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

[rksl-rock 1300]

@DM-

EULAs and copyrights are separate things, my friend.

Yes they are but EULAs are statements of IP ownership and copyright that are there to allow you to make an informed decision about the legal use of a product. And one that you must agree to before using the product.

A EULA is a contract. Contracts must be supported by 'consideration.' When you buy a game, the exchange of money is the consideration.

Whether there is consideration to support a EULA for a free addon is an open question. To my knowledge, no court in any country has addressed that.

Go do some research you will find quite a few cases relating to FREEWARE in the US law libraries alone. And thousands more internationally.

A gentleman's agreement type principle has been cultivated by BI regarding OFP/ArmA addons, and I think it is generally effective. But, my point is to really just caution those of you who do this sort of stuff professionally - the real world principles that protect you in your professional life are ill-suited to this hobby.

Please point me at the license, clause or agreement that covers the terms of this Gentleman's agreement. One that states your right to alter/affect or redistribute my work when specifically prohibited by the terms of the Licence attached to the original addon. In reality this "gentleman's agreement" is a vague set of ideas that vary form user to user. All with different interpretations.

In fact, the underlying principle of IP law is to keep stuff closed, as much protection for creators of work as possible. That is almost diametrically opposite of the openness that is fundamental to the OFP/ArmA community that I have become familiar with.

That is your opinion, one you are entitled to but it doesn't make it a factual reality. The reality here is people do own the content they produce. And they do release freeware addons with licenses that under law and any reasonable moral code you should abide by.

@Rock-

Fair Use is a defense to infringement. It generally means that an infringement DID occur, but that the owner of the IP is not entitled to any damages.

Sorry you are wrong there. You see I've see the fair use defence applied in US and EU courts. It rarely succeeds because the moment people start to distribute content derived form someone else's IP then "fair use" is no longer applicable.

Worldwide IP does not use words like 'theft' - I'm surprised to hear you even say that if you are a professional? Who is dealing in fantasy after all?

I use the word 'theft' because its the clearest definition of the concept in any of the dozen or so languages native to the people on this forum. Its nice and easy to understand and communicates the nature of the offence clearly.

I think to use the more clinical and dispassionate language of law on these forums are rather patronising and rather pretentious don't you?

;)

You would be very surprised to hear what professionals say outside of court rooms. ;)

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:50 ----------

Well, it lead to a response from BIS that confirmed BIS won't be implementing extra protection for community authors. But it also let's people express their views, which is healthy. As long as people respect each other's posts and don't start getting petty.

Actually as Dwarden stated it was only his opinion. And not that of BIS.

[Daniel 0]

Actually as Dwarden stated it was only his opinion. And not that of BIS.

My bad, should have checked his post.

[TRexian 0]

Yes they are but EULAs are statements of IP ownership and copyright that are there to allow you to make an informed decision about the legal use of a product. And one that you must agree to before using the product.

Yes, but they are fundamentally a contract.

[Edit: also, missed this the first time - EULAs are statements of someone's belief that they have IP rights. A EULA cannot create IP rights where they do not already exist. I don't think that's what you meant, though, regardless.]

Go do some research you will find quite a few cases relating to FREEWARE in the US law libraries alone. And thousands more internationally.

I have. ;) There is a chance I missed some, so if there is a case that finds damages in one freeware release being used in another freeware release, I'd be very interested.

(I'm pretty sure such a case doesn't exist.)

Please point me at the license, clause or agreement that covers the terms of this Gentleman's agreement. One that states your right to alter/affect or redistribute my work when specifically prohibited by the terms of the Licence attached to the original addon. In reality this "gentleman's agreement" is a vague set of ideas that vary form user to user. All with different interpretations.

Uh.... gentlemen's agreements aren't usually written down - then they become contracts. I'd direct you to the multiple posts around the ArmAverse where either BI or one of the mirrors shuts down an addon that infringes.

That is your opinion, one you are entitled to but it doesn't make it a factual reality.

Back at you....

The reality here is people do own the content they produce.

Indeed. Never said they didn't.

And they do release freeware addons with licenses that under law and any reasonable moral code you should abide by.

Morality <> legality.

I remain unconvinced that the freeware addon licenses are enforceable in court. In legal terms they are illusory (which has been a successful argument to get around real-world license).

And, morally, I find MORE objectionable the selfishness that has oft been evidenced in this thread. But, 'reasonable moral code' is almost nonsensical as a phrase.

Sorry you are wrong there. You see I've see the fair use defence applied in US and EU courts. It rarely succeeds because the moment people start to distribute content derived form someone else's IP then "fair use" is no longer applicable.

