Anyone know what happened to AC Track Reboot, the site appears to be dead?
AC Track Reboot site gone?
- Thread starter chili pepper
- Start date
It sucks whenever real life gets in the way of your hobbies; hope all is well Jim.
Maybe the way to go is find the Australian equivalent of Lilskiand ask him to make the "definitive" Bathurst.
I'm from New Zealand, can help maybe. Currently giving one track a 2019 'reboot' with a 1m LiDAR DEM. Found a free 5m LiDAR DEM of 'straya, be nice to find something better tho.
elloLeo Kinnunen
Pin Head Racing
Well congratulations! And hearing it was you behind those tracks.. I have to say thank you for filling those gaps in AC track roster, as I said the lack of these tracks in AC was really painful and they have been more than welcome. And all for free. Of course if someone comes and claims copyright they have the right to do so.
Nice, I see it has an accuracy of 0.3m (95% Confidence Interval) vertical and 0.8m (95% Confidence Interval) horizontal. Would that be enough?
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws...ID2-C3-AHD_7386294_55_0002_0002_Metadata.html
Please pardon that initial premature posting. I've been playing racing sims since GPL was introduced. Currently I focus on AC in VR. I am also an attorney (U.S.) and law professor, with extensive copyright experience, who worked for 35 years for one of the world's largest broadcasting companies. Entering into one of these debates regarding alleged copyright infringements is rather like, as we say in New York City, "touching the third rail" on an electrified railroad system. With all due respect, many well-meaning sim racing posters exhibit insufficient knowledge of copyright law and how that law actually functions throughout the real world.
I feel compelled to weigh in here to support the rational viewpoints of Michael Hornbuckle and several others. Probably the majority of the uses of others' material about which people are concerned, certainly the non-commercial uses, fall within the concept of "fair use." So many tracks and car mods have been through so many iterations that it is literally impossible for any modder trying to work with them to gain formal copyright clearances, to the extent that any are actually necessary. Copyright law is extraordinarily complex, and the technical complexities often have limited relevance in the "real world."
Modders, generally for no commercial gain, have contributed immeasurably to our hobby over the years. Whenever I am given the opportunity, I contribute financially to their efforts. Frankly, several of the AC Track Reboot tracks are outstanding and I doubt very much that they have in any way materially diminished the ability of any of the previous authors, whoever they may be, to appropriately profit from their work (to the extent they care).
I would offer the following suggestions/observations: many theoretical "copyright violations" discussed in the sim racing community are probably not actual violations; while I am not going to get into an international legal debate regarding "fair use," "transformative uses," and de minimus non-commercial uses, it might make some people feel better about using some of the wonderful tracks and cars which have been the product of many authors and whose original "authors" have essentially abandoned them. Is it really preferable for a modder trying to improve worthwhile product, for no commercial gain, to cease to do so because he/she cannot afford tens of thousands of dollars for copyright searches and attorneys?
So my suggestion is: lighten up. Many of the sanctimonious exhortations regarding copyright violations are simply wrong, either legally or practically. When individual high school teachers taped the historical documentaries of my previous employer to show to their classes, were they violating our copyright? Yes. But were we going to take action and should they have stopped – no.
I'm writing all this because I think Race Department is a fantastic resource and I want, if possible, to help those who follow and support it. While I am prepared to be accused of being a copyright scofflaw, I think the concern over supposed copyright violations in the simracing community are dramatically (and often emotionally) overwrought and do a disservice to the wonderful modders who are simply trying to volunteer their considerable efforts and expertise to enhance enjoyment of our hobby. THE LAW is not as severe and draconian as some may believe. It is meant to foster creativity, not stifle it.
I feel compelled to weigh in here to support the rational viewpoints of Michael Hornbuckle and several others. Probably the majority of the uses of others' material about which people are concerned, certainly the non-commercial uses, fall within the concept of "fair use." So many tracks and car mods have been through so many iterations that it is literally impossible for any modder trying to work with them to gain formal copyright clearances, to the extent that any are actually necessary. Copyright law is extraordinarily complex, and the technical complexities often have limited relevance in the "real world."
