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

[whisper 0]

Oleg Maddox vs Grumann

[Baff1 0]

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Let's take an example:

I do model of a VW Golf. I have it modelled with all the details, up to the millimetre. The model is my own IP, and i can use it as i want (sell it etc). The trademark or the design does NOT belong to me, but to Audi-VW concern.

But then again, i am not selling the design, nor the trademark, but a 3d model based on the design. I never said i own or that i was part of the designing process.

Plagiarizing is a totally different game, which we can have a talk about, but it isn't this.

In this example, the model isn't your own IP.

You must have changed 10% of it's detail for it to become an original design or place that design in original enviroment, for example a picture of VW Golf against a beautiful sunset.

The model is yours, but the IP belongs to VW.

You have copied someone elses design, not created your own.

At least, that's the law in the UK.

Intellectual Property (IP) results from the expression of an idea. So IP might be a brand, an invention, a design, a song or another intellectual creation. IP can be owned, bought and sold.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk//

Volkswagon own the design right for Golf. The design is their IP, they own it.

Designs protect the physical appearance and visual appeal of products - from the shape of a take-away cup to the body of a jet.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design.htm

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[TRexian 0]

Yep - that's the one! (Thanks guys.)

But as I recall, it went beyond just the name, to the actual depiction of the aircraft. I don't believe it was appealed, so there's various legal arguments that it isn't generally applicable. Regardless whether it was a good/bad decision, that's the way at least one US court ruled.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Baff1: I like what it says under "What's new" :p

[Baff1 0]

BIS consultation?

That attracted my eye too.

[rksl-rock 1301]

In this example, the model isn't your own IP.

You must have changed 10% of it's detail for it to become an original design or place that design in orginal enviroment, for example a picture of VW Golf against a beautiful sunset.

The model is yours, but the IP belongs to VW.

You have copied someone elses design, not created your own.

At least, that's the law in the UK.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk//

Thank you for posting this link. I've been looking for exactly this material.

You are correct to the letter of the law but not strictly accurate in its application. You are missing out on a few facts as well as the context the material is used in/for.

In our particular arena we are talking about "artistic impressions" of an plane/tank/car etc. Your interpretation would only be correct if you were to make an exact copy of someone's design. But if that representation even varies more than 10% the claim over IP can not be upheld. Unless you can prove that the design is actually copied from your own.

Even if the design is changed more that 10% and if your are competing in the same market place you can still be successfully sued/convicted for IP infringment/theft. So much in the world of IP is a grey area and comes down to how courts apply the laws withing the stated frameworks.

Look at the majority of models in this community. How accurate are they? 50%? 90% ? While they may appear to represent a product they are not a copy of that product are they?

However, should you use a trademark or branding without the appropriate license then you can get your arse sued off for trademark infringement. Which is why BIS has Cayotas etc

In our scenario the addon maker own all his own models and the IP rights. I've been down this path, through the courts and out the other side clutching a legal judgment that i am the sole owner of the models IP etc i create.

Edited November 5, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[vilas 477]

RKSL have you read what i wrote 2-3 sites ago

i think it is all due to clan-use and "my tag" issue

cause look - half year passed since i released addons with "texture selection"

have you seen CDF/ Takistani/desert M109, 2S1, BMP1, M113A2 ???

no

so if simple reskin is too problematic in period of half year, why people need /demand MLODs and unlocking more complicated stuff than putting on solid-green texture some dark spots and green star to make it CDF ??

even more, they would buy it as DLC

maybe it is a matter that OFP community gone retired and CoD community era begun ?

12yo demanders who must have something now

Edited November 5, 2010 by vilas

[xmongx 0]

A few people here derailed the attempt at a technical discussion but i know thats continuing in another private arena.

What do you think initially? I have doubts its possible, but my understanding of encryption is basic to say the least. The kinds of people who will steal your work are the kinds of people who are used to ripping the shit out of every game they come across anyway.

I was'nt really meaning you in particular with the whole showcase thing, maybe you dont need it but im sure other modders do. I know if i was at all competent with model making i'd be trying to make a name for myself in some game or other hoping it would lead somewhere. Its probably the newcomers that hurt the most in that scenario.

Its a knee jerk reaction to say no to encryption, human nature is to want something you cant have yet the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I agree that pbo's should always be openable to help foster the community but that the models themselves should be out of bounds.

