exclude copyright
> violations from the contest.
>

You are the one making the accusation, John.
Make your case.
Provide some facts.
Show the way to a reasonable application fo the rules.

What have you done other than  point a finger, make an unfounded
accusation and attempt to sway other's votes?

Do something more than cy wolf and myou may persuade me
to change my vote to <1,1,1,> as you want. If all you do is
try to re-enact the Salem witch trials then you can not be taken
seriously. Period.

> Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do
> you not understand?
>

Exactly what part of put your money where your mouth is don't
you understand?

How can you justify, John, your apparent unthinking, blind act
of unfounded accusation of copyright violation done in a
short shrift manner with only the goal of influencing other's votes?

Provide some evidence or stop trying to influence votes.

Post a reply to this message

argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
> No, I'm not missing the point. I am trying to get a few people to undetake
> the difficult task of learning how to make a basis for an accusation before
> attempting to influence others votes.

  Right, you are not missing *your* point.
  However, you are missing the *original* points, as well as *my* point.

  My point (and I believe the original one as well) is that this is not
about accusing anyone of anything. This is about the IRTC team taking
the *risk* of a possible lawsuit because they are distributing copyrighted
material in their website.

  You are babbling something about accusations and votes, thus missing the
point completely. That's not the issue here.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3e2c1908@news.povray.org...
>   My point (and I believe the original one as well) is that this is not
> about accusing anyone of anything. This is about the IRTC team taking
> the *risk* of a possible lawsuit because they are distributing copyrighted
> material in their website.

Yes, that was my original concern.  It appears everyone else thinks I was
talking about voting though - I obviously wasn't clear enough with my
original post.  I was short on time and wanted to get something on here
before I had to leave, otherwise I probably would have forgotten about it by
the time I was able to get access to my computer again.

This isn't about votes for me (I only mentioned that I was planning on
voting in my second post, as I've never had the chance to vote before - it's
unrelated to this issue), it's about whether the material should be there or
not.

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote in message news:3e2bfe36$1@news.povray.org...
> What does getting sued have to do with anything?

I think the point here is the IRTC want to protect against being sued. It's
possible that one day the copyright owners will pursue legal action against the
IRTC for distributing their music, and that would doubtless mean the website
would have to shut down.

Now, however unlikely this may be, I don't think there's anything wrong with the
IRTC protecting against it. Though I agree that this should take the form of the
IRTC disqualifying those entries and removing them from the site, so voting is
irrelevant. It's not the responsibility of the voters to pass judgement, it's
the responsibility of the admins to actively protect the IRTC from what they see
as a possible legal threat.

Though I don't know why I'm bothering to point this out as you see to have
ignored the other people saying the same thing...

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Program ended abnormally on 1/20/03 8:56 AM, Due to a catastrophic argus
error:

[some snippage]

> 
> You are the one making the accusation, John.
> Make your case.
> Provide some facts.

Here are the facts:

1 - This is why the rules say:

[ quote from http://www.irtc.org/copy.html ]

    THE STANDARD RAY TRACING COMPETITION COPYRIGHT (oct97 version)
    ----------------------------------------------


    Ownership
    ---------
          The uploaded files are the original work of the entrant, who
    retains all copyright and ownership rights.

         The entrant represents that, except for any public domain code,
    the entrant is the sole creator of, and owns all rights to, the
    submitted work.

[end quote]

Therefore, any entry that uses material whose copyright is not owned by 
the creator of said entry does not conform to the rules of the IRTC and 
can be dropped by the admins.

2 - The songs:

2harps.mpg:  "Prelude" by Clyde of Triumph. (c)1990.  Possibly in the 
public domain.

amc.mpg:  "Magdalena" by A Perfect Circle.  (c)2001.  Definitely not in 
the public domain.

ferrari.mpg:  Possibly "Opus Four 4", definitely by The Art of Noise. 
(c)1990.  Also not in the public domain.

maal_asf.mpg:  The author makes absolutely no mention of the songs he 
sampled, but I could recognize part of the "Mission: Impossible" theme 
by U2.  Still not in the public domain.

etc...

Even if, in the animations mentioned above, the authors had received a 
written permission from the legal owners of the music excerpts, it would 
not make them the "legal owners" of those copyrights.  Therefore those 
entries do not conform to the rules of the competition and the admins 
should remove them.