First, if the case gets to court, it is either a close call or the IP owner is convinced they are right, and likely the infringer knows that, too. There are THOUSANDS of IP cases where the FU is clear - educational is the most common - that never get to court. Court cases are not the right universe of situations to analyze.

But, even so, I still think you misunderstand the defense.

IP owner: you copied my article and distributed it.

FU claimant: I did. I am a teacher and gave it to my students for free. I even paid for the costs of copying it.

An admission to what would otherwise be an infringement, but a defense.

I use the word 'theft' because its the clearest definition of the concept in any of the dozen or so languages native to the people on this forum. Its nice and easy to understand and communicates the nature of the offence clearly.

Alas, it doesn't. It is at best an incomplete analogy, and at worst an outright distortion.

I think to use the more clinical and dispassionate language of law on these forums are rather patronising and rather pretentious don't you?

I like words. Words have meanings. I like when words are used in the way that best conveys meaning. Using the wrong word to express things is something people should try to avoid IMHO.

You would be very surprised to hear what professionals say outside of court rooms.

I don't think I would be. ;)

Edited November 4, 2010 by TRexian

[rksl-rock 1300]

Wiki will have to do for now:

I do so love that people think a wiki link solves everything. And gives the definitive answer to any question. But did you read that first paragraph properly? And did you actually understand it?

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property[\b] include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

IP rights cover anything you make, design or create. It does not need to be registered. But can be in the form of a patent etc.

Trademarks and Copyright - do need to be registered to be maintained.

Infringement of all types of IP is an actionable offence under criminal and civil law depending on the circumstances of the infringement.

Now if I make a model. I immediately own all the IP rights to that model. As long as its my own work. How do I know this? Well I've been through the process of proving IP theft both personally and professionally on behalf of Airbus and other clients. Personally I've won 3 out of 4 cases. (The 4th being dropped due the ongoing cost rather than a negative outcome.)

It is generally known. And you have no economic benefit from locking a pbo (not model). If I read the last one correct (not sure about this one), I don't think so - it's a set of config values, or a mission consisting of generally speaking publicly available information, not granting it enough uniqueness to warrant it.

Here you see we end up returning to practicality. You see out of the probable content of a PBO the majority are the creation of an "artist" and are subject to IP:

• Model - Creative product of arguable value

• Textures - Creative product of arguable value

• Sounds - Creative product of arguable value

• textures - Creative product of arguable value

• Config - reformatting of engine variables allowing the "creative product" to be used.

Now it would be far more practical and economically viable to protect the PBO containing all these than to develop a method of securing each individual component. So lets just lock the PBO. (You can read configs ingame anyway.)

What's left then? As far as I can see, it's only copyright, which I explained above.

Well a practical understanding of real law might help :p

Seriously, very few people in this thread have any real concept of the IP and copyright laws. I'm not a specialist, nor am i a lawyer but I've had to work within them for most of my working life so I do at least know my rights.

Edited November 4, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[TRexian 0]

I'm not a specialist, nor am i a lawyer but I've had to work within them for most of my working life so I do at least know my rights.

I think you have a skewed version of your rights. ;)

You also left out scripting. Which, in CG's case, when it comes to missions, is very much like theatrical scripting, to which IP rights would apply.

For me, any addon scripting could also arguably allow IP rights to be asserted by the creator.

All of which brings me back around to the question: are you SURE you want to bring the complexity of Real World IP law into ArmA addons?

I think it would be a mistake.

Or better yet, if someone infringes, sue them in real court. Stake your money on your principle. I know why you won't, though....

[CarlGustaffa 4]

This is the real world where things get stolen and are exploited. If you want to live in a "free" world with no possessions let me know when yu find one. It won't be in our life times nor on this planet.

I'm sorry, but here you go at the "theft" thing again. Peeking (which is what you want to stop) does not equal theft. Give me one definition that states otherwise. Please! Exploitation such as the job case, can also use works from the public domain. That doesn't grant the job applicant the right to do so. Where the source came from is of little interest, it's a fraud nonetheless.

That is your opinion, one you are entitled to but it doesn't make it a factual reality. The reality here is people do own the content they produce. And they do release freeware addons with licenses that under law and any reasonable moral code you should abide by.

No, I think that's pretty much the majority, a huge majority, of this communities opinion. And if you consider the stated "no harm - no foul" that BIS themselves follow, you should learn to respect and follow the same guidelines and not demand any special treatment (and I'm still talking pbo peeking here). If BIS wanted to enforce by the letter, and remove de-pbo'ing tools as they would be in their legal right to do, do you think many would stick around?