Edited November 5, 2010 by xmongx

[WackyIraqi 2]

In this example, the model isn't your own IP.

You must have changed 10% of it's detail for it to become an original design or place that design in original enviroment, for example a picture of VW Golf against a beautiful sunset.

The model is yours, but the IP belongs to VW.

You have copied someone elses design, not created your own.

At least, that's the law in the UK.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk//

Volkswagon own the design right for Golf. The design is their IP, they own it.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design.htm

That is for UK law. However, anything concerning Bohemia Interactive's software or anything they have made is copyrighted and protected under Czech Law. At least, according to the current EULA is what I get from it. Maybe this doesn't apply due to whatever is made is our copyright. I'm no lawyer, just going by what the EULA says and I dont remember seeing anything regarding what law your IP/copyright is protected under in Placebo's post. My only assumptions are A) Czech Law as with rest of the creation tools or B) Your country due to you being the creator/owner of the copyright/ip. But again, those are assumptions and not clearly stated.

According to the EULA, I still believe it states that anything put into the program is owned by Bohemia Interactive. However, after.. (oh whoever it was who posted the link to Placebo's post..) posted the link to the thread stating our rights to models created using the software, they are giving us the right to anything created. I believe the EULA should be corrected stating this, as that is the license we see when using the software and is the only one presented to us, not Placebo's forum topic stating our rights. I stand corrected on the Copyright / IP matter, but just think the EULA should be fixed stating this :)

[Baff1 0]

Thank you for posting this link. I've been looking for exactly this material.

You are correct to the letter of the law but not strictly accurate in its application. You are missing out on a few facts as well as the context the material is used in/for.

In our particular arena we are talking about "artistic impressions" of an plane/tank/car etc. Your interpretation would only be correct if you were to make an exact copy of someone's design. But if that representation even varies more than 10% the claim over IP can not be upheld. Unless you can prove that the design is actually copied from your own.

Even if the design is changed more that 10% and if your are competing in the same market place you can still be successfully sued/convicted for IP infringment/theft. So much in the world of IP is a grey area and comes down to how courts apply the laws withing the stated frameworks.

Look at the majority of models in this community. How accurate are they? 50%? 90% ? While they may appear to represent a product they are not a copy of that product are they?

However, should you use a trademark or branding without the appropriate license then you can get your arse sued off for trademark infringement. Which is why BIS has Cayotas etc

In our scenario the addon maker own all his own models and the IP rights. I've been down this path, through the courts and out the other side clutching a legal judgment that i am the sole owner of the models IP etc i create.

I agree that it all comes down to the individual ruling of the court on each case.

However, if you have attempted to make an exact copy of a VWGolf, that is not your IP. That is VW's.

They own not just the brand name but the design.

If it is your intention to millimetre for millimetre copy a design, then it's not your IP.

Morally.

Now you may be able to argue your way around this in court, but you are still attempting to profit from someone elses work without offering them a slice or some kind of control over it.

You are still just as guilty as the person selling your model on Turbosquid.

So in this example, if you managed to argue against this in court, you would be arguing the letter of the law and not the spirit. Which means you would lose.

The spirit of the law is that you add somthing to the model. not that the 10% difference is due to your errors, but that it is due to your creative originality. That you have taken their design and used it as a basis to create a new design. An improved design. To have added something, rather than just sought to 1 for 1 reproduce it.

A VW Golf with better aerodynamic styling for example. Or one that is more appealing to children with teeny boppers on the roof etc. One with built in Roo bars for the Aussie market.

The difference between trademark infringement and design infringement depends more on what the owner of the IP has chosen to protect, or rather how he has attempted to protect it, than what is right or wrong.

For a VW Beetle for example, the look of the car is iconic. So they patent not only the brandname but also the design.

If a company has only protected their brandame and not the design, they may seek to protect their IP using that method in priority.

I do not believe that all the addon maklers in our MOD community own the IP rights for the stuff they create. (Although I belive that many do. Specifically it is the 3D moddelers who typically do not).

I do not believe even remotely that the correct example to use is of a mod maker who already owns the IP.

I expect a grand total of zero of us have protected anything we have created for this game and a good many who think they would be able to if they tried would find out quite differently in court.

I expect the models you have protected so far are not mods for this game and I also suspect that the protection you have gained for your models is not above being appealed against and lost.

As you say, it is the determination of the courts that matter in these things not our own individual ones.