Modders, generally for no commercial gain, have contributed immeasurably to our hobby over the years. Whenever I am given the opportunity, I contribute financially to their efforts. Frankly, several of the AC Track Reboot tracks are outstanding and I doubt very much that they have in any way materially diminished the ability of any of the previous authors, whoever they may be, to appropriately profit from their work (to the extent they care).
I would offer the following suggestions/observations: many theoretical "copyright violations" discussed in the sim racing community are probably not actual violations; while I am not going to get into an international legal debate regarding "fair use," "transformative uses," and de minimus non-commercial uses, it might make some people feel better about using some of the wonderful tracks and cars which have been the product of many authors and whose original "authors" have essentially abandoned them. Is it really preferable for a modder trying to improve worthwhile product, for no commercial gain, to cease to do so because he/she cannot afford tens of thousands of dollars for copyright searches and attorneys?
So my suggestion is: lighten up. Many of the sanctimonious exhortations regarding copyright violations are simply wrong, either legally or practically. When individual high school teachers taped the historical documentaries of my previous employer to show to their classes, were they violating our copyright? Yes. But were we going to take action and should they have stopped – no.
I'm writing all this because I think Race Department is a fantastic resource and I want, if possible, to help those who follow and support it. While I am prepared to be accused of being a copyright scofflaw, I think the concern over supposed copyright violations in the simracing community are dramatically (and often emotionally) overwrought and do a disservice to the wonderful modders who are simply trying to volunteer their considerable efforts and expertise to enhance enjoyment of our hobby. THE LAW is not as severe and draconian as some may believe. It is meant to foster creativity, not stifle it.
Just as an aside, the vast majority of 'copyright violation' talk we see in the modding scene aren't about the brands being used, but about the source of the materiel; in other words, 3D models pulled from one game and put into another.
That's the stuff people in the modding scene get bent out of shape over. Genuinely no one in the community sees any issues with using brands/designs from the real world, but takes exception to the actual polygons and textures being pulled without permission from one title to another.
Thank you. I do understand that. However, as another poster noted, it is ironic the concern is often less with brands and designs, names and likenesses etc.
I admit that, although I am reasonably knowledgeable, I'm not an expert on the making of video games. There are a relatively small number of major commercial simracing game developers. They are substantial business enterprises. I think it would be quite easy for them to police the content they were concerned about, send take-down notices and threaten further action as necessary.
Just taking AC Track Reboot (with which I have no association) as an example, it was up, open and notorious for quite an extensive period of time. If a copyright holder finally did became concerned, and it was taken down for copyright reasons, I am not opposed to that.
But there are many, many cars and tracks, in various iterations, that have been floating around for years, and "innocently" improved, which I just think some potential users are unnecessarily paranoid about, when the potential original copyright holders don't care (and/or there is no copyright violation).
Again, please don't consider me a copyright libertarian/scofflaw. I strongly support, and have been active in, copyright enforcement where appropriate.
I admit that, although I am reasonably knowledgeable, I'm not an expert on the making of video games. There are a relatively small number of major commercial simracing game developers. They are substantial business enterprises. I think it would be quite easy for them to police the content they were concerned about, send take-down notices and threaten further action as necessary.
Just taking AC Track Reboot (with which I have no association) as an example, it was up, open and notorious for quite an extensive period of time. If a copyright holder finally did became concerned, and it was taken down for copyright reasons, I am not opposed to that.
But there are many, many cars and tracks, in various iterations, that have been floating around for years, and "innocently" improved, which I just think some potential users are unnecessarily paranoid about, when the potential original copyright holders don't care (and/or there is no copyright violation).
Again, please don't consider me a copyright libertarian/scofflaw. I strongly support, and have been active in, copyright enforcement where appropriate.
By the way, in a perfect copyright world it seems that one or several of the people who designed a specific racing car have a copyright claim regarding any use of the image of that car (or skin) in any racing sim. (Tire brands/designs as well.) Certain racing drivers, or their heirs, may have a claim regarding the use of their names. Track designers and owners have potential claims regarding actual tracks being reproduced. How about the name of a race e.g. Targa Florio? Designers of advertising signs decorating tracks have claims as well. The strange focus on, for example, a Ferrari name or badge is the tip of the iceberg. I'm not pointing this out to be contentious, just to point out that, fortunately, some rationality prevails.