We do have that moral code.

You're endorsing closed source because you believe in it. Most of us don't. But with option to lock, most would eventually - it's no longer optional. Per definition it isn't open source, but in reality and common practice, it is.

If the standard was closed source from the beginning, I wouldn't even join in the first place.

If the standard becomes closed source (by allowing everyone to encrypt), I know myself and a few others would leave.

Example from my own inbox in how having to ask hinders development:

1. From me - "initial contact and request" - 10-03-2010

2. Reply - "yea sure, no problem" - 10-08-2010

3. Reply - "whops, forgot - here u are, have fun" - 10-30-2010

4. From me - "how about linencing, this ok?" - 10-30-2010

Still no answer (he doesn't have to answer unless he object - I apply common sense that if it was a big deal he would reply on it). And still no answer in this thread when I asked for advice on it ;)

That's a months time to open a pbo if that was the case. By that time I wouldn't even know the reason I wanted to open it in the first place anymore. In this particular case it isn't something I can find in the forums or anywhere either (custom resource as it turned out, I thought it was script only). Good for progress? I seriously disagree. Much better to be able to poke around first, then deal with the asking around for permissions etc. I might not even use the stuff I obtained (because it was resource driven and not script only, which I may find adds a bit too much size to an MP mission), talk about waste of time. By poking, I would have found that out immediately and start looking for other angles.

[whisper 0]

Myke;1781965']Also hypothetic and we'll never know how it would have been turned out.

But why the hell is everyone always thinking that negative? The option of locking content will kill the Community. The option of locking content will turn the community in a bunch of elitist assholes. The option of locking content will end the armaversum.

On what bases this negative presumption?

I'm replying very late' date=' but as I share a bit this "negative" PoV, let me explain : back in 2001 and the demo release, the community was ALL about tools to crack the data format and coding, releasing Editor soft even before the full game release, etc....

The huge amount of knowledge amassed at this time was through tools made by community to look into BI's (and transitively, once BI released the modding tools, into the whole community's) work to see how all this worked.

Tbh, most of the Wiki entries come from this kind of knowledge, and comes from OFPEC & Consorts Scripting Commands, forums, you name it...

Many of current BI's employees are community members from this area.

I see it as the foundation of the OFP modding community, and it was all done for the good of the game. Sure, there has been theft issues due to the whole setup, but it was often tracked and publicly denounced.

Issue comes from people mixing pro release with public release. I'm rather sure it doesn't affect most of the modding community, far from it. And since I see the [u']option[/u] of protecting these professional people ending up being not optional because it will hide theft of other public release, I'm not fond of this kind of solution. I've nothing against professional modders, far far from it. But I don't want to see what I consider as having been fundamental to the development of this modding community so far, compromised.

[rksl-rock 1300]

I think you have a skewed version of your rights. ....

How so?

You also left out scripting. Which, in CG's case, when it comes to missions, is very much like theatrical scripting, to which IP rights would apply. ....

Yes i did miss out scripting but not intentionally.

All of which brings me back around to the question: are you SURE you want to bring the complexity of Real World IP law into ArmA addons?

Hey if that is what it takes to get rid of the opportunistic theiving scum then lets go for it.

Or better yet, if someone infringes, sue them in real court. Stake your money on your principle. I know why you won't, though....

Wrong... been there and done that but they folded before we got to the court.

IP "theft" has been proven in several non commercial cases this year in London alone. One case I know quite a lot of relates to a singer/songwriter friend of my ex. Another group were performing her songs and tried to claim rights to the track. She took them to court and won. She won a judgment proving her claim and her legal costs. However no damages since there were no loss of income/profit was found.

Another, one that i don't have personal connection to but I followed closely nonetheless. A photographer took a series of "art shots", he uploaded them to Flickr under a "Freeware" CC non commercial - attribution licence. They later appeared in a magazine as part of a commercial advert. He also sued and took the company to court. He won the judgment and was awarded damages of £2,900 + costs.

And around 2005 literally hundreds of Freeware FS addons were found to be being sold illegally. Similar results in courts across the US, EU and Australia. I had a nasty tussle with one publisher myself.

So if you bother to look you will find plenty of creative freeware products being exploited. Both in commercial and non commercial cases and supporting judgement. But I know you won't bother looking though....

Edited November 4, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[dm 9]

Peeking... ...does not equal theft

If the EULA of the addon states that you are not allowed to modify or open (or any other combination of terms which prevent you from "peeking") then "peeking" breaks the EULA and is, as such, illegal.

