Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

[Zipper5 74]

Seems that almost everyone (minus a few like gnat, echo DW) who is against the OPTION to lock a pbo has never released something back for this community, and never intends to.

I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this, but let me just say that I am a naysayer here and I have also released content for the community, but I will never lock my pbos, even if they contain models. I recognize I'm making stuff for free and as a hobby on the internet where theft is completely inevitable, and I have the ability to accept the consequences. But why does it require people to have released stuff to the community in order for them to have an opinion?

For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION?

When you become un-contactable for whatever reason and people have to resort to the inevitable backdoors to getting access to your content. This will simply promote the use of said backdoors rather than stop them. That's my opinion, at least.

[PuFu 4600]

But why does it require people to have released stuff to the community in order for them to have an opinion?

It doesn't.

But what i meant to say is that the ones bringing the selfishness in this thread more often that they change their socks, are the ones who have never given back to the community. (your own clan doesn't count since that is a...you guessed it....locked community)

When you become un-contactable for whatever reason and people have to resort to the inevitable backdoors to getting access to your content. This will simply promote the use of said backdoors rather than stop them. That's my opinion, at least.

Why? because a game addon is more important than what it says in the license that comes with it?

I see so many in the addon request thread, so many in asking for ports over. Half of those would have been solved if one would actually think about it: hey, why don't i try it myself...

[[aps]gnat 28]

Seems that almost everyone (minus a few like gnat, echo DW) who is against the OPTION to lock a pbo has never released something back for this community, and never intends to.

Hmmm, interesting observation. Fair point, lol

For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION?

No, and I think if theres just 1 thing that most (not all) could agree, a lock option would be ok.

For the "uncontactable" fear, try to get every release/every author to have either of these in their Release Notes (or similar);

a) In the event I am uncontactable for X months, with proof of attempts to communicate, you may use the unofficial Unlock Tool (no doubt developed by someone) to open this addon, but only for the benefit of the ArmA/BIS community.

or

b) In the event I am uncontactable any length of time, you may NOT unlock this addon for any reason, including for the benefit of the ArmA/BIS community.

[Evil_Echo 11]

...

Seems that almost everyone (minus a few like gnat, echo DW) who is against the OPTION to lock a pbo has never released something back for this community, and never intends to.

CG, although is saying that locking pbos is selfish, has only been a consumer, using parts of configs and scripts for his own mission, inside his own community. I feel dazzled about it. Same goes for nuxil.

For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION?

If, as you are saying, only the ego-centric, and the so called elite of this community would be using, then where's the problem? By the looks of it, everyone else won't, so you won't be able to poke around the content of only a few members or groups around here(RHS, RKSL, CWR), where most are creating models anyway.

More US vs THEM bullshit...

Pufu:

Did you ever notice that list of people you mentioned have also released a non-trivial amount of software? Not willing to include myself, but the others are some heavy hitters. Does that not count for something? What have you done recently?

I frequently don't agree with CarlGustaffa. But I would never show contempt of the huge amount of effort he has spent on his version of Domination and the contributions he's made in helping others on BIF.

To further clarify my stand...

I don't care either way if BIS decides to offer protection measures as long as protects all aspects of the game fairly. However, if you think some classes of development are better than others, make you elite, worthy of special protection and other blessings - I disagree based both on merit and the repercussions such status would have on the community.

RKSL has my respect and admiration both for his work and his well-made arguments in support of his viewpoints. He I will gladly debate with.

Those that twist the facts or are insulting others - we don't need that kind of troll-like mentality here. Stop now.

[dmarkwick 261]

For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION?

Well, although I am usually a strong proponent of choice, and usually see no reason not to give options to people (whether it removes from "realism" for example) I have to stand firm against the option to lock. Why? Well, for two main reasons:

1. The lock usage would gradually increase IMO until it becomes the norm for people, and especially high-profile high-quality dev groups, until there is a general culture of content protection by anyone who thinks their idea must remain theirs. Being contactable for permissions to even view the code will quickly become tedious. The high-profile dev groups might take the lock route as a matter of simple policy, and from there it becomes general policy, and the modding scene slows down drastically as the new talent find it harder and more inconvenient to learn anything casually.

2. It simply goes against the grain of the OFP modding culture that has worked very well for nearly a decade now. The community is remarkably self-policing, and its the very openness of the system that allows this to happen. Turbosquid abuse is NOT an ArmA2 problem, and will remain a general problem even after so-called "locked" content is eventually cracked (which it would be) and the same small number of model thieves are not prevented. The model thieves that are the target for this locking remember. As ever, only the casual, non-violation users are ever inconvenienced, which represents the mass of the community.

