 |
TMcArthur.net
Where smoking *is* allowed!
|
| TM.net racing has moved |
As of September 2006 all sim-racing events have moved from TM.net to www.race2play.com.
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:44 pm Post subject: First-Racing (aka iRacing) v. Tim McArthur (the case) |
 |
|
Before you start reading all this, keep a couple facts in mind:
1) The files that I created and distributed did NOT contain a single byte of information from the exe file that I supposedly "hacked". The installers I created were done by legal means and are/were perfectly legal.
2) First-Racing.net NEVER proved their ownership of the NR2003 product, until they had to in court. It was common knowledge that they had "rights" to the code to create their future product, but that is very different from "owning NR2003" outright.
I have documented all of this to show the out-right lies and mis-information that this company is willing to do, just to eliminate fair-competition with actions bordering anti-trust. Their attorney, Irwin Schwartz, has a record of Frauding the Courts with lies and mis-information in suits against other individuals.
The accusation of a "threat to release the source code" is just another perfect example of mis-information. It would be impossible to release any source-code as only the developers have such code. This "threat" was merely me stating that 1st Amendment Rights supersede any Intellectual Property Rights as proven many times over in Federal Court. Any person *is* within their rights to release their knowledge of the exe in question.
Grab a beer/soda/cofee and take a seat. The reading is long, but it is interesting...
Timeline:
3/07 - I initiated a phone conversation between myself, John H., and Dave K. to discuss the matter. This conversation lead to the understanding that before I would remove any files I require that request in writing from FIRST. The conversation was left with the knowledge that "I (Tim McArthur) will further research this issue before making any decisions."
3/07 - Received a Cease & Desist http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/FIRST_03-07-05.pdf
3/10 - Responded to C&D with agreement on all but 1 of 3 demands (demand for $5000 in expenses) http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/McArthur_03-08-05.doc
3/11 - Files in question removed temporarily
3/14 - Another demand "list" from First, now consisting of 12 demands http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/FIRST_03-14-05.pdf
3/15 - Responded to second demand list with agreement on only the 2 terms from my intial response, and I requested a retraction in their "hacker and theif" comment. http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/McArthur_03-15-05.doc
3/18 - It seems First has stopped responding to discussions (no response from letter sent 3/15)
3/23 - "Summons" recieved from Massachusetts Court. First is attempting to get an injuction against me publicly releasing the entire NR2003 code and the release of the GTS physics.
http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/TRO_Application_Final.pdf
http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/TRO_Memorandum_Final.pdf
http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/TRO_Schwartz_Affidavit.pdf
http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/TRO_Proposed_Order.pdf
http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/Verified_Complaint_with_Exhibits.pdf
3/25 - Spoke with First's counsel to work on a resolution
3/28 - Per discussion on 3/25 with First's attorney, I proposed, agreed to, and signed a TRO stating that I will not release the NR2003 source code. This was done to resolve the "threat" so we can get back to discussions on a true resolution of the original issue at hand. http://www.tmcarthur.net/temp/FIRST_3-28-05.pdf
4/01 - Court approves TRO from 3/28
4/07 - First's Attorney and myself agree to a Stipulated Extension to respond to the original complaint filed by First. This allows more time to negotiate reasonable resolution.
5/10 - Case Closed after weeks of negotiations
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:30 am; edited 30 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An Update:
Today, May 2nd, the final paperwork for the resolution was submitted to the courts. Once the judge approves the settlement agreement then the issue will be completely resolved. I am very pleased as to the outcome of all of this, however... I will not be able to comment on the specifics of the settlement per the agreement itself.
Within the next few days I will issue a final statement on these forums, and go on with my life as a retired NR2003 sim-racer. My future sim-racing is solely in GTR and/or rFactor now, which I am happy to say is fulfilling all my needs and more.
The un-used portion of the donations I will offer to Jan Kohl to help cover TPTCC League server expenses as the majority of the people who contributed are from the TPTCC league and they will, in turn, directly benefit from their own donations.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This was never a thing about me fighting for the community or to set some new precident about modding. My goals in this arguement were very specific, and I am happy to have accomplished most of them. FIRST will dictate the extent of future "bullying", just not in my direction any longer 
Steve; I can not comment on the "specifics of the settlement". That doesnt prevent me from speaking about anything else at all.
