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

[rksl-rock 1301]

Wait. You still need some other tool to get the configs out of the pbo into human readable format.

Nope, you can view configs in the ingame config browser (as was mentioned in this very thread) or via a simple(ish) scripted mission. But even then if that config contains someone's unique work it should be respected.

And, then, if a EULA said you can't even look at the configs in-game, would that be valid in your opinion?

If you have to use a tool to decode something and the EULA says you cant... isnt it obvious?

Or, in a reductio ad absurdum way, what if an addon contained something that the EULA said that no one should even look at - would that be enforceable from your perspective? :) Think of it like a MacGuffin thing....

Now you are being absurd.

But if that content is the author's own work then shouldnt they have the right to restrict its use?

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[NoRailgunner 0]

And if there is a way to reduce that small percentage even further by making it hard to steal from us why shouldn't we try to find a way? Because you don't like the possible solutions out there I should stop modding?

The question is:

Is this "small percentage" worth enough for BIS to set the optional lock into high or highest priority "against" other developments/bugfixes of A2OA+DLCs?

Imagine for a minute that you are a game dev/publisher - will you sacrifice your money, time and staff to hunt down only a small percentage of those thieves who are stealing other people's work?

Without a considerable gain?

No - you should stop modding for this game if you are 100% sure that it is not worth, waste of time and more frustrating than enjoyable. ;)

[whisper 0]

I don't think it would be at risk, or more correctly i think it would be at less risk in a locked PBO. Look at how many complaints and abuses of EULAs there are on these forums fomr within the community. Then go onto the 3D models sites, garrys mod etc. You can spend 30 mins searching and find a hell of a lot of community models on them. Either for free or for cash. The EULAs arent protecting them outside of this community.

The bold part, in turns, suddenly makes any encryption tool mandatory, even if labelled optional, you must encrypt for the safeness of your creation.

I was talking about non-locked BPO being at less risk without encryption tools ;) But, like you pointed out, to be safe, they need to be locked if an encryption tool exists

In the end, it's either :

* opened community where you can take example on something, learn, by yourself, on something, because content is shared, even though it is EULA protected. And this never prevent people from communicating, far from it. And this is the model since OFP Demo. You can even help creators by pointing out issues in their creation, this happened a lot in these very forums for a lot of releases.

* more closed community, where you need original author to try understanding something, with every issue coming along this path (I don't believe for a second someone will be available to answer any question about his creation at anytime, forever, for example)

There is no middleground between the two visions. Or at least, none have been proposed here so far

[dmarkwick 261]

But if that content is the author's own work then shouldnt they have the right to restrict its use?

It's use, of course. But then that right already exists.

[rksl-rock 1301]

The question is:

Is this "small percentage" worth enough for BIS to set the optional lock into high or highest priority "against" other developments/bugfixes of A2OA+DLCs?

Imagine for a minute that you are a game dev/publisher - will you sacrifice your money, time and staff to hunt down only a small percentage of those thieves who are stealing other people's work?

Without a considerable gain?

No - you should stop modding for this game if you are 100% sure that it is not worth, waste of time and more frustrating than enjoyable. ;)

I think when that small percentage puts the enjoyment and production of the community contnet at risk, then yes i think its worth the investment.

I'm not suggesting BIS staff hunt down theives. Please link to where I have or anyone else has said anything remotely like that.

I think you should leave the community but i doubt you will listen to me either. You must be getting rather frustrated by now too. :D

It's use, of course. But then that right already exists.

Yes it doesn't But Trexian seems to suggest at various points that he has the "right" to ignore what he sees as an unenforceable EULA. Specifically one that he disagrees with.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yes it doesn't But Trexian seems to suggest at various points that he has the "right" to ignore what he sees as an unenforceable EULA. Specifically one that he disagrees with.[/font][/color]

Actually I think the issue is that there are different ideas of fair use.

[dm 9]

then i'll call your argument selfish and greedy

Excuse me for being greedy by wanting to protect the FREE content that I would provide for you. For free. You know, that you didnt have to do ANYTHING in order to obtain.

