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

[dmarkwick 261]

Although I generally don't like to use the possible actions of our worst members as reason, it looks to me like encryption can hide theft just as well as it can prevent it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Soul_Assassin:

Flip it. You make addon under CC-by-NC-SA. I steal it, modify it, and put it under protection. You suspect something fishy is going on. And you're gonna take my word for it? :p

DMarkwick:

Yes indeed.

[dmarkwick 261]

Appeals to convention are fallacious. I think disallowing a choice because you don't want people to be able to choose is question begging. Those are both fallacious arguments.

Oh I see, you've labeled them as fallacious and therefore of no worth? They have real substance, and dismissing them as fallacious doesn't work. In fact, your own view is every bit as fallacious, perhaps even more so if you wish to measure the argument by that method. Encryption of content will not prevent theft or IP misuse, which is the reason you would do it in the first place. It might prevent casual usage, but I still maintain that casual usage is fine (within the obvious limits) and is the activity of embryonic modders.

When all's said and done, there's nothing fallacious in the idea that this is the system that BIS have decided upon, and has worked fine for the mass of the community.

[Zipper5 74]

yeh sure, some do. why not?

Well it just gives us more of an idea behind your motivation, perhaps revealing why you would treat your models released for free in the same way you would for ones you sell, one of which it's logical to lock and encrypt and the other, not so much.

[soul_assassin 1750]

no u miss the point, weither for free or for sale i wouldnt want anyone else selling them.

[Zipper5 74]

Of course, I don't think anyone would appreciate that, but with payware it at least makes 100% sense to lock and encrypt your releases as you can actually chase up cases of theft. But with free content you pretty much have to accept that you're putting it at the mercy of the world by releasing it on the internet, no matter if you lock and encrypt it. However, you will always have the community here fully boycotting anyone who is revealed to have done such a thing to your work so long as it happens within the community.

[soul_assassin 1750]

If you would just "accept" the fact that by connecting to internet you would get alot of malware and spyware on your computer, you would not install an anti-virus by your defenition. And your remedy is also by defenition then, "just don't connect to the internet". But we don't do that do we. We go on the internet while finding better and better ways to protect ourself.

[[aps]gnat 28]

yeh sure, some do. why not? But at the same time I give the chance to you to play with it for free.

And I'll state it again;

If you are in these forums pushing your view AND you sell models, your motives CAN NOT be said to be the same as the rest of us here.

In trying to balance free advertising with risk of loss etc, there are way too many factors that you guys are juggling for yourself in a commercial sense, and less for the game, for the community.

Yes, I grant you, some of you still love to play the game etc, but you've got a thing going on in the background.

It IS apples and oranges.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Gnat;1780978']And I'll state it again;

If you are in these forums pushing your view AND you sell models' date=' your motives CAN NOT be said to be the same as the rest of us here.[/b']

In trying to balance free advertising with risk of loss etc, there are way too many factors that you guys are juggling for yourself in a commercial sense, and less for the game, for the community.

Yes, I grant you, some of you still love to play the game etc, but you've got a thing going on in the background.

It IS apples and oranges.

And so what, my view isnt valid anymore because I sell my models? I can also tell you that the commercial side of it is still only a by product of my love for making addons for this game. You all still get them for free right? And about motives: everyones motives here are different. Here I still represent the freeware side of my development. But if someone is gonna sell my models, might as well be me, right?

[dm 9]

Gnat;1780978']If you are in these forums pushing your view AND you sell models' date=' your motives CAN NOT be said to be the same as the rest of us here.[/quote']

Just because you want all your content to be free and open source, doesnt mean the rest of us feel the same way. We're not all peace loving, free love giving hippies :j:

Basically, what you're saying gnat, is that your rights to have your open source content are more important than my rights to create closed source content. By forcing everyone to be open source, you're taking away our rights.

At the end of the day, the rights as discussed in the thread started by Marek mean that you cant go poking around in my data (but you would anyway, right, because its all in the name of learning, fuck the licence and its "thou shalt not modify in any way my content" rules. Right... Right?

The pbo encryption would achieve an extra peace of mind for us who are not happy with the idea of people poking around in our business.

Or are you open-source people suggesting that you would use a decrypter if one was available?

