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