As for First's "win-win"... I wouldnt go that far at all.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see questions on other boards that I would like to say something about. I decided not to answer them on each specific board for obvious reasons (too many of them) so I choose to answer it here in one location:
I agree that the settlement being kept "secret" kind of blows, but it is pretty normal in this world isnt it? Not much I can do about that... and to tell you the truth, not even the Judge gets to see it, he/she just stamps his "ok" to a settlement, not the details within it.
Q - Why did Tim settle?
A - Why wouldnt I? We would have spent 5+ years in court debating everything from copyrights, to the enforcement tactics used, to my actual programs. Nothing would have been resolved in a timely manner, and by the time it is resolved NR2003 is in everyone's garbage anyway.
Q - So, can we mod NR2003?
A - Sure, mod all you want, you know the limits set upon you by First. However, if you want to distribute an altered EXE file, you should expect some sort of "action" from First.
Q - What about Tim's exe's, will the be re-released?
A - As of recently, I am no longer the "owner" of any such files and I no longer have any rights to them. You can read between the lines on that one all you want <grin>
Q - So did you win or did they?
A - Tough question to answer and Im sure each of us would have conflicting answers. How about this; | Code: | I stood infront of a rolling tank which had to stop dead in it's tracks, had to call out a General to deal with me. The General and I shared a few laughs, smoked a few cigars, and worked out a plan for me to get out of the tank's way. The tank used a lot of "fuel" sitting there pointing it's gun at me for 6 weeks. But before I walked away, unhurt, I placed a sticker on the tank that reads, "Im a tank that doesnt care about it's customers" in BIG BOLD LETTERS for everyone to see. The tank, in return for it's time and "fuel" got some old, rusty, obsolete parts for a VW beetle.
The tank took the old VW parts and got to rolling again... The General walked away shaking his head in disbelief... I walked away smirking at the tank. You decide who won. |
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Fri May 06, 2005 12:48 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorraine Fontaine
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | TIM MCARTHUR REACHES AGREEMENT WITH FIRST-RACING.NET OVER FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND SLANDER IN CIVIL SUIT
Tim McArthur, a 16 year veteran sim- racer and respected member of the online racing community, announced today that an agreement has been reached between himself and FIRST-Racing.net who had filed a Civil Suit against him in March 2005. McArthur, a single father in California’s Bay Area, has offered free add-ons for auto-racing software since 1999 and written articles to further develop the online simulated auto-racing community in which he is so passionate about.
“While I disagree with and deny the false accusations in the civil suit filed against me, I have come to understand why [they] had taken such actions.” McArthur stated in his final statement. It has become common knowledge that FIRST-Racing.net is planning to release “great new racing challenges for sim-racing” by modifying the NASCAR© 2003 software themselves and release it as a pay-to-play service. To accomplish this, FIRST-Racing needed to clear the way by making sure the free, 3rd-party modifications of NASCAR© 2003 were erased from existence as they were “direct competition to our software” (John Henry). FIRST-Racing.net is planning to charge a monthly subscription fee to play their still nonexistent product, say sources inside FIRST-Racing. This pay-to-play service has been attempted in the recent past with Motor City Online, and has proven to be a failing marketplace.
McArthur began speaking out at FIRST-Racing in February of 2005, asking for proof of FIRST-Racing’s ownership of the Copyright in the NASCAR© 2003. FIRST-Racing in fact did not own, at the time, the copyright in which they were attempting to enforce. It was only months later that FIRST-Racing filed for the actual copyright. Community members began questioning FIRST-Racing and even openly defying their claims. Websites such as www.first-racing-sucks.com began springing up, forcing FIRST-Racing to employ a “hired-gun” Public Relations person to quell the uprising. Some websites closed their FIRST-Racing related forums all together either in protest or fear that FIRST-Racing would target them in their next round of bullying tactics.