But we get right back to the point of (and the same old repetition, but we have to keep repeating because you keep failing to understand the point...) "you dont care about the licence, because 'i'm only peeking in the addon to learn'" which you've admitted to. This is one of the reasons why we want better pbo protection. Because we dont want you "peeking" in our stuff. Jesus H Christ how hard is that to understand?

At the moment I achieve the prevention of you "peeking" at my pbos by not releasing them. But then the whole community has to go without, because of a few selfish individuals.

Ask and you get answers, peek and you get no addons.

You have no right to peek, what makes you think you do?

[TRexian 0]

How so?

You are not objective. You have an interest in the most restrictive view of IP rights, and it shows.

Hey if that is what it takes to get rid of the opportunistic theiving scum then lets go for it.

hehe

A few thousand years of laws haven't been able to get rid of opportunistic thieving scum - I'm not sure how BI will do it!

Wrong... been there and done that but they folded before we got to the court.

Exactly. The cost/benefit analysis made the suit unreasonable.

One case I know quite a lot of relates to a singer/songwriter friend of my ex. Another group were performing her songs and tried to claim rights to the track. She took them to court and won. She won a judgment proving her claim and her legal costs. However no damages since there were no loss of income/profit was found.

I'd be interested in any links to this. It is VERY odd that no damages were found in that instance. Were the performances not for-pay or something?

Another, one that i don't have personal connection to but I followed closely nonetheless. A photographer took a series of "art shots", he uploaded them to Flickr under a "Freeware" CC non commercial - attribution licence. They later appeared in a magazine as part of a commercial advert. He also sued and took the company to court. He won the judgment and was awarded damages of £2,900 + costs.

That is more understandable. The publication received money, and some percentage of that was traceable to the inclusion of his art. If the use had not been commercial, there would not have been a lawsuit for 2 reasons: no damages, and no violation of the EULA.

And around 2005 literally hundreds of Freeware FS addons were found to be being sold illegally. Similar results in courts across the US, EU and Australia. I had a nasty tussle with one publisher myself.

Links? I vaguely remember that, but it had something to do with the MS license, right?

So if you bother to look you will find plenty of creative freeware products being exploited. Both in commercial and non commercial cases and supporting judgement.

No - not when the infringing use is non-commercial. It is still possible to get an injunction, although that would even be unlikely in the absence of damages. (Your singer-songwriter friend notwithstanding.)

[jw custom 56]

At the moment I achieve the prevention of you "peeking" at my pbos by not releasing them

Yes you mentioned that before yet the community is still going strong.

[TRexian 0]

If the EULA of the addon states that you are not allowed to modify or open (or any other combination of terms which prevent you from "peeking") then "peeking" breaks the EULA and is, as such, illegal.

What would the damages be?

Zero.

And, 'illegal' is not the same as 'unlawful' or even 'a violation of the EULA.'

Violating a EULA is a civil act, not a criminal act (which is generally the definition of 'illegal').

But we get right back to the point of (and the same old repetition, but we have to keep repeating because you keep failing to understand the point...) "you dont care about the licence, because 'i'm only peeking in the addon to learn'" which you've admitted to. This is one of the reasons why we want better pbo protection. Because we dont want you "peeking" in our stuff. Jesus H Christ how hard is that to understand?

It is very hard for me to understand the motivation for preventing people from looking and learning. The only way it makes sense is a combination of pride and greed. If there is another reason, I'd love to hear it.

At the moment I achieve the prevention of you "peeking" at my pbos by not releasing them. But then the whole community has to go without, because of a few selfish individuals.

Ahh... don't be so hard on yourself... you otherwise seem to be a decent person. And, so... you don't release your pbos.... and yet the community still lives.

How awkward you must feel....

You have no right to peek, what makes you think you do?

Fair Use would be a starting point. It is a recognition that some uses are philanthropic - they serve the greater good.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Infringement of all types of IP is an actionable offence under criminal and civil law depending on the circumstances of the infringement.

I highlighted your own words ;)

Now if I make a model. I immediately own all the IP rights to that model. As long as its my own work. How do I know this? Well I've been through the process of proving IP theft both personally and professionally on behalf of Airbus and other clients. Personally I've won 3 out of 4 cases. (The 4th being dropped due the ongoing cost rather than a negative outcome.)

And let me use your own words against you: depending on the circumstances of the infringement

We ALL agree (I think even most of us nay sayers) that model theft is easily exploited on the commercial marked. But that is not the case with PBOs - there is no market interests or anything worthy of protection with a PBO (especially considering common practice - which would be equivalent of application of law, around here). That's why I insist; please drop the model angle, or we'll just run around in circles.