[reconpathfinder 0]

hehe

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

Edit:

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

Oops! :o

Then sorry, I am on TRexians side of the argument :D

Didnt "Sound" like the Dave I knew but hey how many DM's are there out there now? Ive a bit of catching up to do in this area as we both know. Yikes

[dmarkwick 261]

Oops! :o

Then sorry, I am on TRexians side of the argument :D

Didnt "Sound" like the Dave I knew but hey how many DM's are there out there now? Ive a bit of catching up to do in this area as we both know. Yikes

*cof* ;)

[orson 0]

I learned a lot from looking at other peoples models , more so by looking at the BIS examples , as long as we are kept up to date with engine and graphics updates with the BIWIKI , thats all you should need .

For encryption , it seems too simple for this discussion to have gone on like it has .

Yes encryption is a good idea , if you choose to go open source then its your gamble .

If for example some theft is suspected the matter can be cleared up with screen shots of mesh and UV .

[dmarkwick 261]

Just because you want all your content to be free and open source, doesnt mean the rest of us feel the same way. We're not all peace loving, free love giving hippies :j:

Basically, what you're saying gnat, is that your rights to have your open source content are more important than my rights to create closed source content. By forcing everyone to be open source, you're taking away our rights.

Your rights are already protected. Don't confuse rights with features.

Or are you open-source people suggesting that you would use a decrypter if one was available?

That's a bit of a leap to make, particularly as no-one has actually intimated that at all. In fact it sounds to me like you've already decided that's going to happen in any case. Maybe that's one of the key problems here, that it's basically a character difference between people who assume the worst behavior and wish to protect against it, and people who assume the best behavior and wish to perpetuate it.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

If for example some theft is suspected the matter can be cleared up with screen shots of mesh and UV .

Hmm but why would someone who's stolen model work then voluntarily supply UV and mesh?

[dm 9]

Maybe that's one of the key problems here, that it's basically a character difference between people who assume the worst behavior and wish to protect against it, and people who assume the best behavior and wish to perpetuate it.

Because I know that people are dicks and I dont live in some la-la land where everyone on the internet is all nice and friendly and always plays by the rules?

Hmm but why would someone who's stolen model work then voluntarily supply UV and mesh?

If you didn't steal anything, then you have no problem providing proof that you didnt. If you did steal it then you would be reluctant to do so.

Sure its guilty until proven innocent, but even without seeing the actual model/textures its pretty easy to provide damning evidence from ingame.

[Zipper5 74]

Because I know that people are dicks and I dont live in some la-la land where everyone on the internet is all nice and friendly and always plays by the rules?

I think we all know that, it's just unfortunate that as soon as you try to fight these guys they simply want to beat you down even more than they did before so they can rub it in your face. Look at how Ubisoft's new DRM turned out, every major hacking group on the internet wanted to be the first to shut it down, and that meant it didn't actually take too long. If they want to do it, well, they're going to do it, sadly.

It would make sense to have this for payware as then the protection of your game's content matters a lot more than a simple 3rd party mod for said game, especially if the fight is going to, in the long term, be fruitless.

[4 IN 1 0]

Your rights are already protected. Don't confuse rights with features.

How "protected" it is anyway? If this not locked?

Same thing applyed, if I have a safe that have a lock on it, I put some money in it that I dont intented to give it to other people, is the lock on the safe only a feature and that I should have just leave my money in it and leave the lock open and that other people can't mess with it because it is supposed to be "protected" already?

[jw custom 56]

Or are you open-source people suggesting that you would use a decrypter if one was available?

Those stealing/selling most likely would, does it really matter if the people who only look and learn does :confused:

[dmarkwick 261]

How "protected" it is anyway? If this not locked?

Same thing applyed, if I have a safe that have a lock on it, I put some money in it that I dont intented to give it to other people, is the lock on the safe only a feature and that I should have just leave my money in it and leave the lock open and that other people can't mess with it because it is supposed to be "protected" already?

Protecting goods and protecting rights are different things.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

Because I know that people are dicks and I dont live in some la-la land where everyone on the internet is all nice and friendly and always plays by the rules?

I see the tendency for exaggeration is also a characterisation: people are dicks. everyone on the net. Always. We've established that nothing will stop models making it onto Turbosquid. And its pretty apparent that casual thieves in the ArmA2 community don't last long.

