Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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


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

But it's a hack.

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






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

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

[MadBlaster]

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

[Wolf_Rider]

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

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

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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


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

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

* Edit

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

Sega was a hardware platform manufacturer similar to XBox

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

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






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

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

[MadBlaster]

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

[robtek]

MadBlaster,

quoting legal text and decisions of courts here prove absolutely NOTHING!!
The same procedure with different attorneys might, and will, lead to a different outcome.

[Sauf]

Originally Posted by robtek

MadBlaster,

quoting legal text and decisions of courts here prove absolutely NOTHING!!
The same procedure with different attorneys might, and will, lead to a different outcome.

Well if lawyers and attorneys cant agree, HONESTLY what friggin hope do you think you blokes have???? page 66 ffs.

I personally hope it has both. But lets wait and see, going against each other in roundabout arguments is just losing support for both views imo.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by robtek

MadBlaster,
quoting legal text and decisions of courts here prove absolutely NOTHING!!

Tell that to Sega.

Originally Posted by robtek

The same procedure with different attorneys might, and will, lead to a different outcome.

It's been near 20 years since that decision. The DMCA provision that stems from that went into effect maybe 6 years later. You have a big hurdle to overcome.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

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

Sega was a console manufacturer much the same as X-Box, Wii, etc

[sigur_ros]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

That DMCA exception design to allow program-program communication, using what you have identified from reverse engineer already allowed under copyright, repeated here for third time.

US Copyright Law Section 102

'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.'

TRIPS version for NWO

'Article 9
Relation to the Berne Convention
2. Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.'

Also

'Federal regulators lifted a cloud of uncertainty when they announced it was lawful to hack or “jailbreak” an iPhone, declaring Monday there was “no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model.”'