I've said before, we shouldn't define our community by the actions of the worst members.

Edited November 1, 2010 by DMarkwick

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well I guess most people don't have much against an optional feature to protect all of the work against average copycats and thieves. Is there anything bad to ask the creator for permission to poke around in his "baby"? Is it so hard to be patient and show some tolerance?

Let the creator/author decide if and when he likes to "unlock" his work. What if he don't like to see x variants of his alpha/beta/wip flying around before he get it done/final?

Of course those creators/authors who don't use this optional feature don't have any disadvantages either. Its good to talk about theoretical worst-case scenarios but please don't use them as fact. ;)

I doubt that BIS will or should spend their time and money developing good security features for free. There are enough other things for them to manage/fix. Meanwhile use licenses and legal proceedings.

No plaintiff, no judge.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Those that twist the facts or are insulting others - we don't need that kind of troll-like mentality here. Stop now.

Maybe you should re-read your post :rolleyes:

... from someone who recently called for mods to close this thread.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Oh lovely that one.

Hmm, I read it as a sarcastic attack on the need for credits...

Seems that almost everyone (minus a few like gnat, echo DW) who is against the OPTION to lock a pbo has never released something back for this community, and never intends to.

So what? There may be new guys around that is still learning? I think there are many who have some interesting stuff that doesn't release anything for the fear of what happens should any toes be stepped on.

Look at the treatment this guy gets around here. Was never heard from again. This use I (imho) would call relatively fair (if it was in the first place, it was all accusations), due to lack or originality (creator even said he mixed it from other sources) and scope (1 sound, not a sound mod, to me that is a big difference in scope). A tremendous effort was put into it - addon withdrew due attitude in that thread, and scared away by this lovely community :(

Another example of this ridiculous policing that goes on around here, with a hint on theft. For copying an echo? It's bloody hard to have an echo not sound like an echo. It's way inside my view of fairness, and well outside both scope and originality required to actually have copyright. And guess what, they're still up on Armaholic. Maybe it wasn't such a bad perp after all?

Again, I'd much like to see anything of this sort of activity go on in private with moderator consult, rather than polluting the threads with accusations that really brings the quality of these forums down.

CG, although is saying that locking pbos is selfish, has only been a consumer, using parts of configs and scripts for his own mission, inside his own community. I feel dazzled about it.

Wow, thanks!. Mission was released for Arma2/ACE. Current version just isn't ready enough yet. Jeez! I searched for it, but couldn't find it, but I've given sounds, scripts, and resources to ACE in the past. And I've given sounds to both JSRS and VOP. And I always try to the best of my ability to describe where things come from, how they came to be. I'll put the cc-by-NC-SA in since that's already the licence, but I couldn't care less about the credits (attribution part). It's hard for me to give something back in addon form, since I'm always (if possible) looking for a mission script solution. And my own personal 400MB ambiance soundmod comes from dubious sources, so I can't release it without some toes getting stepped on. The worst part is, someone could, no, would, accuse of stealing their sounds and all hell would break loose, even if we happened to acquire sources from other games ;)

I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than sit around here defending myself. So I actively choose not to release anything of my own, and rather give it away to others if I think it's good enough, and original enough (I give warnings) to be included. That judgment is "by common sense" and never absolute (like it appears to be around here). Then I'll let them decide if it's worth the risk. And I've never asked for credits. I try to give where appropriate and possible because that seems to be the norm, but it's not something I'll ever demand. Back in my day it was "cool, he gave me credit", now it's "give me credits or else". Wtf happened? :(

For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION?

There was plenty already. I suggest you start reading again, it's faster than retyping ;) DMarkwick got it pretty good. Protecting becomes the norm over time, and the new guys will only have crap examples to look at, and we get better highend addons and worse lowend addons (the majority), and a hell of a lot longer development time, if ever released at all.

Edited November 1, 2010 by CarlGustaffa
Wrong quote

[TRexian 0]

Hey,

An observation: of the ~26 pages of this thread, has anyone from BI expressed their opinion - either personal or on behalf of the company? Perhaps I missed it?

If not, I think their silence speaks volumes.

I think it is safe to call this beaten horse 'Dead.'

BI has had the opportunity to respond to the assertions in this thread, but declined to do so. BI has had the ability to add some sort of encryption (VBS does so) into pbos, but declined to do so.

Among all the features that people would want to add to BI, or that they would want to code, I'd be surprised if this were in the top 10 of very many people. For the additional effort and complexity to add it, and in return only please a small fraction of the community, it seems like a very small incentive.