Dave Kaemmer, President of FIRST-Racing and ex-designer of the failed Papyrus Design Group, along with John Henry, main financial backer of FIRST-Racing and partial owner of the Boston Redsocks, began “bullying tactics” in February 2005, threatening financial hardship and lawsuits against anyone that opposed their unproven ownership of the NASCAR© 2003 software. Kaemmer went as far to call his own long-time supporters and customers “hackers” and “thieves” on the FIRST-Racing.net website. Kaemmer, self proclaimed “Grand-Father of sim-racing”, has done very little for simulated racing since his financial flop in 1998, Grand Prix Legends, which happens to live on today only due to the modding community Kaemmer now threatens with law-suits. GPL’s financial disaster earned Kaemmer a bench-warming position at Papyrus Design Group until he left Papyrus in 2003.
Kaemmer has a decade long history of allowing consumers to freely modify his software, before becoming the “puppet of John Henry” as some now see Kaemmer. In 2000, McArthur himself released over 3 dozen mods and add-ons for three of Kaemmer’s titles without any action from Kaemmer or his parent software company. McArthur’s mods for the NASCAR© 2003 software had been publicly released for nearly one full year prior to Kaemmer taking action. Other community members had mods and add-ons publicly released even longer then McArthur, and yet Kaemmer had remained silent.
John Henry masquerading under an alias username (RazorbackOne) in public forums, attempted to persuade the community that McArthur had previously released proprietary software of another company. McArthur, choosing to represent himself during the suit, was able to legally request user information from forum administrators to prove that RazorbackOne is John Henry, opening the door for a possible Slander/Libel countersuit. Apparently, FIRST-Racing tacitly acknowledged the libel by removing a past Press-Release from the FIRST-Racing.net webpage.
After weeks of discussions, the two sides were able to come to an agreement of which has not been made public. McArthur has shown regret that the agreement is being kept from the public but also showed understanding why FIRST-Racing would want it to be kept confidential. The only pieces of the agreement known to the public is that McArthur has agreed to no further modifications of the NASCAR© 2003 software, and that FIRST-Racing.net are now the owners of McArthur’s prior works based on NASCAR© 2003. With the settlement agreement hidden from the community that has eagerly awaited the outcome, more questions then answers are present.
If FIRST-Racing had such an “open-shut” case against McArthur, why would they settle? Why is FIRST-Racing keeping the settlement a secret? How much money did FIRST-Racing.net spend to get McArthur’s work? Was it within McArthur’s rights to release software that modified the NASCAR© 2003 software? Can others still modify the software as they have done for nearly 3 years? Can FIRST-Racing create an up to date title based on 8 year old code? All of these questions and more remain unanswered as the Civil Suit against McArthur never actually went to court for legal resolution of the matters, which brings up one final question; Weren’t FIRST’s initial intentions a legal ruling to prove that McArthur was truly infringing upon their copyright? It appears that FIRST-Racing was unable to prove such a case and was forced into a settlement. One in which they wish to keep from the public’s eyes.
When asked, McArthur offered only this response regarding the settlement, “The settlement with FIRST was amicable and I have no further comments on the company.” McArthur did state, prior to the settlement, that he was “very pleased” with the outcome of the settlement and went on to announce his retirement from the NASCAR© 2003 community to pursue interests in products that were “friendlier to their customers and community”. McArthur can now be found in the GTR and rFactor multiplayer lobbies furthering his passion for simulated racing.
“GTR and rFactor are leaps and bounds superior to the old code that I had previously been working with. I just recently acquired the funds to purchase a new PC and I am more excited about my online racing, with GTR and rFactor, then I have ever been in the past.” McArthur added, “I would like to thank the NR2003 community for their support during all of this.”
McArthur has documented the entire legal fiasco at his website http://forum.tmcarthur.net/viewtopic.php?t=52 and those who are industrious, can research the suit in public records.
- Lorraine Fontaine |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
DK has started sending out emails to other modders, ones that do not even touch the EXE. Of course I am recieving forwards of these emails due to my past dealing with DK.
DK is now asking for any editing of ANY FIRST/Papyrus files be stopped, including TRK, 3DO, and PTF. Any programs that can edit those files, he is demanding the rights to, so the author and users may no longer use them.