> What have you done other than  point a finger, make an unfounded
> accusation and attempt to sway other's votes?

I do not think John was trying to sway the others' vote, but in the 
past, giving low scores has always been the preferred method of 
"punishing" rule violators.

[more snippage]

> How can you justify, John, your apparent unthinking, blind act
> of unfounded accusation of copyright violation done in a
> short shrift manner with only the goal of influencing other's votes?
> 

Unfounded?????  The above examples were all taken from either the 
rolling credits at the end of the animations, or the accompanying .txt 
file, along with a little Googling.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:00:33 -0500, Lance Birch wrote:

> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:3e2c1908@news.povray.org...
>>   My point (and I believe the original one as well) is that this is not
>> about accusing anyone of anything. This is about the IRTC team taking
>> the *risk* of a possible lawsuit because they are distributing
>> copyrighted material in their website.
> 
> Yes, that was my original concern.  It appears everyone else thinks I
> was talking about voting though - I obviously wasn't clear enough with
> my original post.  I was short on time and wanted to get something on
> here before I had to leave, otherwise I probably would have forgotten
> about it by the time I was able to get access to my computer again.
> 
> This isn't about votes for me (I only mentioned that I was planning on
> voting in my second post, as I've never had the chance to vote before -
> it's unrelated to this issue), it's about whether the material should be
> there or not.

The issue is the voting not the CD-ROM. If the team is uncomfortable with
including it on the CD-ROM, don't. If there is a complaint about what is
on the website, remove it and the copyright owner has no further recourse.

That has nothing to do with scoring the entries. No place does it say all
entries must be suitable for CD-ROM distribution. 

In fact the copyright mention in the rules clearly refers to models and
not to any other content.

There is also the issue of fair use.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:06:23 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:



> Program ended abnormally on 1/20/03 8:56 AM, Due to a catastrophic argus
> error:
> 
> [some snippage]
> 
> 
>> You are the one making the accusation, John. Make your case. Provide
>> some facts.
> 
> Here are the facts:
> 
> 1 - This is why the rules say:
> 
> [ quote from http://www.irtc.org/copy.html ]
> 
>     THE STANDARD RAY TRACING COMPETITION COPYRIGHT (oct97 version)
>     ----------------------------------------------

>     Ownership
>     ---------
>           The uploaded files are the original work of the entrant, who
>     retains all copyright and ownership rights.
> 
>          The entrant represents that, except for any public domain code,
>     the entrant is the sole creator of, and owns all rights to, the
>     submitted work.
> 
> [end quote]
> 
> Therefore, any entry that uses material whose copyright is not owned by
> the creator of said entry does not conform to the rules of the IRTC and
> can be dropped by the admins.

	Therefore ..... of course. As the belowmentioned entries have not been
dropped it is presumed they have determined there is no copyright issue
in regard to the competition for those entries. 

> 2 - The songs:
> 
> 2harps.mpg:  "Prelude" by Clyde of Triumph. (c)1990.  Possibly in the
> public domain.
> 
> amc.mpg:  "Magdalena" by A Perfect Circle.  (c)2001.  Definitely not in
> the public domain.
> 
> ferrari.mpg:  Possibly "Opus Four 4", definitely by The Art of Noise.
> (c)1990.  Also not in the public domain.
> 
> maal_asf.mpg:  The author makes absolutely no mention of the songs he
> sampled, but I could recognize part of the "Mission: Impossible" theme
> by U2.  Still not in the public domain.
> 
> etc...

	Music is code?

> Even if, in the animations mentioned above, the authors had received a
> written permission from the legal owners of the music excerpts, it would
> not make them the "legal owners" of those copyrights.  Therefore those
> entries do not conform to the rules of the competition and the admins
> should remove them.

>> What have you done other than  point a finger, make an unfounded
>> accusation and attempt to sway other's votes?
> 
> I do not think John was trying to sway the others' vote, but in the
> past, giving low scores has always been the preferred method of
> "punishing" rule violators.

	It is not clear rules have been violated. Rather it appears the rules
overlooked something they feel to be important to the CD publication.
Again, that is separate from the rules. 

	As for tradition, reading past comments suggests some downgrading but
not 1,1,1.

> [more snippage]

>> How can you justify, John, your apparent unthinking, blind act of
>> unfounded accusation of copyright violation done in a short shrift
>> manner with only the goal of influencing other's votes?