If you sued me for poking around in your configs, you'd be made laughing stock in the court, and you know it.

Here you see we end up returning to practicality. You see out of the probable content of a PBO the majority are the creation of an "artist" and are subject to IP:

• Model - Creative product of arguable value

• Textures - Creative product of arguable value

• Sounds - Creative product of arguable value

• textures - Creative product of arguable value

• Config - reformatting of engine variables allowing the "creative product" to be used.

Model, true, because it can be exploited commercially.

None of the others can, and btw, you even listed textures twice ;)

I can use textures to promote myself for a job, but where they came from is irrelevant, it's the "fraud laws" (?) that comes into play here, not copyright.

Now it would be far more practical and economically viable to protect the PBO containing all these than to develop a method of securing each individual component. So lets just lock the PBO. (You can read configs ingame anyway.)

Nope, because it hinders development for the rest of us, and promotes eliteness most of us don't want, well, and all those other negative factors that has been discussed to death here already. There is no need to secure individual components, and they have no economic interests. Even if I stole sounds that came from a payware source that you obtained legally, you wouldn't be the guy ending up in trouble for it, I would. My ISP isn't responsible for what I use my connection for. I know I can read configs ingame. The new guy doesn't, and by the common practice (using BIS pbos) the most natural way is to de-pbo, find what you're looking for, and maybe stumble upon other interesting things in the process. If I need to peek a specific value, I also need to know the structure of the config.

Well a practical understanding of real law might help :p

Seriously, very few people in this thread have any real concept of the IP and copyright laws. I'm not a specialist, nor am i a lawyer but I've had to work within them for most of my working life so I do at least know my rights.

I've studied enough cases to understand that whenever IP laws are applied the way you say (actually going to court about it), there was always a commercial aspect of it. I couldn't find any (ok, I didn't look that hard, which is why I asked for an example, which didn't turn up) cases that had to rely on the legal system for freeware content disputes. I'm not saying they don't exist, but we seem to be able to manage it here pretty well by letting moderators handle any disputes. They can handle "common sense" that copyright law exceptions require, there is absolutely no sense in making it go anywhere further.

As for reading config values ingame. That would be the next step to prevent...

we dont want you "peeking" in our stuff

Why? What's your gain? As already stated, I can still use game mechanics to "peek". Or am I breaking your EULA by doing so?

Violating a EULA is a civil act, not a criminal act (which is generally the definition of 'illegal').

Hehe, good point.

[TRexian 0]

Wait. What? You can read a config in-game? How?

Seriously, it seems like every week I find out something that makes me feel like a complete n00b.

[nettrucker 142]

Guys this thread has turned out into a Hornets nest.:j:

kind regards

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@TRexian:

BIS own config viewer.

Config Explorer (for Arma1, but easily changed to be made workable).

The getXXXX commands. Which I think I first found by de-pbo'ing an addon ;)

Btw, I see my understanding of "depending on the circumstances of the infringement" is unjust in the way I use it here, because I misread how it was used (cleaning my glasses as we speak, sorry about that). But by looking at copyright law, I get the same kind of understanding - that it depends on the nature and severity of the infringement.

Edited November 4, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[st_dux 26]

That is just such bullshit. Stealing someone's ideas and hardwork is still stealing. Saying it isn't is just utter bollocks.

That's a stellar argument you've got there, Rock. Are you an unquestionable authority on all topics, or just property rights?

I am against all intellectual property rights as I believe they create artificial scarcity, which has several negative economic and cultural consequences. Furthermore, the very idea of intellectual property necessarily invalidates the very first premise of the theory of property, the homestead principle, making it a self-defeating doctrine.

That said, I have no intention in engaging in any further discussion on the theory of intellectual property in this thread as it isn't really relevant here (if you're interested in intellectual property criticism, I would be happy to debate or discuss this issue with you via a civil exchange of PMs). I recognize the existence of intellectual property laws despite my disagreement with them, and more importantly, I understand how these laws work. And several of you need a reality check.

First, there are no criminal laws in place that deal with non-commercial intellectual property. Simply put, it is not a crime to download, use, alter, redistribute, etc. free software. It may be a breach of contract, but it is not a criminal offense; contract law is dealt with in civil court, not criminal court.

