I don't think there is any concept in Common Law of "copyright" (this is a significant difference from trademark).  Copyright only exists insofar as government has created law creating it. In the US, copyright exists when an original work is fixed in tangible medium of expression.

 

But in this instance, I don't think OP ever explained exactly what infringement was claimed by IVAO just that youtube had received a takedown notice.  IIUC, OP created an audio-visual work that contained depictions (renderings) of certain computer codes and images used within flgiht simulator.

 

scott s.

.

 

 

Sorry, I should have been more precise, I was referring to the countries that share a significant recent legal heritage with with UK (e.g. Commonwealth countries) that will have shared earlier versions of our copyright acts, rather than Common Law copyright, which existed in both the UK and US but is to all practical purposes completely replaced by statues and is largely a historical footnote.

 

Either way, side diversion 

 

A YouTube video by one of the Milviz beta testers was subjected to a DMCA for having "wind noise" in the audio track.

 

I take it that God was the one objecting to the use of it? I mean.....what the hell?? :huh:

I take it that God was the one objecting to the use of it? I mean.....what the hell?? :huh:

I assume it's the same problem I had with UMG. It's the automated monitor YT uses to enforce copyrights for music, something the RIAA forced YT to do. Unfortunately it does have a high false positive rate.

Yet, I can watch any film I own on an iPad or a tablet or a cell phone in absolutely any of those locations and it's perfectly legal and not a violation of the copyright.

 

You are arguing public use versus private use. Show me where the copyright tells me what brand of player to use. Show me where the copyright states I can't watch the disc on my personal computer while flying on VATSIM. Copyrights can't prohibit such concepts and you know it.

 

Erm, yes, public use versus private use. But you see you've now started to use the word 'use', because when talking about boundaries of copyright and their infringement, it's pretty much unavoidable.

This thread is now more than a pointless storm in a tea-cup. It also has a more misinformation about copyright.

It looks great. Which begs the question.....why does it not look like that on my PC?

OT - but is it possible your gtx 770 doesn't support a certain shader or feature in P3D v3?

I would be surprised if that was the case. However, if that is indeed true, then it begs the question......why hasn't someone mentioned it before?

I would be surprised if that was the case. However, if that is indeed true, then it begs the question......why hasn't someone mentioned it before?

Could be he's using REX which has a number of water animation options

I am using REX Essential Plus SP3, and I was told by the REX guys themselves that this has been upgraded to included revised water animations in P3D. However, that does not appear to be the case on my PC.