If DK is now saying that editing of those files are against First's copyrights, how long will it be before they start requesting all 3rd party tracks be taken down from the author's web sites? Not long I imagine.
However, DK does offer the option of "licensing" the rights to modify those files... I guess the modders will now have to PAY-TO-PLAY AND PAY-TO-MOD too.
Good luck guys...
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iRacing goes after the USPits
This was sent to me in CC from Irwin Schwartz, the attorney for iRacing (fka First, LLC). Mr. Schwartz is attempting to force the USPits members to police iRacing's copyright of NR2003 and attempting to hold the USPits legally accountable for any "underground" distribution of any files in which iRacing views as a violation of their copyright. This includes my prior work, Brian Ring's work, David Noonan's work, and countless other works from dozens of other authors within the modding community. iRacing somehow believes that the Permanent Injunction that I agreed to now includes the USPits and it's members.
| Quote: |
Based on these responses iRacing (f/k/a First Racing) has determined that USPits and its members have decided not to cooperate with iRacing's requests for voluntary cooperation with iRacing's efforts to protect its copyrights in the NASCAR 2003 software. Based on our previous communications with you, you are well aware that any use of the NASCAR 2003 software other than for what is explicitly permitted under the End User License Agreement is a violation of copyright laws. That includes any use of the config file evidently created by the USPits for use with its "Patcher" application, which config file contains values derived from NASCAR 2003 in violation of the EULA. Any further use of that config file or any other unauthorized use of NASCAR 2003 will amount to knowing and willful violation of iRacing's copyrights and we will take all steps necessary to protect iRacing's rights to the full extent permitted by law.
In addition, since members of the USPits are evidently acting in concert with Tim McArthur, we hereby provide you with a copy of the permanent injunction issued in the FIRST, LLC v. McArthur case. To the extent that any member of the USPits violates the terms of this order, iRacing reserves the right to seek contempt penalties. <<Permanent Injunction.pdf>>
Finally, I strongly differ with your assertions that a company attempting to protect its copyrights by requesting voluntary compliance with copyright law is "harassment." Apparently iRacing's attempt to protect its copyrights led it independently to four members of the USPits. Rather than harassment, that suggests that the USPits is engaged in a pattern of conduct in violation of US copyright laws. In our view, this imposes on USPits members the duty to clear the channel of any illegal derivative works that they published even if they themselves claim to no longer be publishing them. If you do have legal counsel, I suggest that you consult with him or her about what that means for USPits as a entity as well as for its membership. |
My response to Irwin Schwartz to clear up his belief about the Pits being "in concert with Tim McArthur"
| Quote: | Mr. Schwartz,
First, I would like to state that I speak on behalf of only myself. I do not speak for Jan Kohl, Brian Ring, David Noonan, or any other members of the USPits or the online community.
I would like to correct your belief of “in concert with Tim McArthur”. At no time have I been “in concert” with any person included in this email in regards to our past suit. I think you will find it impossible to prove that any person, particularly Brain Ring, David Noonan, or any other member of the USPits had anything to do with my work altering the executable file of NR2003. I would be more then happy to supply a written statement to you and your client(s), and will supply testimony if need be on behalf of the USPits. No other individual, other then Tim McArthur, is held to that injunction.
You, as the copyright lawyer should also know that it is your client’s obligation to protect and police their own copyright, not the members or users of the USPits. The Internet is a vast system that can not be policed to remove any specific file from. Myself, Brian Ring, and other have agreed to remove those files from sites in which we control. We have no control over “underground” distribution or the people behind that distribution. Do not forget that many of these files had been widely distributed for nearly one full year before your client began these bullying actions. Your client should have chosen to act earlier or to have purchased software that was not already widely “hacked” and distributed (aka public domain).
As well, the End User License Agreement, or a violation there of, is not a violation of a Federal Copyright Law. Your client may choose to withdrawal the user’s right to use the product if found in violation of the EULA, but in no form is the EULA included in Copyright Law. On the same note, that own EULA states that any legal hearings in regards to the EULA will be heard in California, which we all know CA tends to lean much more on the rights of the user then EULA.