If you didn't steal anything, then you have no problem providing proof that you didnt. If you did steal it then you would be reluctant to do so.

Sure its guilty until proven innocent, but even without seeing the actual model/textures its pretty easy to provide damning evidence from ingame.

Damning evidence from ingame? Maybe textures but I don't see how convincing model evidence can be gleaned from ingame sources. "That looks a bit like my model". "Well, yes, it's a model of exactly the same thing".

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

And so what, my view isnt valid anymore because I sell my models? I can also tell you that the commercial side of it is still only a by product of my love for making addons for this game. You all still get them for free right? And about motives: everyones motives here are different. Here I still represent the freeware side of my development. But if someone is gonna sell my models, might as well be me, right?

And this is really, pragmatically, the only real defence against model theft via Turbosquid. Sell it first, legally. Perhaps even a higher res version (seeing as Turbosquid is about pro models not merely game models).

[mr.peanut 1]

Ugh! What an ugly debate!

Sure you should have the choice to encrypt your work, but why are you choosing to develop in what is predominantly a culture of sharing and learning from each other's work? Maybe you should have chosen to develop somewhere else? What exactly did you expect?

Let's take this all the way, for argument's sake. Maybe BI should charge for a premium for a developer's kit with a license that states only they can distribute your content for a percentage?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Mr.Peanut
gerbils

[noubernou 77]

How "protected" it is anyway? If this not locked?

Same thing applyed, if I have a safe that have a lock on it, I put some money in it that I dont intented to give it to other people, is the lock on the safe only a feature and that I should have just leave my money in it and leave the lock open and that other people can't mess with it because it is supposed to be "protected" already?

There is a difference between copyright violations and theft. Theft in most legal systems is criminal law and copyright violation is civil law.

Locking it does no good because its always going to be broken. Always. There is never a way to totally lock pretty much anything down. At some point ArmA has to decrypt the model and put it into memory. It will always be able to be taken. Always. There is NOTHING you can ever do about it, EVER.

What motivation does BIS have to protect your content using a system that will always be broken, when the violation is up to YOU to track and take care of? BIS is not your guardian, they have no vested interest in your financial success, only that of their own company.

Yes, the technology exists for VBS2, but that is an entirely different arena.

[4 IN 1 0]

"No one should care about locking the safe cause anyone can get the money inside using whatever way they have anyway"

*Dr Evil mode on* Yeeeeeeah....Riiiiiiiiight......*Dr Evil mode off*

[Pulverizer 1]

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.

Eh... what the fuck's this, a textbook example of setting up a straw man? It seems that it is you who likes to imagine arguments to "win".

I actually wouldn't mind if BIS gave the option to lock PBOs. Or launch one-time pad encrypted .p3d files to lunar orbit to never be seen again, for that matter.

[nuxil 2]

"No one should care about locking the safe cause anyone can get the money inside using whatever way they have anyway"

*Dr Evil mode on* Yeeeeeeah....Riiiiiiiiight......*Dr Evil mode off*

you are not the first but.

please stop using idiotic comparison that is total ilrelevant to this subject

[whisper 0]

Didn't read the latest pages because I'm in a hurry.

Quick thoughts :

* Protection tool to prevent selling of property outside of A2 is useless, the thieves there have their own ways of going around any copy protection. The "Turbosquid" argument is in fact a non-argument.

* "There is all everything needed to do anything already at our disposition, no need for learning anymore". How wrong is this argument? Biki is severely lacking, and many pages are done by community members... after their own researches, which may include peeking in other's (even BI's) work in some unintended way.

* Option for protection? Why not, I've nothing against it, but for the fact that the protection will give tools to hide a stolen work, stolen work which could be released into the community without any possible check, while today, one can check inside an addon to see if his own work is re-used.

If I see what I suspect is my work inside a protected addon, without proper "thanks to..." despite my license I put in my original work, but can't go verify anymore, what do you think I'll do? My next releases will be protected.

Even people who originally didn't want to protect their work may be forced to do so in the end, even if it's optional, and considering point 2 above, I don't think this would be very good.

Maybe an unintentional potential side effect have been overlooked here.