:cheers:

[Pulverizer 1]

I think their silence speaks volumes.

BIS might fear making cracking the VBS addon encryption easier by releasing similar tools for Arma and making Arma read similarly encrypted files.

That, or BIS too think that encrypted pbos would be used to hide theft rather than prevent it.

[Daniel 0]

Hmm, I read it as a sarcastic attack on the need for credits...

Ha, glad someone else picked up on that too. :p

[noubernou 77]

Pufu: I think I've released a pretty damn significant piece of software for this community and I wouldn't lock down my PBOs. Our code is copyrighted and licensed, but it doesn't mean we want people to not know what we are doing. There is a lot of code in there that is very unique and there is a lot of code in there that has no other way of being done, if the code that is unique is taken and used verbatim with out our permission, that is what lawyers are for (obviously as a last resort). I'd rather have people learning though and creating interesting things for this community than not, and if our code inspires them to try something new then it benefits everyone here and I'd rather not deny that to people.

You also have to remember that unless these people take their code to the VBS2 platform they can not make money off of it anyways since the BIS license doesn't allow you to make paid for content for the ArmA2 platform. At that point they are violating two licenses and are in deep doo-doo.

So please do not speak for everyone who are creating significant contributions to this community. I have also started model making and if I make something that can help other people make more models (like the common chassis that a lot of Soviet SAM systems used) then I'd release it free of charge for anyone who wants to make models on top of it. If some jerk ends up selling that part then oh well, what I gain from the community is much more worth what I lose from something I'd not be selling anyways.

[PuFu 4600]

Hmm, I read it as a sarcastic attack on the need for credits...

Read it as you like, wasn't intend to be an attack. But then again, the internet allows you to read as you please.

So what? [up to] Maybe it wasn't such a bad perp after all?

you throw this out as if I was the one persecuting them.

Wow, thanks!.[up to] Wtf happened? :(

I never actually asked for proof. I just made an affirmation, which seems not to be 100% true. I stand corrected.

There was plenty already. I suggest you start reading again, it's faster than retyping ;) DMarkwick got it pretty good. Protecting becomes the norm over time, and the new guys will only have crap examples to look at, and we get better highend addons and worse lowend addons (the majority), and a hell of a lot longer development time, if ever released at all.

Well, it is not enough for me, sorry

Since this is a free forum, i have the right to an opinion, just like you do.

I am not the one saying you are wrong, or right for that matter.

I have expressed the need, for me, to have such an OPTION available.

There was no demanding, only explanation about why such OPTION might come in handy for me, and others that have expressed the same feelings.

In the end it is up to the addon maker in which form he would be releasing his addon, under what sort of license, and what additional safety measures he would take to ensure the use of such addon/content is according to his views.

You (generic you that is), as a user, should RESPECT the license agreement that comes with an addon/mission/script pack etc (if that is present, of course). If you don't like it for whatever reason, you are free NOT to use it. Unfortunately, the license is not a real protection it seems.

As it seems sides have been formed, and a normal discussion have taken a completely different turn than i would have expected, this is my last post here.

It is up to BIS to provide or not with said tools. As someone else said, their silence probably means it doesn't matter that much for them one way or the other, and prefer (like expected) to stay neutral, at least for now.

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

So please do not speak for everyone who are creating significant contributions to this community.

I was not. If it seemed i was talking in the name of others, was not my intention anyways (bear in mind that english is not my native language)

I can only speak for myself, and maybe, for other people i have been in contact with on the subject.

Edited November 1, 2010 by PuFu

[nuxil 2]

@ [GLT]Myke i dont understand you.

i stumbled across this post

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1731150&postcount=9

here you obviously want to poke around yet have no premissions from bis doing so. :rolleyes:

and i think bis is verry clear about what they think of this subject.

reading Maruk's Post. http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1731283&postcount=12

And do not you realize we are very community oriented company, we support modding as much as we can and that we are not going change in this approach as this is what we like the most about our work?

Edited November 1, 2010 by nuxil

[dm 9]

This thread had gone from ridiculous to moderately sensible, but I see we're slipping back to ridiculous again...

and i think bis is verry clear about what thay think of this subject.

You can spin it both ways:

Honestly, I hardly see any real reason to start depboing... ...that would not conflict with... ...interests and licensing policy.

So whilst BIS is 100% behind the moding community, they also appreciate the fact that some data needs to be protected.

Marek has already made a clear point about licencing, the ability to encrypt pbo's would be the obvious next step for BI to allow mod makers to protect their rights.