> Unfounded?????  The above examples were all taken from either the
> rolling credits at the end of the animations, or the accompanying .txt
> file, along with a little Googling.

Post a reply to this message

>>    THE STANDARD RAY TRACING COMPETITION COPYRIGHT (oct97 version)
>>    ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>    Ownership
>>    ---------
>>          The uploaded files are the original work of the entrant, who
>>    retains all copyright and ownership rights.
>>
>>         The entrant represents that, except for any public domain code,
>>    the entrant is the sole creator of, and owns all rights to, the
>>    submitted work.


>> Animations rules section 3 part d:

>> You may use objects and textures downoaded from the internet or
>> purchased commercially, but it is not encouraged. Similarly you may use
>> other people's images as image-maps or textures within your own work.
>> In all cases, you must get permission from the creator of the object or
>> image. If you use such objects or images, you must make this known with
>> proper acknowledgments in the text file accompanying your submission.
>> You may not violate copyrights of any sort.


As you do not seem to have read or understood the rules, I will not debate
this issue with you any further.

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote in news:3E2CB92F.1000808
@videotron.ca:

> maal_asf.mpg:  The author makes absolutely no mention of the songs he 
> sampled, but I could recognize part of the "Mission: Impossible" theme 
> by U2.  Still not in the public domain.
> 

Actually the author did.  He said:

     "Music was added for fun, using the SmartSound automated
      soundtrack generator that come with Adobe Premiere."

If the pseudo random notes sound like something else, that is normal.  You 
can only have so many melody lines in western music.  So it does comply 
with the letter and spirit of the rules, but that is the only entry with 
music that does.  

Tom

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 03:44:04 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:

> Exactly what part of "You may not violate copyrights of any sort" do you
> not understand?

	I think he is making many valid points. Try it this way. They sell a CD.
Whoever they are they are the responsible party is the one who collect the
earnings. The CD may be non-violative of the copyright laws of their 
country as interpreted in court decisions but may violate the statuatory
and law in other countries. 

	Is the standard copyright statement in the entry binding in all 
countries? Make the statement then sue under some arcane court decision
in one's home country of Lower Silesia. Although winning does not have 
a tangible reward intangibles are held to be of value which can be 
considered an inducement. As an inducement requiring the statement can be
viewed as coersion. An argument can be made that giving up something of
value for a chance at winning something of value is gambling -- consult
your local gaming laws. 

	That is far fetched but have you read the RIAA statements lately?
And they are suing with very novel arguements. Novel in anything courts
have not previously decided in hopes of winning at least one case. The
RIAA is in America. What are equivalent organizations doing in your
country? 

	Now lets say there is unauthorized reproduction of the CDs. The owners
of the works on the CD have reasonable grounds to sue the IRTC if the
IRTC does not vigorous pursue the offending pirates. 

	Again far fetched but no one knows what any law really means until there
is "much" case law as precedent.

	Speaking of case law first we assume there is a violation which puts the
IRTC at risk. If it is regarding the website, they have only to remove
the offending material and there is no further legal recourse. If such
material should be included on the CD, if the IRTC agrees to pay standard
royalties on each sale that is the end of it. Ordinarily royalties are
based upon their fractional contribution to the entire item. That
fraction would be the ratio of the music bytes to the total bytes on the
CD. The courts do not put up with vindictive lawsuits. 

	And then there is fair use. I recall a stills image with a movie poster
as an image map. Movie posters are copyrighted. One of the challenges in
modeling is looking like something famous like the Enterprise or a Tie
Fighter. The better the model the closer it is to violating copyright.
But in the first case it was a small component of scenery to make the
image appear realistic. In the second neither copyright holder has complained and
therefore it is not only fair use but likely in the public domain because
of the lack of complaints. Out-takes from the copyrighted works remain
copyrighted. 

	And a final point. Unless those CDs are selling like hotcakes all over
the world the IRTC is judgment proof. I would be surprised if there were
any profit at all after recovering the cost of conducting the contest
which is the cost of this website. There is no malice. It is intended as
a recreation not a source of income. The material was open for public
inspection for a year or more before the CD is released and there were no
complaints. This is not an obscure website as the monthly bandwidth must
certainly indicate.

	More simply, the whole discussion of risk is like a corporate attorney
trying to earn his keep and cover his ass giving advice based upon worst
case possibilities. 