Do I need to bring up your client’s employees, and by default your client, has already breached item #17 of our agreement as well as publicly slandered my employment record on a web site with 65,000+ members, many of which are my potential job market?
Since this email was sent to directly to me, I will be sure to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights and post this on my site and other sites to show the First’s (aka “iRacing”) is targeting the USPits with vindictive and harassing behavior, by attempting to include them as a whole in a settlement in which they were not named, and in an attempt to force members of the USPits into policing your already widely distributed copyrighted works.
Respectfully,
Tim McArthur |
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reply from Irwin Schwartz;
| Quote: | Tim:
If you are going to post my email to Jan on your website, please include the entire thread.
Also, you are incorrect that FIRST has breached paragraph 17 of the settlement agreement. I investigated your complaint and found no basis for your assertion. It seems that you have awfully thin skin, my friend. In contrast, I am informed that your website frequently publishes material highly disparaging of FIRST and its personnel. I think there is a strong argument that by publishing those statements, whether made by you or someone else, you are violating paragraph 17 of the settlement agreement. You should consult counsel on that issue.
Finally, I would have thought that you had learned your lesson about asserting legal concepts as to which you are poorly informed. In part, that is what led to the lawsuit against you in the first place. In reading your post to me, it is awash with similar errors. While I find them mildly amusing, others may not.
Irwin Schwartz
|
With Mr Schwartz's permission, I am posting the entire thread of our conversations. I have yet to get permission of the other's involved to post the emails that were not sent direclty to me.
This email was soon followed by an email from Brett Roubinek of First-Racing (Brett.Roubinek@First-******.net)
| Quote: | Ohh, Irwin on the high wire tempting fate...grappling with McArthur...
Nicely done... |
Im not sure how Brett got included in this email thread, but it is obvious that he mistakenly replied-to-all.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
My Reply to Mr. Schwartz's reply
| Quote: | I will, if given permission from Jan, David, and Brian, post the entire thread of emails from yourself and Kaemmer on my forums. I'm sure it will only go to further show the community of you and your client’s questionable actions and questionable comprehension of certain laws. In fact, I am more then happy to offer a location in which this entire debacle can be heard and posted publicly. You, Dave Kaemmer, myself, and anyone else wishing to participate can post in a public forum to openly debate your client’s actions and views all in the public’s eye.
I may not be a lawyer Mr. Schwartz, but I would fully expect you to know something about these laws. It is obvious, both in your initial complaint against me in March and over the past few weeks, that your clients and possibly your own knowledge of some US laws is very limited. Either that or you have knowingly chosen to lie about those laws to frighten the opposition into compliance. In regards to my knowledge of the laws; I would be very interested to see the law that states that Brian Ring would be accountable for other people’s actions with the distribution of files that he has already abandoned. What if someone were to start distributing the TC and GTS files (this is NOT a threat! Speaking of thin skinned). Would iRacing attempt to force me into policing the distributors of those files?
Now, on another subject; Brett Roubinek’s reply, (which I imagine to be an accidental “reply-to-all” when he was BCC’d on this email) is saying just what? I didn’t see you as a man to BCC other individuals within First-Racing.net just so you can show how big a man you are Mr. Schwartz. If Brett was to be included in this discussion, include him by adding him (and others I imagine) to the “To” or “CC” lines so I know who I am speaking with.
Slightly less respectfully,
Tim McArthur
|
I received no repsonse on my invitation to publicly debate this issue.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr Schwartz again;
| Quote: | Tim:
There is no doubt that a court can order a copyright violator to "clear the channel." One case I'm familiar with that so holds is Accusoft Corp. v. Mattel in which I represented Mattel. If you or Brian knowingly violated iRacing copyrights and published an unauthorized derivative work to the Internet, you did so at your own risk. You can't create an illegal derivative work, publish it and then wash your hands of it. I would say it would be prudent for someone in that situation to police to channel to make sure that no one is republishing that derivative work. You can be sure that if we find some hacked version of NR2003 floating around the Internet and we can trace it back to who originally created that version, FIRST will hold both the hacker and the publisher accountable.