TRexian/Pulverizer/et-al

To make assumptions on behalf of BIS (assuming that since they do not post in this thread that they do not care about addon makers' rights to protect their work) in an attempt to "win" the thread is just ridiculous. BIS have been more than clear on many occasions about their standpoint on unauthourised use of models/textures/content. And that is: NO.

That they havent weighed in to this thread yet is fairly normal operating procedure (I love it, people bitch and moan that BIS is too quiet onthe forums, and the next minute they take their lack of response as a direct indication on BIS' standpoint)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I love the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers: "oh noes, its totally not fair that people be able to protect thier work, because then I cant fiddle around with it!"

Given that it would be optional, those of you who wish to leave your pbo's editable would be free to do so. But then you can't go crying about it when someone else uses your work, because you were given the option to protect it.

[reconpathfinder 0]

Go get em Dave :bounce3:

[TRexian 0]

Go get em Dave :bounce3:

hehe

DM isn't the 'Dave' you are thinking of. :D

Edit:

And, I made no assumptions, just observations. ;)

[nuxil 2]

This thread had gone from ridiculous to moderately sensible, but I see we're slipping back to ridiculous again...

so if you dont like what other people write. dont read this thread.

i may find your opinion ridiculous and the hole idea of locking pbo's ridiculous.

So whilst BIS is 100% behind the moding community, they also appreciate the fact that some data needs to be protected.

Ofcource they need to protect ther work. espesially with the approche that was done with the dlc. "baf". it ther game. they are the ones who need to make money on it. not you. they are not making money if some jerk releases the textures of baf. and put them on example armaholic..

so its fully understandeble why they did it. they protect ther game not your game..

I love the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers: "oh noes, its totally not fair that people be able to protect thier work

bis has no obligation to protect a moders work. your protection is whatever license you put on your work. and its your own obligation to see that your work isnt ab(used)

and yes its a assumptions i made when i said, i think its clear what they think of this subject. but only by reading what Maruk had posted. and i dont see how to spin that both ways.

enligthen me please!

Edited November 1, 2010 by nuxil

[max power 21]

BIS might fear making cracking the VBS addon encryption easier by releasing similar tools for Arma and making Arma read similarly encrypted files.

That, or BIS too think that encrypted pbos would be used to hide theft rather than prevent it.

I was having a conversation about this the other day, too. I think that there is no way that BIS would release their encryption technology to the general public. That would be really, really bad for them, I think. This thread has been a really good thermometer of community opinion, though, and I think it is enlightening in that it really highlights the fact that no measure will be good enough to provoke some people in this community to respect the work of others.

Also, the recent debate on court precedence and the meaning of copyright law is very interesting.

@Baff1: Thanks for your kind participation in finding those cases. I read your post carefully and I'm going to try to skim the rest of the thread. I'll reply with something worthy of your efforts in a short while when I get a chance.

1. The lock usage would gradually increase IMO until it becomes the norm for people, and especially high-profile high-quality dev groups, until there is a general culture of content protection by anyone who thinks their idea must remain theirs. Being contactable for permissions to even view the code will quickly become tedious. The high-profile dev groups might take the lock route as a matter of simple policy, and from there it becomes general policy, and the modding scene slows down drastically as the new talent find it harder and more inconvenient to learn anything casually.

To be not totally charitable to your post, it seems like the reason not to give people the choice is that they might actually make the choice you don't agree with. Is that a good reason not to have a choice?

And again, I'm not on board with your appeal to tradition argument.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Max Power

[nuxil 2]

Max Power 1st post i like from you :bigsmile:

[max power 21]

Max Power 1st post i like from you :bigsmile:

First post you like, or first one you agree with? :p

[[frl]myke 14]

@ [GLT]Myke i dont understand you.

i stumbled across this post

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1731150&postcount=9

here you obviously want to poke around yet have no premissions from bis doing so. :rolleyes:

and i think bis is verry clear about what they think of this subject.

reading Maruk's Post. http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1731283&postcount=12

Please do not take my posts out of context. This whole discussion was more related to reference material (in form of up-to-date BIWIKI) than usermade content (which this discussion is about).

It's BIS that creates the game, it's BIS that allows, even supports, modding their game. So this one was about having reference material for modding. And if this is up-to-date and complete, there shouldn't be any reason left to poke around in usermade content for learning purpose since everything would be documented in the BIWIKI.

To make long story short, there it was about having reference material from the source.

And if you really want to connect these two topics: if BIWIKI would be up-to-date and complete, there would be absolutely nothing left you could learn from usermade content which isn't referenced in the BIWIKI.

And for the argument of "fixing bugs in addons" (which might be necessary at times), you don't need to alter the original addon, a replacement config addon can do the job aswell.