	The solution? Amend the rules to prohibit anything soundtrack unless
wholely created by the person submitting it. 

	A final comment. The movie Heavy Metal took so long to go from the
theater to TV because the people who made it did not get permission to
use the music. Even Hollywood doesn't pay attention to the rules.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:43:04 -0500, Warp wrote:

> argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote:
>> No, I'm not missing the point. I am trying to get a few people to
>> undetake the difficult task of learning how to make a basis for an
>> accusation before attempting to influence others votes.

>   Right, you are not missing *your* point. However, you are missing the
>   *original* points, as well as *my* point.

>   My point (and I believe the original one as well) is that this is not
> about accusing anyone of anything. This is about the IRTC team taking
> the *risk* of a possible lawsuit because they are distributing
> copyrighted material in their website.

	And he is correctly saying there is no risk at all. If the copyright
holder notifies the IRTC of the violation and the IRTC removes it, that
is the end of it. Lawsuits are not permitted if the material is promptly
deleted. If one were filed it would likely be considered barotry which
could make the IRTC rich should the RIAA file it.

	The recourse they would have would be against the person who
submitted the material and they could sue for every penny he earned from
the creation and treble damages. Zero plus three times zero is still zero.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:35:38 -0500, Tek wrote:

> argus <arg### [at] npqrnet> wrote in message
> news:3e2bfe36$1@news.povray.org...
>> What does getting sued have to do with anything?

> I think the point here is the IRTC want to protect against being sued.
> It's possible that one day the copyright owners will pursue legal action
> against the IRTC for distributing their music, and that would doubtless
> mean the website would have to shut down.

	That is moot. The IRTC is now distributing it. The IRTC obviously does
not have a problem with the music at this time. 

	The issue raised was voting and nothing else. 

	Even if it is the most blatant pirated material, the IRTC has put it
online for voting. The IRTC as the creator of the rules is the sole judge
of compliance with the rules. They have allowed it in the competition
therefore it is in compliance with the rules. 

	As the IRTC does not consider it a copyright violation there should be
no voting reflecting an opinion contrary to that of the IRTC.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:14:20 -0500, Lance Birch wrote:

> I've just looked through the latest entries for the animation round
> (Speed) and noticed that there are several instances of copyright music
> being used without permission.

> What gives?  I take it this isn't allowed (it never used to be).

	Pardon if I am being repetative but I think this is the bottom line. The
IRTC is solely responsible for determining if an entry complies with the
rules. The IRTC has put all the entries up for voting therefore the IRTC
has judged them to be in compliance with the rules. 

	Therefore no one should vote under the assumption they are contrary to
the rules when the IRTC has determined they are in compliance with the
rules. 

	If the IRTC feels these were oversights they can removed them from the
competition.

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> The issue is the voting

  That's where you are wrong.

  It's a legal issue. Why are you people sticking to some "voting" thing?
Forget about that. That's not the issue here.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"simian" <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
news:3e2d0fc4$1@news.povray.org...
> That is moot. The IRTC is now distributing it. The IRTC
> obviously does not have a problem with the music at this
> time. The issue raised was voting and nothing else.
> Even if it is the most blatant pirated material, the
> IRTC has put it online for voting.
>

A server put it up there in an automatic process before anyone saw it.  It
has also only done so for a week so far.  IIRC most legal action would start
with a cease and desist order.  One gets in bigger trouble if one SELLS the
music, which would happen if the animations remain in the collection until a
CD is sold.


> The IRTC as the creator of the rules is the sole judge
> of compliance with the rules. They have allowed it in
> the competition therefore it is in compliance with the
>  rules.
> As the IRTC does not consider it a copyright violation
> there should be no voting reflecting an opinion contrary
> to that of the IRTC.


 Is "IRTC" some all-knowing guy?  I thought it was a committee of volunteers
with a Life and a day job, with multiple reasons for being a slow-to-act
body. They haven't been fully aware of it yet.

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> 	And he is correctly saying there is no risk at all. If the copyright
> holder notifies the IRTC of the violation and the IRTC removes it, that
> is the end of it. Lawsuits are not permitted if the material is promptly
> deleted. If one were filed it would likely be considered barotry which
> could make the IRTC rich should the RIAA file it.