But hey, if I'm being greedy by wanting to protect MY work, what does that make the people who want to rip it apart and adjust it etc etc?

[rksl-rock 1301]

The bold part, in turns, suddenly makes any encryption tool mandatory, even if labelled optional, you must encrypt for the safeness of your creation.

But using your scenario the fact that you are probably going to lose (some of) the people with "the knowledge" from the community because they are having their products stolen also limits the facility of you and others to learn from them. Ultimately this harms the community as well.

Is it not better to make the people with the knowledge feel secure enough to stick around and ask them for help than to lose them?

I understand what you are saying, but to some extent this is a circular argument.

You need to protect the "knowledge" for a healthy community. To you these means being able to look and learn from other people's addons. As a consequence of that 'facility' some people are abusing it and stealing addon makers works. This pisses off addon makers, which causes them to leave taking thier "knowledge" with them. Diminishing the global library of "knowledge" further. With less people to learn from progress is slowed if not stalled. The community is weakened.

If you lock the PBO format down, people cant peek, nor can they steal. But you are now dependant on addon makers sharing their knowledge publically and BIS samples to learn. I maintain that this isn't so bad as loosing those addon makers in the first place. Yes it does mean that people now have to ask questions but I also suggest that it would be a good thing. Since communication means closer ties with our peers. People talk, make friends and co-operate more. Which i see as a very desirable situation.

I was talking about non-locked BPO being at less risk without encryption tools But, like you pointed out, to be safe, they need to be locked if an encryption tool exists

In the end, it's either :

* opened community where you can take example on something, learn, by yourself, on something, because content is shared, even though it is EULA protected. And this never prevent people from communicating, far from it. And this is the model since OFP Demo. You can even help creators by pointing out issues in their creation, this happened a lot in these very forums for a lot of releases.

Not in my experience. But I agree it can happen. But more common is the dispute when someone posts a personal edit of their work. Or an outright rip. I would maintain that more of these suggestions and corrections are the product of play testing rather than peeking. Although I have seen several addon makers offer suggestions for fixes once they've seen the config.

* more closed community, where you need original author to try understanding something, with every issue coming along this path (I don't believe for a second someone will be available to answer any question about his creation at anytime, forever, for example)

OK so you have to wait an hour, a day etc. Its frustrating but the addon maker that actually made the content in the first place probably spent a week working it out. Have a bit of patience.

But take a look in the Modding section in these forums. Look at how many questions are answered in there by random people. Not just the authors. There are a lot of "experts" out there that are willing to help you. You arent dependant on the author alone.

There is no middleground between the two visions. Or at least, none have been proposed here so far

I wish there were. But we either find one or we settle for either one of the camps. The result of which is we lose people from the community either way.

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[jw custom 56]

Excuse me for being greedy by wanting to protect the FREE content that I would provide for you. For free. You know, that you didnt have to do ANYTHING in order to obtain.

But hey, if I'm being greedy by wanting to protect MY work, what does that make the people who want to rip it apart and adjust it etc etc?

What harm can it possible do to you if someone in here have solved a problem by looking at your code?

What harm can it possible do to you if someone in here have edited a mod you released for personal use?

[st_dux 26]

JW Custom asks some good questions. What exactly is being "protected"? Your authorship? When you release something on a public forum, there is no question as to who made it. If someone takes what you did and improves upon it while giving you credit for the original concept, how is this bad?

Edited November 9, 2010 by ST_Dux

[dm 9]

Its not about harm, its about protecting my choices.

I've made something, I dont want people poking around in it.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

And to follow on from Rock's post, it has not been my experience in almost 10 years of mod making that problems are solved (especially in models) by other people poking around in them.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I've made something, I dont want people poking around in it.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Because i have absolutely no problem with people poking around with my work. I learned from this community, and the community can learn from me if possible. Obviously you dont have to allow it, but i dont really see why not.

Maybe you are so amazing that you never looked at other peoples work to learn from it, but it seems you are one of the few.