Assuming that it is a breach of contract, this could only possibly have ramifications if such a breach resulted in monetary gain for the breacher. As such, it is perhaps possible but certainly not practical to sue someone for "stealing" your freeware, altering it, and redistributing it again as freeware. If the breacher were to turn around and make a commercial venture out of it, then the original author would be entitled to some or all of the profits that came from such a venture, but no such compensation can be offered in a situation in which no one intended to gain anything. At best, you could theoretically get a court to order the person that "stole" your freeware to stop redistributing it (or take their name off of it, or whatever), but I can think of no situation in which this would be worth the cost, trouble or time involved.

Edited November 4, 2010 by ST_Dux

[TRexian 0]

John Locke FTW.

;)

(BTW, this thread is getting more interesting by the minute now!) :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

When you've got the big names interested, its in your interests to take heed...

Nice theory but practical no one of those with a "big name" and others (with not so big names) gives a guarantee to make and release content.

What is the real advantage or gain for BIS to spend time + money developing a proper working optional lock? This won't increase the sales or profit dramatically and I guess its among others "nice to have" features on the list - with no high priority.

If you have to make a living from your scripts/models/addons/etc - don't release them for free. There is no need to shoot yourself in the foot or to bite yourself in your own neck. ;)

[max power 21]

I already read that, i was quoting Max Power which stated all he cared about was that nobody could snoop in his pbo's.

Wait now. I have not made a single statement about what my personal views on my own work are. I have been arguing for the possibility for BIS to provide encryption based on how I view the rights of content makers. My own views on my work are not relevant in any way.

Oh, and Max - 'appeal to convention' is only a fallacy when used to say something is correct or 'right.' In this case, I see the citation to past practice more as a reference to a historical fact. Just as DM just did. That BI has always allowed something doesn't make it 'right.' It just means that that IS the convention, and it has been successful. They do have the ability to change the convention, the argument is whether such a change will likely lead to more or less success.

Just because something is successful does not make it right. We are arguing about what is right here, are we not? That is what all this 'rights' business is, isn't it? The argument is that mod makers don't have a right to lock their pbos based on pass community successes- that the success of the community supercedes the rights of the individuals that make it up.

Apparently, the only success that may be achieved is that the community *might* get some higher-quality models, which may or may not even be playable depending on poly count, and which are very likely to be locked to prevent tweaking. First, I'm not sure that would really be a 'success.' Second, given the Law of Unintended Consequences, there is a reasonable risk that it could lead to fewer open community mods, which could only be considered a 'failure.'

Before you trot out a 'parade of horribles' fallacy, let me point out that none of us has a crystal ball. My speculation is just as valid as yours. ;)

The law of unintended consequences is an addage, not a law. I lost you in you polycount discussion. I'm not sure how polycounts apply to the rights or benefits discussions.

Sorry - thread title (grammatical issues included):

Not, "do you think it should be an option"... but 'necessary.' Maybe the author meant 'optional', and the thread has shifted to that.

The thread title means, "Do you think that it is necessary for BIS to provide the abililty to lock pbos to protect them adequately". It doesn't imply any kind of forced protection. Ergo, the option to lock files.

Slightly off topic, but since it deals with licensing and me being thought of as such a copy-cat around here, I thought I'd post it here.

I recently got permission to include something that is not yet released, and received scripts and needed resources. I plan to release as Share Alike Derivatives Allowed. When I asked if my license (I'm required to follow that license since it's already derivative) was ok by him, I didn't get an answer. That license allows others to modify his work. That might not be intentional. What do I do, and why?

There are several reasons why people may not have answered this.... but that too is off topic :p

I didn't answer it because I was not here, then I was fatigued by the length of your post and skipped the last half of it.

If the work you are borrowing has any stronger license than Share Alike, you cannot use it in your addon. If the original author hasn't specified what license it is using, it is assumed to be copyrighted. Copyright allows derivatives at the sole discretion of the copyright holder. Your work is derivative, and any derivative works of your addon are derivatives of his work. Therefore, unless he specified that you can relicense his work, you can't use it in your addon if you plan to allow derivatives.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Max Power

[jw custom 56]

Wait now. I have not made a single statement about what my personal views on my own work are. I have been arguing for the possibility for BIS to provide encryption based on how I view the rights of content makers. My own views on my work are not relevant in any way.

I was arguing left and right and got the names wrong, i'm sorry for the mistake :o

It was DM i was quoting and referring to :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

Epic length post coming. Sorry :P

You are not objective. You have an interest in the most restrictive view of IP rights, and it shows.

LMFAO - And you are objective?

A few thousand years of laws haven't been able to get rid of opportunistic thieving scum - I'm not sure how BI will do it!