  You don't seem to understand what "wanting to stay out of trouble" means.
Lawsuits require lawyers, money, time, and it's always a risk in many ways,
one of them being getting negative publicity.
  You might, as an individual, be ready to risk all that, but they, as a
reputable entity, may not.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> 	The issue raised was voting and nothing else. 

  "And nothing else"? Where's all that I have written? Is it worthless.

  You are a typical troll. You stick to some tiny detail mentioned
incidentally and make a big number of that, as if it was the only and main
thing ever claimed in the whole thread.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> The IRTC has put all the entries up for voting therefore the IRTC
> has judged them to be in compliance with the rules. 

  That's where you are wrong.

  Receiving entries and creating the voting page is mostly automatic.
Entries are not pre-judged individually before they are allowed to go
to the voting page.
  It has happened several times before that entries that have been for
some time in the voting page have been removed because people told the
IRTC team about them blatantly violating the rules.
  There also have been many cases where the violation has not been as
blatant as to deserve a complete removal, but so clear that it has
(correctly) deserved a penalty in points.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Sorry to interrupt, but i've stumbled upon this news thread due to a post at
irtc-l, and since my work (maal_asf.mpg) has been mentioned, i think i need
to clarify a bit:

The music that i've used is not "random notes". The SmartSound system uses
sequences created and owned by SonicDesktop, especially composed for this
purpose, to create soundtracks of a user-specified length. According to the
SmartSound license, one as owner of a valid license can create and use
these free of charge as long as it's inside a soundtrack, i.e. you can't
create "original" music and sell it as "yours". I wasn't too comfortable
with this at first, but dug through their legal terms and faqs and feel
pretty much on the legal side of things now. Since i'm a "content creator"
myself, copyright DOES matter to me, too.

That said, we return you to your discussion in process...

Yours,
Markus Altendorff

Post a reply to this message

"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] anthrosphinxde> wrote in message
news:web.3e2d574135986a2622801f9f0@news.povray.org...
> Sorry to interrupt, but i've stumbled upon this news thread due to a post
at
> irtc-l, and since my work (maal_asf.mpg) has been mentioned, i think i
need
> to clarify a bit:
>
> The music that i've used is not "random notes". The SmartSound system uses
> sequences created and owned by SonicDesktop, especially composed for this
> purpose, to create soundtracks of a user-specified length. According to
the
> SmartSound license, one as owner of a valid license can create and use
> these free of charge as long as it's inside a soundtrack, i.e. you can't
> create "original" music and sell it as "yours". I wasn't too comfortable
> with this at first, but dug through their legal terms and faqs and feel
> pretty much on the legal side of things now. Since i'm a "content creator"
> myself, copyright DOES matter to me, too.
>
> That said, we return you to your discussion in process...

To clarify my original post (as I didn't mention any animations in
particular because I hadn't had enough time to investigate, and didn't want
to go accusing someone who had made the music personally or had permission
to use it, etc), I was referring to the entries:

Rio (amc.mpg)

and

Alexander Artemenko (throttle.mpg)

Both of which appear to be using copyright material for which they haven't
stated they have permission to use or ownership of.

Lance.

thezone.firewave.com.au
www.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message

argus wrote:
> 
> > Dude, we are not talking about hauling the copyright violators into
> > court.  Are are talking about whether and how to exclude copyright
> > violations from the contest.
> 
> You are the one making the accusation, John.

I AM NOT MAKING ANY ACCUSATIONS!

> Do something more than cy wolf and myou may persuade me
> to change my vote to <1,1,1,> as you want.

You are exhibiting a chronic inability to understand simple
sentences in your native language.

Let's quote what I ACTUALLY said:

"Turn the sound on, and if copyrights are violated, award a scare of
1-1-1 to every violating entry.  I already plan to do this if I see a
copyright violation in the visual media."

Do you see that little word "if", mentioned in conjunction with both
recommended courses of action?  They say "if copyrights are violated"
and "if I see a copy right violation."  Not "if copyrights may have
been violated" or "if I get a wild hair up my arse".  Is this
distinction beyond your capacity to appreciate? 

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] anthrosphinxde> wrote in
news:web.3e2d574135986a2622801f9f0@news.povray.org: 

> The music that i've used is not "random notes". The SmartSound system
> uses sequences created and owned by SonicDesktop, especially composed
> for this purpose, to create soundtracks of a user-specified length.
> According to the SmartSound license, one as owner of a valid license
> can create and use these free of charge as long as it's inside a
> soundtrack, 

Sorry if I mis-represented the application as a random note generator.  My 
point was that you were in compliance with the letter and spirit of the 
rules, and should not be penalized for the soundtrack.  Especially since 
you documented it in your entry.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:37:20 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> The IRTC has put all the entries up for voting therefore the IRTC has
>> judged them to be in compliance with the rules.