I expect should those who designed the models you have recreated found out about you, or were the pissy kind, they could get it all revoked.

I think you operate beneath the radar.

That they simply don't even know you exist. And this I feel benefits all modding communities. If we want to all stand up and start demanding our legal rights... we might find out that we don't altogether like what our legal rights actually are.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[Evil_Echo 11]

1. It's already been stated that locking mechanisms can be bypassed by tools that access the data in memory. So the model makers would enjoy zero protection from the method they keep wanting. Why pick the door lock when the owner of the house has left a window open?

2. The debate about IP ownership, especially the part referencing using the design of a car like the VW Golf. That argument is nonsense. If you hacked into the company database and stole the CAD file, that's theft. If you make your own model based on published photos and technical data then it's not. That's why companies go to such lengths to protect so-called trade secrets, knowing there is no legal recourse to prevent duplication of the work if the info enters the public arena. If you disagree with that statement, then answer this. How many model makers get written permission from arms manufacturers? Would like to see the letter from Eurofighter GmbH granting RKSL permission to duplicate their jet in such detail. Surely if the model makers truly believed IP rules behaved in the manner described they'd spend the effort and money to get permission ( i.e. a license ).

3. The claim there is no dark side of restricted access to models. Look at the ACE tickets. How many problems in there blocked due to no access to BIS MLOD files? Are the ACE team a bunch of thieves for wanting to fix a problem in BI models? Is BI wrong to protect their designs? I'd say "no" to both questions - it's just sad that the situation exists.

Lilewise it's sad when people take your work and claim it for their own, regardless of profit. But the bulk of the discussion here is not doing anything useful to protect developer's efforts. So are we going to step back and look at this from a broader perspective or continue the schoolyard squabble?

[PuFu 4600]

I agree that it all comes down to the individual ruling of the court on each case.

However, if you have attempted to make an exact copy of a VWGolf, that is not your IP. That is VW's.

They own not just the brand name but the design.

True, and i said it before: I am NOT creating the design, but the 3D model.

The IP for brandname, trademark and design is own by VW. The IP for the 3d mesh is mine.

If it is your intention to millimetre for millimetre copy a design, then it's not your IP.

Morally.

I am NOT copying the design. I am following it in a 3d environment. There is a difference.

You are still just as guilty as the person selling your model on Turbosquid.

Really? And that is because myself and the person selling the model have put the same amount of work into it, right?

The spirit of the law is that you add somthing to the model. not that the 10% difference is due to your errors, but that it is due to your creative originality. That you have taken their design and used it as a basis to create a new design. An improved design. To have added something, rather than just sought to 1 for 1 reproduce it.

Reading on the back of a 1:33 scale burago model(out of my head): Trademark and Brand name belongs to XXX.

I expect a grand total of zero of us have protected anything we have created for this game and a good many who think they would be able to if they tried would find out quite differently in court.

I do believe different here

I expect should those who designed the models you have recreated found out about you, or were the pissy kind, they could get it all revoked.

I think you operate beneath the radar.

That they simply don't even know you exist. And this I feel benefits all modding communities. If we want to all stand up and start demanding our legal rights... we might find out that we don't altogether like what our legal rights actually are.

That is left to be seen..

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Lilewise it's sad when people take your work and claim it for their own, regardless of profit. But the bulk of the discussion here is not doing anything useful to protect developer's efforts. So are we going to step back and look at this from a broader perspective or continue the schoolyard squabble?

Something i would gladly do.

[max power 21]

I should say that when I said we have a right to encrypt our work, I was talking about a liberty right to do so, not a claim right. I think we do however have a claim right to protect out work.

[Baff1 0]

True, and i said it before: I am NOT creating the design, but the 3D model.

The IP for brandname, trademark and design is own by VW. The IP for the 3d mesh is mine.

I am NOT copying the design. I am following it in a 3d environment. There is a difference.

Really? And that is because myself and the person selling the model have put the same amount of work into it, right?

Reading on the back of a 1:33 scale burago model(out of my head): Trademark and Brand name belongs to XXX.

The IP for the trademark, brandname and design belongs to VW.

They have registered all three for that model car.

And by following a design, you are copying it. The model you create from that design looks exactly like the model they invented. Looks exactly like the 3D models of it they have created. It has the same design. The IP for that look, belongs to them. It is theirs.

You have used a design that you were not given permission to use.