Maybe by education? Support of the addonmakers and punishment of the offenders

Exactly. The cost/benefit analysis made the suit unreasonable.

Its not quite that simple but I'm sure i'd be wasting my time explaining that.

I'd be interested in any links to this. It is VERY odd that no damages were found in that instance. Were the performances not for-pay or something?

I doubt Southwark crown court judgments are online. But in my experience damages are not often awarded when no financial intent is found. Under the limitations of the Berne convention and UK laws, if no financial loss or profit is made you are very unlikely to be awarded damages. Just the judgement that you own the IP.

...If the use had not been commercial, there would not have been a lawsuit for 2 reasons: no damages, and no violation of the EULA.

No that's not correct. You can still get a judgment in this scenario since there is a dispute over the ownership of the material and IP. There is provison under law for the potential of earnings from the disputed products. But usually no damages are awarded where an accurate estimate or value cannot be made. Eg how many singles will that track sell?

Links? I vaguely remember that, but it had something to do with the MS license, right?

Links... none that i can easily find. It was big news at the time. It was around the same time that MS relaxed the licence on the tool set to allow expanded Payware. A lot of the freeware stuff that was out there started appearing for sale by various groups and some models were ripped and altered and resold as commercially published products.

My bad, should have checked his post.

You see that where threads like this get derailed. People misreading what is actually posted.

I'm sorry, but here you go at the "theft" thing again. Peeking (which is what you want to stop) does not equal theft. Give me one definition that states otherwise. Please! Exploitation such as the job case, can also use works from the public domain. That doesn't grant the job applicant the right to do so. Where the source came from is of little interest, it's a fraud nonetheless.

You are misquoting again. Go back and check and you will find its DM that said he wants to stop you peeking. All i want is a way to prevent actual theft of my own IP. Which given the current limitation of the tech solutions would restrict peeking. Now if there was a way to let you snoop around and addon without actually letting you steal the model, textures etc then its a different issue.

No, I think that's pretty much the majority, a huge majority, of this communities opinion. And if you consider the stated "no harm - no foul" that BIS themselves follow, you should learn to respect and follow the same guidelines and not demand any special treatment (and I'm still talking pbo peeking here). If BIS wanted to enforce by the letter, and remove de-pbo'ing tools as they would be in their legal right to do, do you think many would stick around?

Sorry but where is that policy posted? Don't take that as a challenge i'm just curious where BIS have made that position clear? You see i don't think that is BIS position at all. Because that kinda flies in the face of the BIS' stated position on the ownership and rights of community made content. It sounds more like an opinion thats had the benefit of time and its turned into "community fact".

We do have that moral code.

Yes there is one that the community has evolved. I'm not denying it. But there are still those on this forum and in this very thread that don't follow it aren't there.

You're endorsing closed source because you believe in it. Most of us don't. But with option to lock, most would eventually - it's no longer optional. Per definition it isn't open source, but in reality and common practice, it is.

Again you are telling me what i am thinking. You have no clue. You have repeatedly made assumptions about my intent without any actual knowledge of me. Hell you even admitted earlier in the thread that your first impression of me were wrong and I wasn't as elitist as you first thought.

If there was a way to protect the content we create I'd welcome it. I'll even pay for the privilege/option. But this ideal open source world you want so much - where there are no thieves, everyone would be moral and honourable and elephants would fly and shit like mice - doesn't exist. Regardless of your own personal intentions you cannot vouch for the actions or intent of others can you?

You have no right to tell me or anyone else that i cannot or should not protect my work. But I am not forcing you to protect yours. I am asking for the option. Which you insist will become mandatory to prevent the type of theft that you say is not an issue.

Can you not see the paradox in that position? How about we actually try it out and see?

If the standard was closed source from the beginning, I wouldn't even join in the first place.

If the standard becomes closed source (by allowing everyone to encrypt), I know myself and a few others would leave.

It has never been open source. Its just that snooping and "casual theft" for use within the ArmAverse has been tolerated. Its still not legal or condoned. BIS has been extremely generous/lax/blind toward the antics of the community up to date. But recently people have started to take the piss and sell their models and textures. Port their addons to other rival games etc. The fact that Marek is posting about Licensing should clue you into the fact thing are changing. They have to change to protect BIS's product line and future. As such the community is going to have to adapt to the new reality. A reality that quite a few addon makers here knew was coming for a while.