With respect to USPits' liability under the permanent injunction entered against you, I suggest you look at the First Circuit opinion in Microsystems v. Scandinavia On-Line in which I represented Microsystems. It holds that persons mirroring content created in violation of copyrights may be held in contempt if they were act in concert with the person against whom an injunction is entered. I don't know if that fact scenario fits your relationship with USPits, but Jan's email to makes it more likely.
Finally, I doubt very much that Brett has anything to say to you in this discussion. Nor is it any reflection on you or me that he and I communicate about my postings with you without copying you.
|
After doing a very small amount of research:
Accusoft Corp. v. Mattel - I have searched and searched and can find no ruling that these defendants had to "clear the channel" when this suit was settled. The Injunction does not mention any such rulings either. Thanks to someone else more in thw know about this case, you can read more on this via http://www.tmcarthur.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148
Interesting enough, Mr. Schwartz's actions and outright lying to the courts were even brought up in court. Mr. Schwartz could not deny that he had frauded the court. Schwartz was outright told go go home by the judge. Mattel ended up paying the defendant hundreds-of-thousands in damages and there is now a countersuit against Mattel asking for millions more in damages. Seems Schwartz lied again when he refered to this case.
Microsystems v. Scandinavia On-Line - The defendants had a secondary "mirror" site that was not originally included in the temporary injuction propsed by Mr Schwartz. After much argueing in court, the courts found that any "mirror" site of an original site that was included in the injuction is also included. This does not apply to the USPits as they never mirrored any files inlcuded in the First v. McArthur suit.
Browsing the www.eff.org web site, I have noticed that Mr. Schwartz is named numerous times in these types of suits. It seems Mr Schwartz's expertise is to file bogus copyright lawsuits against individuals that are unable to protect themselves.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:34 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any my reply to the reply to the rep... oh you know what I mean;
| Quote: | I think the word “knowingly” is an important one. The fact that someone, once informed of a possible violation of a copyright, did all that he/she could to comply, makes a big difference as well. You are also missing the fact that Brian Ring’s work was never published. Mine, on the other hand was published, but you “washed my hands” for me in our settlement.
I am a member of AAA insurance as well. Does that make AAA liable under the injunction as well? Because I am a member of an organization, does not by default include that organization in our injunction. The USPits has mirrored no content of mine, which should show how loosely I am affiliated with the USPits. Though you may want to believe the USPits were “in concert” with me, you are gravely mistaken. The fact of the matter is, the injunction on me, is only on me as there were no other organizations or individuals in concert with me on the TC.exe or GTS.exe files.
Again, to set this matter straight for you: The USPits, nor any of its other members, were in concert with Tim McArthur on the TC or GTS files. That should make it very clear to you that the USPits is not confined to that injunction, and you should consider a different approach.
Brett most definitely had something to say, and he did say it. I understand there is a lot of muscle flexing going on behind your desk, but I expect a bit more maturity from someone in your position and Brett’s position. It seems Brett is incapable of correctly operating his email application, so before he too violates paragraph #17 of our settlement, it would be wise for him to be removed from this discussion. Brett and you can carry on a separate discussion outside of this email thread.
I will leave you all to resolve this amongst yourselves. However, I will correct any misinformation about me that you may have Mr. Schwartz.
PS – Brett… take a class on Outlook or something…
|
Also emailed DK with the following; (I removed 2 paragraphs that spoke directly of the settlement, which I am not allowed to publicly speak of.)
| Quote: | Mr Kaemmer,
The community, which you have failed to represent for many years, has the right to know of your actions. I think that if you had cared at all about the community, then you would have found a more respectful way of protecting your investments. Speaking for myself and most other “hackers”, we all would have easily supported your requests if it were done in a mature, respectful, and non-threatening fashion. You have forgotten who has paid your salary all these years, it was me, Jan Kohl, Brian Ring, David Noonan, and all the other members of the community you are in the process of destroying. Without people like Jan Kohl and David Noonan, you would still be nothing. In your quest to monopolize the sim-racing market, you have failed to take the community, who supported you and paid you, into consideration.