>   That's where you are wrong.
>   Receiving entries and creating the voting page is mostly automatic.
> Entries are not pre-judged individually before they are allowed to go to
> the voting page.

	One is responsible for the automated processes one executes. 

>   It has happened several times before that entries that have been for
> some time in the voting page have been removed because people told the
> IRTC team about them blatantly violating the rules.

	Correct, the option is to remove it from the contest. There is no cause
for vigilante action based upon each person's modest understanding of
national and international copyright laws. My knowledge is indeed modest.
I would not suggest everyone use my judgement in this matter. The statute
and case law on copyright is a specialization within the legal community.

	Who here practices copyright law? Who is giving their legal opinion? 

>   There also have been many cases where the violation has not been as
> blatant as to deserve a complete removal, but so clear that it has
> (correctly) deserved a penalty in points.

	If the violation is judged not sufficient to withdraw it from the
competition then it is reasonable the aspect of the image which is a
violation of the rules, using the model of someone else, should be
considered by reducing the scoring in the appropriate category. A lack of
creativity being considered.

	In other words, there are three categories. There is no category for
copyright violation. It is not reasonable to advocate vigilante action. 

	A 1,1,1 score could be issued for having a Coca-Cola sign in the scene
as that is technically a copyright violation as it is created in the
scene as opposed to a photograph which happens to have the sign in the frame.

	A better example. By the interpretation being proposed here, permission
of the IRTC team would be needed to include the IRTC logo in the scene.
That is certainly copyrighted and possibly trademarked. 

	That can be debated as reasonable people can disagree. But should the
response of the pro-violation be 1,1,1 when the IRTC makes no objection?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:27:04 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:

> "simian" <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
> news:3e2d0fc4$1@news.povray.org...
>> That is moot. The IRTC is now distributing it. The IRTC obviously does
>> not have a problem with the music at this time. The issue raised was
>> voting and nothing else. Even if it is the most blatant pirated
>> material, the IRTC has put it online for voting.

> A server put it up there in an automatic process before anyone saw it.

	An analogy would be a bomb set off by a timer. The timer did
it not the bomber. People are completely responsible for the consequences
of their automated systems.

> It has also only done so for a week so far.  IIRC most legal action
> would start with a cease and desist order.  One gets in bigger trouble
> if one SELLS the music, which would happen if the animations remain in
> the collection until a CD is sold.

	The rules are regarding the contest not suitability for inclusion on
the CD. 

>> The IRTC as the creator of the rules is the sole judge of compliance
>> with the rules. They have allowed it in the competition therefore it is
>> in compliance with the
>>  rules.
>> As the IRTC does not consider it a copyright violation there should be
>> no voting reflecting an opinion contrary to that of the IRTC.

>  Is "IRTC" some all-knowing guy?  I thought it was a committee of
>  volunteers
> with a Life and a day job, with multiple reasons for being a slow-to-act
> body. They haven't been fully aware of it yet.

	I do not say they are all knowing. I say if they believe a problem
exists it should be removed from the contest. Leaving them in the contest
is continued dissemination of the material regardless of the automated
manner in which is first appeared.

	Vigilante action based upon personal knowledge of copyright law is
unwarranted and leads to chaos.

	If they remain in the contest then there should be no consideration of
copyright issues.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:32:31 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> 	The issue raised was voting and nothing else.

>   "And nothing else"? Where's all that I have written? Is it worthless.

>   You are a typical troll. You stick to some tiny detail mentioned
> incidentally and make a big number of that, as if it was the only and
> main thing ever claimed in the whole thread.

	There appears to be some sensitivity to the expression of a different
opinion. I have not presented your posts as worthless. I simply do not
agree. I have posted my reasons for disagreeing. You have cut three
paragraphs of what I consider to be relevent commentary to object to one
sentence. 

	Are we not all reasonable people who can disagree?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:25:54 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> The issue is the voting
> 
>   That's where you are wrong.

	There has been discussion of having individual opinion in the matter of
copyright law being used as guidance for scoring. 