Edited November 9, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[dmarkwick 261]

And to follow on from Rock's post, it has not been my experience in almost 10 years of mod making that problems are solved (especially in models) by other people poking around in them.

Well in that case well done, you seem to be unique in that you've somehow achieved a level of proficiency in ArmA2 modding without the benefit of example. Particularly as 10 years ago there wasn't even 1% of the official information available today.

[jw custom 56]

Its not about harm, its about protecting my choices.

I've made something, I dont want people poking around in it.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Well there you have it, you don't want anybody to look and learn from your code because it's yours, it sure sounds like selfishness and maybe greed in some form.

And of course your have never looked into pbo's without asking for permission every single time, actually BIS mail inbox is filled with emails from you :rolleyes:

[st_dux 26]

I've made something, I dont want people poking around in it.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

It's hard to understand because the only reason given so far for maintaining this position is that it's your right to do so. All this does is explain that it's possible (or should be possible) to protect your intellectual property, but it doesn't explain why you would want to do it. It's clearly a detrimental practice in a modding community that is built upon learning from others, and I can't see what it is you're trying to protect when you're offering what you've made for free, anyway. How does someone looking through your .pbos, in any shape or form, harm you? How is it any way beneficial to you or anyone else to stop people from looking through .pbos? These questions have yet to be answered.

[dm 9]

Because i have absolutely no problem with people poking around with my work.

But why should I be dissallowed the choice?

Well in that case well done, you seem to be unique in that you've somehow achieved a level of proficiency in ArmA2 modding without the benefit of example. Particularly as 10 years ago there wasn't even 1% of the official information available today.

I love how all the nay-sayers have instantly jumped on this hypothetical worst case scenario.

Answer me this, if you will:

1. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would lock all of them?

2. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would stop answering peoples questions (be they in post, pm or email form)?

And I still dont get why you have to be able to look at my models to learn something? (Are all you nay-sayers somehow suggesting that those of us wanting to lock our pbos are somehow better mod makers than everyone else?)

Say I make a tank. Whoop-de-friggen-do. Theres PLENTY of other tanks out there you can look at to see how they work, or you can ask me about something specific to my model.

Seriously, all you nay-sayers arguments seem to boil down to:

* Its been that way since day one! (yeah, and we used to live in caves and wipe with leaves, times change people)

* I'm too lazy/in too much of a rush to ask about something/for permission!

[NeMeSiS 11]

But why should I be dissallowed the choice?

You already have that choice. If you dont trust us with whatever you write in your readme, then you can just not release your addon to the general public. If it comes down to that than i would rather lose a few dedicated addonmakers over the risk of alienating an entire generation of possible new modders, and the open community spirit we have.

While i believe that you will answer questions, there is always the change that either you dissapear, or that you will not answer all of them because too many,... really, we have been over this before.

Edited November 9, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[dm 9]

it sure sounds like selfishness and maybe greed in some form.

Yes, because clearly I would be greedy and selfish for giving out FREE content...

[nettrucker 142]

Hi there

this is one of the most interesting threads I read through.

I'm not into modelling but I believe that the lock on PBO's should be possible for those who wish to do so. The reasoning behind my opinion is very simple. If a modeller creates something it's his intellectual property. He and only he is the one to establish under what terms and conditions his model will be released on the Internet. Since only recently laws have regulated the protection of Intellectual property on the Internet and only in a few countries, there's still a long way to go.

Now I believe also that we as the community should respect the wish of other community members to lock their pbo's if they wish to do so. We as the community should respect the terms of a release by the author even if it's freeware. If he don't want his pbo's to be opened than we should respect that, regardless how things might have been handled in the past.

Just my 2 cents

kind regards

[dm 9]

You already have that choice.

And its a shit choice. Release it and have it ripped to bits, or dont and everyone has to miss out because a few people cant let go of a privelage...

If it comes down to that than i would rather lose a few dedicated addonmakers over the risk of alienating an entire generation of possible new modders

Because locking some of my pbos is totally going to destroy the whole community... :j:

I refer you back to my recent post here.