I understand that you have an investment in NR2003 which would easily exceed my earnings in a decade and possibly my lifetime, but seriously, what was the harm of giving these supporters the respect we deserved when this all began. I am flabbergasted as to your thought process on this. You must realize that you have shot your own foot multiple times, and seemingly are going to continue to do so. YOU have put your investment into a much greater risk then I could have ever done. Your actions are bordering anti-trust and monopolization of the online sim-racing community. At some point, you will threaten someone who will bring this into a full-scale legal battle and you can not argue that there is a possibility that First/iRacing could lose that battle.
Man to man, I would be willing to change my public opinions of you and your company if you were to change how you are approaching all of this. I’d like nothing more then to see Dave Kaemmer embrace this community, and try to put it back together… without the threats, without the “its our copyright” crap. I think you will find a lot more paying customers for your future product (which I’m sure is in question all together now) if you were to apologize and think about your customers ahead of yourself. We would be happy to give up our EXE mods for a great product Dave, but until that time… it is all many of us have to enjoy our passion of sim-racing. You are “protecting” yourself and your company into extinction… and if that is the route you choose to take, I will be there to assist in your demise.
|
Mr Schwartz in response to Jan Kohl (CC'd to me)
| Quote: | Jan:
First, I do not believe that you quoted me correctly. Do I need to go back and state for you again exactly what I already said to you in a previous email or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Spare me the talk about silly banter.
Second, correct me if I'm wrong, USPits provided Tim McArthur with the tool he used to create his application that is the subject of the injunction. USPits also provided Brian Ring with the tool he used to create his new version of NR 2003? Dave Noonan is a member of USPits.
Does he use the same tool to create his applications? We all agree that the "tool" uses a config file that's populated with data from NR2003 that was obtained in violation of the EULA. In my opinion, violating copyright law is illegal. Do you disagree? Need I go on?
Third, what possible basis do you have to take the position that our communications to persons whom we believe may have violated the NR2003 copyrights go through you? Are you claiming that you are the attorney for all the members of the USPits? Or are you saying that USPits is legally responsible for all the conduct of its members with respect to NR2003? If you care to enlighten me on this point please do so.
|
Please note how Mr Schwartz continues to claim that any violation of EULA is a violation of Copyright Law. This is not true and shows his mis-information tactics in an attempt to make a point. I also find it humerous that Mr Schwartz now complains if being mis-quoted yet he intentionally mis-qouted and mis-represented my statements in his Initial Complaint against me in a failed attempt to persuade a Federal Judge.
I, again, responded with...
| Quote: | Again, I will give a written statement as well as testimony to further
support that the USPits had no part in my works.
Furthermore, the injunction does not say that any such tools are
included. At best, it says "assisting in the development of any program
or other mechanism to..." which Jan and the USPits members have already
publicly stated that they have ceased all work on NR2003 related
products.
So, I'm not sure where First is coming from or how you could possible
show that the USPits participated or assisted in my prior work. You are
going off your "belief" or an assumption, not backed up by any facts at
all Mr. Schwartz. I would expect that any good lawyer would not base his
argument on unsubstantiated assumptions.
|
Which prompted another reply from Mr. Schwartz:
| Quote: | | I am going off what Jan told me, Tim. |
and then again from me:
| Quote: | I do not see any statement from Jan saying that I was supplied with any tools or files from the USPits or its members. I think you will understand when I say, "I think you are lying Mr. Schwartz", as it happens to be a tactic which you and your clients choose to incorporate in your legal arguments and public statements.
Why are you not informing your client of the damage they are doing to themselves? These actions are textbook business-suicide. I would think that you, as their counsel, would inform them and try to correct these suicidal actions.
|
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats
Last edited by TMcArthur on Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:11 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
In related news:
In the MGM v. Grokster (Morpheous) case, MGM has lost once again. The Courts have again backed up that technology makers can not be held liable for the infringments committed by the users of their products.
UPDATE - On 6/27 a higher court has now stated that these types of cases can be heard in court. The cases will now be heard in the same courts that have already ruled that the developers are not liable.
In the Blizzard v. BnetD case, EFF has appealed the findings of the court and are in the process of reversing the decision. "Reverse engineering is often the only way to craft a new product that works with older ones. Congress expressly recognized this when it created an exception to the DMCA for reverse engineering"
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And more...