A design that someone who was not you created.

You haven't created something new. You haven't created something original.

They have, you have just copied it into a 3D format.

I'm very pleased for you that you put a lot of work into it. But IP isn't there to protect how much work you do. It's to protect valuable ideas.

The idea of the VW Golf. It doesn't belong to you just because you drew a picture of it on your computer. It belongs to VW.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[max power 21]

Baff1, we've been through this. Rock has already stated he has a number of legal cases under his belt, the outcomes of which specifically imply the opposite of what you're claiming there.

[Grizzle 0]

1. It's already been stated that locking mechanisms can be bypassed by tools that access the data in memory. So the model makers would enjoy zero protection from the method they keep wanting. Why pick the door lock when the owner of the house has left a window open?

2. The debate about IP ownership, especially the part referencing using the design of a car like the VW Golf. That argument is nonsense. If you hacked into the company database and stole the CAD file, that's theft. If you make your own model based on published photos and technical data then it's not. That's why companies go to such lengths to protect so-called trade secrets, knowing there is no legal recourse to prevent duplication of the work if the info enters the public arena. If you disagree with that statement, then answer this. How many model makers get written permission from arms manufacturers? Would like to see the letter from Eurofighter GmbH granting RKSL permission to duplicate their jet in such detail. Surely if the model makers truly believed IP rules behaved in the manner described they'd spend the effort and money to get permission ( i.e. a license ).

3. The claim there is no dark side of restricted access to models. Look at the ACE tickets. How many problems in there blocked due to no access to BIS MLOD files? Are the ACE team a bunch of thieves for wanting to fix a problem in BI models? Is BI wrong to protect their designs? I'd say "no" to both questions - it's just sad that the situation exists.

Lilewise it's sad when people take your work and claim it for their own, regardless of profit. But the bulk of the discussion here is not doing anything useful to protect developer's efforts. So are we going to step back and look at this from a broader perspective or continue the schoolyard squabble?

Well said my friend, well said.

[PuFu 4600]

...

I really don't want to be beating the bush. Maybe stuff is different in UK/US than in my own country.

Case of point, i have already sold pretty accurate models to contractors. There was no legal problem with it, neither from their perspective, nor from mine.

[Baff1 0]

?

2. The debate about IP ownership, especially the part referencing using the design of a car like the VW Golf. That argument is nonsense. If you hacked into the company database and stole the CAD file, that's theft. If you make your own model based on published photos and technical data then it's not. That's why companies go to such lengths to protect so-called trade secrets, knowing there is no legal recourse to prevent duplication of the work if the info enters the public arena. If you disagree with that statement, then answer this. How many model makers get written permission from arms manufacturers? Would like to see the letter from Eurofighter GmbH granting RKSL permission to duplicate their jet in such detail. Surely if the model makers truly believed IP rules behaved in the manner described they'd spend the effort and money to get permission ( i.e. a license ).

Just because something is against the law, doesn't mean that people won't do it.

I can't speak for you as to why model makers don't seek permission, but I would suggest to you that it is the same reason why other modders who open up their PBO's don't either.

It's more trouble than it is worth for something they ultimately view as a harmless endeavour. Or perhaps it is a law they do not recognise as a valid one?

They will have to speak for themselves in this regard.

As I'm sure you understand companies put great value in the reputation of their IP's. They seek to control the use of their images so that they are not represented unfavourably in a manner which could damage their reputations and hence sales.

So car manufacturers for example may not wish to be associated with Grand Theft Auto. They may not wish to get their IP's branded as child slayers or pimp mobiles. It could cost them money.

So they seek to protect those IP's.

Further to this, there is the unfairness issue of someone else profiting from their work. No matter how excellent your rendition of a Eurofighter, the guy who put far more hours work into that design than you isn't profitting from it if you sell it.

And if you had made a model of a Bafffighter... no one would be very intrested in it. The market value of your model is intimately dependant on the work that Eurofighter has already put in. On their IP.

So while it is quite legal for you to make that model, it is not legal for you to publish it without the IP owners permission.

Thankfully many people do and the owners of those IP's don't have their heads so far up their own arses that they seek to shut everyone who does down. Or perhaps it is just not realisticly possible given the cost of lawyers and the liklihood of those fans copying them being able to pay anything.

And hence not something fan modders like us need to concern ourselves with.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[hund 0]

After reading through most of this thread, I must say that I am thouroughly entertained.

