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