@daykrolik
It's not all about legality, I think that's the part you're missing. Some of it is, sure, but the majority of people's discontent resides in the morality of stealing someone else's work and portraying it as your own (or crediting the creator adequately but modifying/using his or her work without his or her knowledge). This is less of a factor when considering "rips" from AAA games, as their profit margin obviously allows for it, and the original creator of the content will have already been compensated for his or her work. But to steal from small companies or content creators who produce free work crosses the line for many of those in the community. That, not only the legality of the situation, is why RD has its rules for content uploads and why people in the community care as much as they do.
This is especially true for those who produce new content - we understand what goes into it and how we'd feel if someone took hundreds of hours of our work and claimed it as their own or used it against our wishes.
It's not all about legality, I think that's the part you're missing. Some of it is, sure, but the majority of people's discontent resides in the morality of stealing someone else's work and portraying it as your own (or crediting the creator adequately but modifying/using his or her work without his or her knowledge). This is less of a factor when considering "rips" from AAA games, as their profit margin obviously allows for it, and the original creator of the content will have already been compensated for his or her work. But to steal from small companies or content creators who produce free work crosses the line for many of those in the community. That, not only the legality of the situation, is why RD has its rules for content uploads and why people in the community care as much as they do.
This is especially true for those who produce new content - we understand what goes into it and how we'd feel if someone took hundreds of hours of our work and claimed it as their own or used it against our wishes.
I very much appreciate your reply.
Again, I admit that I am a lawyer, not a modder. However, the word copyright has been bandied about. I am guessing that this is a small community. When someone gets and wants to work with someone else's code, they try to find and contact the creator for permission to develop it. They either get permission or are told not to use it or, after trying but getting no response, go ahead. If it shows up in public, which is the whole point, the original author can point out that it has been stolen and demand that it be withdrawn. Often I see that the original author is apparently satisfied and credit is given. If the original author abandoned a project, isn't it worthwhile for others to try to bring it to fruition?
I agree that using someone else's work and claiming it as one's own without attribution, irrespective of copyright law, is just wrong. But sometimes it must be impossible to trace the original author (s). (Some graphic artist designed the Lotus typeface and logo. Someone came up with the original Lotus racing green.)
I'm just guessing that if all the strict principles of copyright, implied copyright, moral rights, trademark, rights of privacy and publicity etc. were scrupulously applied, the number of downloads on RD for AC would be about 500, rather than 9600.
Again, I admit that I am a lawyer, not a modder. However, the word copyright has been bandied about. I am guessing that this is a small community. When someone gets and wants to work with someone else's code, they try to find and contact the creator for permission to develop it. They either get permission or are told not to use it or, after trying but getting no response, go ahead. If it shows up in public, which is the whole point, the original author can point out that it has been stolen and demand that it be withdrawn. Often I see that the original author is apparently satisfied and credit is given. If the original author abandoned a project, isn't it worthwhile for others to try to bring it to fruition?
I agree that using someone else's work and claiming it as one's own without attribution, irrespective of copyright law, is just wrong. But sometimes it must be impossible to trace the original author (s). (Some graphic artist designed the Lotus typeface and logo. Someone came up with the original Lotus racing green.)
I'm just guessing that if all the strict principles of copyright, implied copyright, moral rights, trademark, rights of privacy and publicity etc. were scrupulously applied, the number of downloads on RD for AC would be about 500, rather than 9600.
As a modder I value your input daykrolik, thanks!
Would be nice to see more clearly-labelled open source content, might help reduce the confusion. Thinking about releasing mine under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. Given that the LiDAR I'm using is CC it would seem to follow.
If anyone wants to get together on an open-source Bathurst reboot they're welcome to PM me, got GitLab and the straya 5m LiDAR DEM, looking at the point cloud now (cheers for posting that), be nice to find a DEM rather than reinvent wheels tho
Would be nice to see more clearly-labelled open source content, might help reduce the confusion. Thinking about releasing mine under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. Given that the LiDAR I'm using is CC it would seem to follow.