The amount of childish innuendo and general douchebaggery is staggering to say the least. Why don't you all just agree to disagree and then go make me some addons?

Failing that, everyone take a breather and then get back on track. This community is supposed to be mature, try to act accordingly.

[Baff1 0]

I really don't want to be beating the bush. Maybe stuff is different in UK/US than in my own country.

Case of point, i have already sold pretty accurate models to contractors. There was no legal problem with it, neither from their perspective, nor from mine.

Why would there be, the legal problem with it, if anyone was to make one, would be from the owners of the IP's that you have modelled and sold.

You haven't ripped yourself off, or the company you sold them to. You got the price you wanted for the work you did and they got the model they wanted for the price they paid.

But the the guy who created that design, and the guys who funded it's creation, they have got nothing. They may feel that you stole from them. If they are worried about this and aware of this, they are in a position to take legal action against you.

It is my honest advice that if you have done this, then far from standing up and shouting the legality of your actions from the rooftops, I would suggest you adopting a lower profile and avoid any closer investigation on the subject matter.

I know people who sell drugs, they have no legal problem with it, and the people they sell to have no legal problem with it. (I have no legal problem with it!). Nonetheless, it is still illegal. And if you stand up and say different, I will not fear to correct you.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Baff1, we've been through this. Rock has already stated he has a number of legal cases under his belt, the outcomes of which specifically imply the opposite of what you're claiming there.

And there are examples above of court cases in which the opposite has been found.

I haven't read of Rock's cases other than what he told me about getting his 3D models protected. If any of his protection has been tested in court, I am unaware of it.

Nor am I aware of the details of those models any changes or enhancements... the scritping for example on his ArmA models certainly add a new dimension to their functionality in the game. There is a strong argument for original design right there.

I'm not aware of any court case that has found in favour of the 3D modeller owning the IP to someone elses design that he has modelled. Only outcomes involving the opposite.

As always I found Rocks comments to be very informative and I consider my knowledge on this subject a work in progress. I've been taking it on board as I have the other insights offered. As I'm sure you will recognise however, Rock has a vested intrest in this one. He speaks from a position of personal self-intrest that is reasonable for me to weigh into my calculations.

I'm not against modellers making models, or models seeking to protect their work. Far from it, but drawing a picture of your favourite plane on your PC doesn't mean you own any IP to that design. There are other peoples rights to be considered also.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[rksl-rock 1301]

1. It's already been stated that locking mechanisms can be bypassed by tools that access the data in memory. So the model makers would enjoy zero protection from the method they keep wanting. Why pick the door lock when the owner of the house has left a window open?

Well if the window is open go lock it.

I don't think anyone here is saying there is a 100% proof way of securing the data. But as has been said many times before in this thread. Why make it easy for thieves.

You can put as many locks as you like on your doors but it wont stop a guy with a bulldozer. But it will stop a casual theif. Leave a "window" open and you are just asking to get robbed.

2. The debate about IP ownership, especially the part referencing using the design of a car like the VW Golf. That argument is nonsense. If you hacked into the company database and stole the CAD file, that's theft. If you make your own model based on published photos and technical data then it's not.

Agreed

That's why companies go to such lengths to protect so-called trade secrets, knowing there is no legal recourse to prevent duplication of the work if the info enters the public arena. If you disagree with that statement, then answer this. How many model makers get written permission from arms manufacturers? Would like to see the letter from Eurofighter GmbH granting RKSL permission to duplicate their jet in such detail. Surely if the model makers truly believed IP rules behaved in the manner described they'd spend the effort and money to get permission ( i.e. a license ).

Agreed for the most part. But the fact is there is provision under IP law for exactly this sort of leeway. To use your example of my Eurofighter model. It is a visual representation of an aircraft whose shape, contours and detail are subject to public view. You can go look at one, take pictures and then go home and make a 3d model of one. And you break no laws.

You aren't copying their design to compete in thier market place.

You aren't stealing the secret workings of it avionics

You aren't reverse engineering any of their IP.

You are:

Making an artistic representation of their product.

Now people here are saying this isn't true, but think about it. What about Airfix kits? What about all the other computer games? Toy manufacturers? Do they all have licences? No because they don't need them unless they are using the original detailed design, branding and trademarks. Unless you are exactly copying the original design precisely you aren't stealing/infringing your IP.