[dmarkwick 261]

This thread has been a really good thermometer of community opinion, though, and I think it is enlightening in that it really highlights the fact that no measure will be good enough to provoke some people in this community to respect the work of others.

*sigh* :)

To be not totally charitable to your post, it seems like the reason not to give people the choice is that they might actually make the choice you don't agree with. Is that a good reason not to have a choice?

It's the very principle I don't agree with. It's natural for me to follow the strong belief I have, remember I include all of my own work in this. I regard it as a small payback (in part) to the great modding culture that has worked well for nearly ten years. A hobby for a game is what we're talking about remember, and the community is small enough as it is. Make it possible for valuable learning resources to be locked and the community only gets that much smaller. I fundamentally don't agree with the possibility of community addon encryption, for whatever reason. If that sounds to you like I'm against choice, then all I can say is that this issue is possibly the only time I've ever voted against choice, so I doubt it's a matter of simple obtuseness.

And again, I'm not on board with your appeal to tradition argument.

Fair enough. Speaking personally, I'm glad to have such a vast resource of readable material stretching back years and years. I think a lot of good stuff now in common use wouldn't exist if it weren't for the freedom to browse through example at will.

---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

Myke;1780639']And if you really want to connect these two topics: if BIWIKI would be up-to-date and complete' date=' there would be absolutely nothing left you could learn from usermade content which isn't referenced in the BIWIKI.[/quote']

Apart from the scripting methodology itself, or a particular method an author has used which is common coding practice, but doesn't come under the BIWIKI's mandate of coding education, or a nice trick the author has learned to solve a nasty problem, or a use that BIS simply hasn't considered, etc.

And for the argument of "fixing bugs in addons" (which might be necessary at times), you don't need to alter the original addon, a replacement config addon can do the job aswell.

Not all (or even most) of tinkering is related to fixing things, just tinkering. It's how most people learn I'm willing to bet.

[rksl-rock 1301]

This thread is ... well i honestly don't know how to describe it.

I particularly like the assumption that BIS supports the open PBO camp because they are NOT posting here. By that logic I can announce that “RKSL Studios has now bought Nigeria and is going to create a new super power.â€

Since the present “owners†of Nigeria aren’t posting to refute my claim and using the aforesaid logic, I RKSL-Rock, am now the sole leader of Nigeria. Following the logic presented in this thread it’s an undeniable fact folks.

C'mon guys, get back to reasonable debate.

I honestly don’t see how the ability to lock a PBO will destroy the community.

And if you think the “if you don’t want it stolen don’t release†mentality helps the community then I think you are living in Cuckoo Land with Mr. Boo, Officer Gotcha and all the others. If that kinds of mindset were to succeed all the addon makers that make original content would leave. And where would that leave you addon snoopers? Because when they go so does a hell of a lot of community knowledge and most of the people that answer support requests.

If BIS has the option to lock PBOs and is willing to give it to us the improved tool, then I for one would welcome it. I know most of my friends would too. It will not stop all theft but it will at least reduce the incidences of casual theft.

Rock

Supreme Emperor of Nigeria

[dmarkwick 261]

This thread is ... well i honestly don't know how to describe it.

I particularly like the assumption that BIS supports the open PBO camp because they are NOT posting here. By that logic I can announce that “RKSL Studios has now bought Nigeria and is going to create a new super power.â€

Since the present “owners†of Nigeria aren’t posting to refute my claim and using the aforesaid logic, I RKSL-Rock, am now the sole leader of Nigeria. Following the logic presented in this thread it’s an undeniable fact folks.

Well, to be fair you should post that on Nigeria's own government forum and test that theory out :)

And if you think the “if you don’t want it stolen don’t release†mentality helps the community then I think you are living in Cuckoo Land with Mr. Boo, Officer Gotcha and all the others. If that kinds of mindset were to succeed all the addon makers that make original content would leave. And where would that leave you addon snoopers? Because when they go so does a hell of a lot of community knowledge and most of the people that answer support requests.

"Addon snoopers"? LOL :D by that I guess you mean nearly everybody who ever wished to learn how to mod in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2.

If BIS has the option to lock PBOs and is willing to give it to us the improved tool, then I for one would welcome it. I know most of my friends would too. It will not stop all theft but it will at least reduce the incidences of casual theft.

It won't stop the theft you're worried about, and the casual theft you refer to is remarkably well handled within the ArmA2 community in any case. I think there are more appropriate options open to you to reduce the chances of the *actual* theft that most worries you: the reselling theft.

Rock

Supreme Emperor of Nigeria

*salutes*