If anyone wants to get together on an open-source Bathurst reboot they're welcome to PM me, got GitLab and the straya 5m LiDAR DEM, looking at the point cloud now (cheers for posting that), be nice to find a DEM rather than reinvent wheels tho
Metla
Premium
Great reading, Thanks for your input DayKrolic, So often I'm reading all these permission and copyright debates on sim-racing forums and all that sticks out to me is that no one involved seems to have any level of knowledge or expertise on the matter to back up the claims being made. And even when people get a cease and desist we end up with 20 different versions of events.
People need to chill the feck out.
People need to chill the feck out.
No need, all of the tracks are still available. We are just going to keep ignoring people like mclarenf1papa who wrongly claim that people are "stealing someone else's work and portraying it as your own". They aren't doing that at all, they distributing content and disclosing exactly who it came from, or labeling it as source unknown. And we want the fixed versions, not the originals with all the problems hense these supposed thieves deserve credit too. If you take a track from fm7 and adapt it to AC (costing no one nothing), why the hell should you care unless you have a severely misdirected sense of morality. As he said "their profit margin obviously allows for it" No, there is no impact to their profit at all.
You made a track yourself? Ok well you're going to have to accept the fact that people are going to modify it and maybe release their version of your content. Welcome to modding/the world/the internet/the free market. I'm sure if your version is the best you have nothing to 'worry' about.
Lawyers like @daykrolik have jobs and copyright exists because it's not, and shouldn't be, the right of someone else to take what is yours and modify/change/re-release it, whether we're within the scope of simulation or the world as a whole.
If you had interpreted what I'd written correctly - and I was quite clear -, you'd have seen that I agree on the stance that taking content from AAA games, such as FM7, is not much of an issue (besides the legality) in comparison to taking content from someone who released it for free or a small company who released it for a small profit. Naming the author of an unauthorized conversion/modification only marginally diminishes the disrespect towards that author if permission has not been granted for the work - the act of re-releasing their content without permission (if a genuine attempt to make contact has been made) is still disrespectful.
And your last few statements are incredibly naive and close-minded. There's a reason the vast majority of scratch made content creators on RD are against unauthorized conversions. You're saying that those who provide for others should accept that they should, by all means, be targeted by the greed of the people they provide for. There's already minuscule, if even nonexistent, incentive for modders to release something for free with the state of modding as it stands - you have to field questions, provide extensive support (as it's demanded by the community), produce updates, etc., so it's quite unwise, and frankly, quite absurd, to let one's greed overtake the respect for those who provide for the community in the first place. Disrespect us to the point where the costs outweigh the benefits and we will cease interaction (as has happened in the past).
On that fitting note, I have no interest in continuing this fruitless discussion, so kindly refrain from tagging me or replying to one of my messages - my viewpoint on the subject has been made quite clear and elicits no further development.
Think about Science. Newton defined gravity. So is no other scientist allowed to use gravity in their equations ?
Copyright defies development and slows progress. It increases greed and the importance of building (pay)walls and defenses all fueled by self-righteousness and the fear of tomorrow.
The most important things in life are freedom and liberty. Laws are fork mutations that will be overrun by the evolution of nature in time. Sorry lawyers, your jobs are obsolete. You can start to live your life right now and leave the modders alone
One could argue that nobody would f.e. create a game or write songs without the existence of copyright. Why not ?
If you´re capable of doing sth., what should stop you ?
Copyright defies development and slows progress. It increases greed and the importance of building (pay)walls and defenses all fueled by self-righteousness and the fear of tomorrow.
The most important things in life are freedom and liberty. Laws are fork mutations that will be overrun by the evolution of nature in time. Sorry lawyers, your jobs are obsolete. You can start to live your life right now and leave the modders alone
One could argue that nobody would f.e. create a game or write songs without the existence of copyright. Why not ?
If you´re capable of doing sth., what should stop you ?
- Status