>   It's a legal issue. Why are you people sticking to some "voting"
>   thing?
> Forget about that. That's not the issue here.

	If the discussion is a legal issue then I am not an attorney. Are there
any attorneys here who practice copyright law who would be willing to
give a free opinion?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:30:11 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> 	And he is correctly saying there is no risk at all. If the copyright
>> holder notifies the IRTC of the violation and the IRTC removes it, that
>> is the end of it. Lawsuits are not permitted if the material is
>> promptly deleted. If one were filed it would likely be considered
>> barotry which could make the IRTC rich should the RIAA file it.
> 
>   You don't seem to understand what "wanting to stay out of trouble"
>   means.
> Lawsuits require lawyers, money, time, and it's always a risk in many
> ways, one of them being getting negative publicity.
>   You might, as an individual, be ready to risk all that, but they, as a
> reputable entity, may not.

	As I and others have pointed out, there must first be a cease and desist
order. If upon receipt of that order the material is removed from the
website there is no further recourse. Any possibility of trouble ends
there. There is no call of any lawyers unless the IRTC wishes to contest the
order and challenge the assertion of copyright. Adverse publicity? For
making a mistake? 

	Why are you being so confrontational? Are we not just exchanging
opinions as laymen in this matter?

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in
news:3e2deeb1$1@news.povray.org: 


>      As I and others have pointed out, there must first be a cease and
>      desist order. 

That sounds like:

  If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it... 
  Does it make a sound?


The IRTC admins could just chuck out the entries in question at their own 
discretion.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:23:27 -0500, Tom Galvin wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in
> news:3e2deeb1$1@news.povray.org:

>>      As I and others have pointed out, there must first be a cease and
>>      desist order.

> That sounds like:

>   If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it...
>   Does it make a sound?

> The IRTC admins could just chuck out the entries in question at their
> own discretion.

	I have had enough. I tried to add some clarification and all I get is
grief. 

	So I leave you all with this. Literally hundreds of copyrighted fonts
have made their way into the public domain but still have copyright
protection. How many contest submissions both animation and stills
incorporate copyrighted fonts? And who is going to take on that exercise
in futility?

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> 	If the discussion is a legal issue then I am not an attorney. Are there
> any attorneys here who practice copyright law who would be willing to
> give a free opinion?

  You still don't get it, do you?

  The issue is that if there *might* be some problems, it's better to stay
out of them. Simple.
  Searching for tons of excuses is just searching for problems, when the
alternative of staying out of problems is so simple.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
> Adverse publicity? For making a mistake?

  It doesn't sound like a mistake if they have a rule that no copyrights
may be violated and still they allow such material to be in their website.

> 	Why are you being so confrontational? Are we not just exchanging
> opinions as laymen in this matter?

  It's because you sound like a troll. In the internet it's difficult to
know what is the tone of voice of people when they say something. They might
say something completely calmly and innocently, but since other people only
see letters and words, they might understand it as if it had been said
aggressively and angrily.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:39:26 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> 	If the discussion is a legal issue then I am not an attorney. Are
>> 	there
>> any attorneys here who practice copyright law who would be willing to
>> give a free opinion?
> 
>   You still don't get it, do you?
> 
>   The issue is that if there *might* be some problems, it's better to
>   stay
> out of them. Simple.

	Then it is for the IRTC team to remove it from competition and from the
server. Simple as that. As I noted elsewhere, if they consider it a
copyright violation then permitting it to be viewed and listened to
constitutes a violation in and of itself. 

>   Searching for tons of excuses is just searching for problems, when the
> alternative of staying out of problems is so simple.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:44:47 -0500, Warp wrote:

> simian <mik### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote:
>> Adverse publicity? For making a mistake?

>   It doesn't sound like a mistake if they have a rule that no copyrights
> may be violated and still they allow such material to be in their
> website.

	Which is what I have said. If there is a question it should be removed
from the competition. Questions regarding scoring are moot. 

>> 	Why are you being so confrontational? Are we not just exchanging
>> opinions as laymen in this matter?

>   It's because you sound like a troll. In the internet it's difficult to
> know what is the tone of voice of people when they say something. They
> might say something completely calmly and innocently, but since other
> people only see letters and words, they might understand it as if it had
> been said aggressively and angrily.

	It appears we agree of removing it from the competition as the means.
Are we both trolls?

Post a reply to this message