Answer me questions 1 and 2, if you will...

[dmarkwick 261]

* Its been that way since day one! (yeah, and we used to live in caves and wipe with leaves, times change people)

Well I still wipe my ass with something that might as well be a leaf. Some things are fundamentally unchangeable :)

* I'm too lazy/in too much of a rush to ask about something/for permission!

I'm generally unreliable at providing quick succinct support for people asking for info. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. I recommend people to un-PBO the relevant addon instead and find the answer through direct example, plus there's always the possibility of learning something useful on the way :)

Edited November 9, 2010 by DMarkwick

[NeMeSiS 11]

Answer me questions 1 and 2, if you will...

Yeah sorry i noticed them only after i posted and edited, however ive already seen those questions before in this topic and seem them answered by others, this is just going back and forth and to be honest i really cant be bothered with this whole 'discussion'.

[whisper 0]

Not in my experience. But I agree it can happen. But more common is the dispute when someone posts a personal edit of their work. Or an outright rip. I would maintain that more of these suggestions and corrections are the product of play testing rather than peeking. Although I have seen several addon makers offer suggestions for fixes once they've seen the config.[/font][/color]

Kju's example jumps in my mind.

Same for any interoperability issues, they get solved easily, etc...

OK so you have to wait an hour, a day etc. Its frustrating but the addon maker that actually made the content in the first place probably spent a week working it out. Have a bit of patience.

I wasn't talking about the time it would take.

It may very well end in not having an answer at all, because creator isn't available anymore, or simply can't answer.

I for once, believe far more in learning by example than explanation.

The stuff I do, go take a look at it, no problem. If you need further explanation on specifics, no problem.

But don't come asking me simple things when simply looking at the code will get you the answer (and will have made you think about it, and actually understand it, not that I do too complex things :P )

I'm not available for this at all.

My problem : in a "protected scheme", I can't even do that anymore, when I only want to see me credited when my work is reused. Putting the source available for everyone available means putting the source for everyone to steal without being ever caught.

But take a look in the Modding section in these forums. Look at how many questions are answered in there by random people. Not just the authors. There are a lot of "experts" out there that are willing to help you. You arent dependant on the author alone.

And how did these experts learn in the first hand?

[dmarkwick 261]

I love how all the nay-sayers have instantly jumped on this hypothetical worst case scenario.

I'm trying, but I cannot see the link between this and the quote it's responding to.

Answer me this, if you will:

1. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would lock all of them?

No.

2. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would stop answering peoples questions (be they in post, pm or email form)?

No. Are these questions related to anything?

[whisper 0]

But why should I be dissallowed the choice?

I love how all the nay-sayers have instantly jumped on this hypothetical worst case scenario.

Answer me this, if you will:

1. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would lock all of them?

2. Did I ever say, given the choice to lock my pbos, that I would stop answering peoples questions (be they in post, pm or email form)?

And I still dont get why you have to be able to look at my models to learn something? (Are all you nay-sayers somehow suggesting that those of us wanting to lock our pbos are somehow better mod makers than everyone else?)

Say I make a tank. Whoop-de-friggen-do. Theres PLENTY of other tanks out there you can look at to see how they work, or you can ask me about something specific to my model.

Seriously, all you nay-sayers arguments seem to boil down to:

* Its been that way since day one! (yeah, and we used to live in caves and wipe with leaves, times change people)

* I'm too lazy/in too much of a rush to ask about something/for permission!

You apparently didn't read at least what I wrote.

The choice of locking pbo will end up in a no choice : people will have to lock their pbo, even if they originally wanted to make content visible

Aww, and about this :

And to follow on from Rock's post, it has not been my experience in almost 10 years of mod making that problems are solved (especially in models) by other people poking around in them.

There is more than models to share knowledge about. How about we stop talking exclusively about models, and their creator (are they that special), or we start talking about locking exclusively models, and not the rest? One or the other.

Edited November 9, 2010 by whisper