3. The claim there is no dark side of restricted access to models. Look at the ACE tickets. How many problems in there blocked due to no access to BIS MLOD files? Are the ACE team a bunch of thieves for wanting to fix a problem in BI models? Is BI wrong to protect their designs? I'd say "no" to both questions - it's just sad that the situation exists.

But is it not the same here? You say there is no access to BIS MLOD files? Well yes there is, but its not legitimate access is it? How is the current situation any different to a locked PBO?

And what if I lock my Eurofighter down. But I provide a texture and config template to do reskins and allow other configs? Would that solve your issues?

Lilewise it's sad when people take your work and claim it for their own, regardless of profit. But the bulk of the discussion here is not doing anything useful to protect developer's efforts. So are we going to step back and look at this from a broader perspective or continue the schoolyard squabble?

Agreed. But the discussion for a lot of people seems to centre around the rights of people to protect their own content. If some of the claims made here were true, no one here would have any rights at all. And I think that's what a few people here would love.

The IP for the trademark, brandname and design belongs to VW.

They have registered all three for that model car.

And by following a design, you are copying it. The model you create from that design looks exactly like the model they invented. Looks exactly like the 3D models of it they have created. It has the same design. The IP for that look, belongs to them. It is theirs.

But it isn't their actual model or work is it. It is an inaccurate representation. By making a representation you aren't claiming rights to their design, trademark or brand. It is an artistic creation, done by your own hand.

If you paint a picture of a landscape, do you own the land? No you own the picture of the land. Its the same principle.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the IP laws do not work as you seem to think. If you won't take my word for it, go ask a lawyer. Most will give you 15 mins of free legal advice. Or go ask the citizens advice bureau.

I know this is correct, because if it wasn't I would have been out of business a very very long time ago. (As would Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, Centuary, Italieri, Trumpeter. Dragon, Heller and a hundred others.)

Think about it...

Edited November 6, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Evil_Echo 11]

RKSL got the points on IP exactly. Now let's all move onward using that as a common point of reference.

I agree about closing the window as well. But in this case that window in not in ArmA, you need to involve Microsoft to change that.

[Fox '09 14]

hold on rock.. why make it easy for thieves? While you can assume they're thieves , you can assume they're not... why lock the window if your neighborhood is said to be safe?

I don't recall too many incidents in the community.

edit:

but i suppose if you want to lock your window you should be able to.. nevermind :)

Edited November 6, 2010 by Fox '09

[rksl-rock 1301]

RKSL got the points on IP exactly. Now let's all move onward using that as a common point of reference.

I agree about closing the window as well. But in this case that window in not in ArmA, you need to involve Microsoft to change that.

Well lets close all the windows we can shall we? We all know anything can be stolen. It just takes the knowledge and skills to do it. By preventing some of the conversion/ripper tools we just make it harder, not impossible. And to discourage some thats all it takes.

Others well I'm all for lynch mobs in extreme cases... :cool:

---------- Post added at 00:31 ---------- Previous post was at 00:27 ----------

hold on rock.. why make it easy for thieves? While you can assume they're thieves ' date=' you can assume they're not... why lock the window if your neighborhood is said to be safe?

I don't recall too many incidents in the community.

edit:

but i suppose if you want to lock your window you should be able to.. nevermind :)[/quote']

There are more than you think. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. You may never find out, or if you do it may be much later. But why leave the door open anyway?

As a policeman once said to me after a burglary in my street, "There is no such thing as a safe area. Only areas where people care enough to do something about it." And the first step to building a safe area is to make everyone aware of the dangers and help them secure their property.

[whisper 0]

But is it not the same here? You say there is no access to BIS MLOD files? Well yes there is, but its not legitimate access is it? How is the current situation any different to a locked PBO?

It is different because currently we can (unlegitimately) access it, like it has happened all the time since OFP made it to demo state.

With locked PBO, we can't. That looks good to you.

To me, that screams of "hey, let's take this feature from unprotected addon X, this texture / LOD model from unprotected addon Y, don't ask for it, incorporate into our own addon, lock it, call it our own, and nobody will complain"

A big NONO in my book.

Your precious commercial creation will be available to A2, protected, and soon after will come a bunch of other protected addons with content from unverifiable source. And I'll begin to suspect your own protected content may not be so full of things owned by you. After all, why are you so eager to hide your content when even BI doesn't do much in the matter?