I admit, this is fairly expected. However, look who sent the letter. Good ol' Mr. Cavaretta (Corporate Attorney, not IP attorney). I wonder what happened to Mr. Schwartz?
Now, a point I would like to make on this letter:
| Quote: | | Continued violation of iRacing's intellectual property rights shall cause injury to iRacing... |
How is this possible? Dave Kaemmer has publicly stated that his new title will NOT be based off NR2003. Dave Kaemmer has also stated that Sierra, nor Papyrus, nor First, nor iRacing, nor Vendi, nor DK, nor JH, recieve a penny from any of the sales or lack of sales of NR2003 at this point. How, if they arent using NR2003 for their future title, and they arent losing any amount in sales, is there ANY damage to iRacing?
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was sent this by another user: http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php
iRacing has sent a C&D to ThePirateBay.org. With Mr. Schwartz missing in action recently, it seems that Mr. Cavaretta is using cookie-cutter C&D's.
Unfortunatley for iRacing, ThePirateBay is located Sweden and is NOT violating any Swedish laws. It seems there are a plethora of files obtainable via ThePirateBay.org, including the NR2005_mod, which is why iRacing sent them a C&D.
Somehow, I don't think it is going to work this time.
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iRacing sues OW-Racing.com
www.ow-racing.com and Their Forums have all the info so far.
Steve Myers of iRacing on the iRacing Beta testing forums;
| Quote: | Steve.Myers
Administrator
Team: NE - New England (USA)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 41
As many of you had probably seen, OW-Racing.com decided to post for download their 2005 Open Wheel mod with a hacked exe. This exe not only modified values in our physics model, but also defeated copy protection.
As all of you are aware, we have contacted anyone and everyone that we feel may be violating our copyrights. We had more personal interaction with Tim Robinson than all other mod groups combined. After spending quite a bit of effort trying to teach Mr. Robinson the finer points of copyright law, he went ahead and posted his illegal modification anyway.
As you can see, we had no other choice but to take Mr. Robinson to court. I know that some may see our actions as heavy handed. The reality is that we have only pursued legal action against two individuals that refuse to respect our rights. I do hope that this is the last time we have to go down this road, but I promise we will continue to protect our property.
If anyone has any questions regarding this issue, I will do my best to answer them.
Steve |
Counter Points:
- The extent of iRacing's talks with Tim Robinson was one phone call. I know I personally spent over 50 hours on the phone with them and their attorneys. Odd that Steve states that they have discussed matters with Tim R longer then all others combined.
- There is no copy protection of the NR2003.exe
- Tim Robinson never made a single post anywhere about any such files that he allegedly hosted or distributed.
- Tim (and myself) both removed files that they stated infringed upon their copyright, we were both sued well after that fact. So how did Tim or I "refuse to respect their rights"?
Sounds to me that Steve Myers is trying to control damage within his own beta testing team. He is forced into a weak attempt to justify his actions to the beta testers now... they are leaving his comapny in mass numbers.
[/quote]
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
John Henry has been refering to Tim R and myself as "dumb and dumber" in the First-Racing.net Beta Testing Forums.
While calling himself the "Minister of Change" in those same forums.
I thought this was humorous enough to share
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMcArthur
Site Owner
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2725
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I havent been keeping up with much of this anymore, but this was shared with me:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/02/dvd_jon_mediaplayer/
It is about "DVD John" the kid that "hacked" the DVD encryption software and published his findings on the Internet. The Movie companys have attempted a few different lawsuits against him in the past years, and have all failed. Findings?
1) Reverse-engineering is NOT ILLEGAL
2) Publishing the code was NOT ILLEGAL
This is the case I was refering to when talking about my 1st Amendment Rights superceeding any Intellectual Property Rights First-Racing may have had on NR2003. This was what First-Racing considered as me "threatening" them with the release of the NR2003 code... which, by the way, is NOT ILLEGAL!
_________________
If you're not opposite lock, you're not going fast enough!
TMcArthur.net| TPTCC Setup Development Articles | GTR-Endurance Series | My Road Racing Stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
GTR Racing
FAQ
Search
Links
Download
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