Example from my own inbox in how having to ask hinders development:

1. From me - "initial contact and request" - 10-03-2010

2. Reply - "yea sure, no problem" - 10-08-2010

3. Reply - "whops, forgot - here u are, have fun" - 10-30-2010

4. From me - "how about linencing, this ok?" - 10-30-2010

Still no answer (he doesn't have to answer unless he object - I apply common sense that if it was a big deal he would reply on it). And still no answer in this thread when I asked for advice on it

Hey if you are dealing with someone else's IP then you should either chase him up yourself or respect his EULA and walk away. Then post in the modding area for help. 9/10 times I've gotten help within a day or so.

That's a months time to open a pbo if that was the case. By that time I wouldn't even know the reason I wanted to open it in the first place anymore. In this particular case it isn't something I can find in the forums or anywhere either (custom resource as it turned out, I thought it was script only). Good for progress? I seriously disagree. Much better to be able to poke around first, then deal with the asking around for permissions etc. I might not even use the stuff I obtained (because it was resource driven and not script only, which I may find adds a bit too much size to an MP mission), talk about waste of time. By poking, I would have found that out immediately and start looking for other angles.

Then send a PM and ask him to explain or write a post with your issue and send him a link asking him to help out.

We ALL agree (I think even most of us nay sayers) that model theft is easily exploited on the commercial marked. But that is not the case with PBOs - there is no market interests or anything worthy of protection with a PBO (especially considering common practice - which would be equivalent of application of law, around here). That's why I insist; please drop the model angle, or we'll just run around in circles.

But its the commercially exploitable content that i'm interesting in protecting. Thats:

1. Models

2. Textures

3. Sounds

4. Scripts

The most practical and economic way to do that is encrypt the PBO.

If you sued me for poking around in your configs, you'd be made laughing stock in the court, and you know it.

Ah, but im not suggesting that i'd sue you for poking around in a config am i. I said I'd be in a position to sue you if you exploited my IP. IE copied and stole it. You are again reading your own interpretation into my argument.

The only way I could sue you for poking around in my config is for breach of contract. For breaking the terms of my EULA. But it just wouldnt be worth it over a few lines of code.

Model, true, because it can be exploited commercially.

None of the others can, and btw, you even listed textures twice

I can use textures to promote myself for a job, but where they came from is irrelevant...

If models can be sold so can textures. So can sounds and scripts inthe right market place.

it's the "fraud laws" (?) that comes into play here, not copyright.

One of the "textures" should have been scripts. I was distracted mid post. sue me :P

I'm sorry but the IP and copyright laws do come into it. And depending on the circumstances so do fraud, theft, perjury and others. But hey that's getting really pedantic isn't it.

Nope, because it hinders development for the rest of us, and promotes eliteness most of us don't want, well, and all those other negative factors that has been discussed to death here already.

I'm still no clearer on what this supposed "eliteness" is. I'm told i am an "Elitness faction member". Yet I spend as much time teaching and sharing my knowledge as I do actually making content. (Probably more in recent months)

I don't consider my self elite. I know Soul Assassin doesn't (we had this chat last night) and i know others that are equally amused by the concept. The Elite label is one you give to people. If you want ot elevate them above yourself and others thats your issue. Maybe you should try talking to them and make some friends and share your knowledge. its how i got mine.

Hell write some tutorials. Maybe people will see you as Elite too? Personally I can happily do without the label. I don't like the "fame seeking" aspect of this community.

I've studied enough cases to understand that whenever IP laws are applied the way you say (actually going to court about it), there was always a commercial aspect of it. I couldn't find any (ok, I didn't look that hard, which is why I asked for an example, which didn't turn up) cases that had to rely on the legal system for freeware content disputes. I'm not saying they don't exist, but we seem to be able to manage it here pretty well by letting moderators handle any disputes. They can handle "common sense" that copyright law exceptions require, there is absolutely no sense in making it go anywhere further.

The commercial cases are the ones that make the news and the case histories and the web links. The non commercial ones are the stuff of mundane civil cases that don't make the history books and rely on precedents from 1902.

And if you think common sense has any function in either civil or criminal law then you need to spend a day or two in a court. :P

Seriously mate, please stop reading things into theis topic and especially my po

...

And, 'illegal' is not the same as 'unlawful' or even 'a violation of the EULA.'

Violating a EULA is a civil act, not a criminal act (which is generally the definition of 'illegal').

Actually it depend son the context of the case. If it is a dispute among two people about ownership its civil. But if it relates to fraud it can be treated as criminal.

And as for word games - which you so obviously like - let me be clear in my use of the word. If an act breaks a law it can be said to be illegal. It doesn't matter whether its a civil or criminal issue.

It is very hard for me to understand the motivation for preventing people from looking and learning. The only way it makes sense is a combination of pride and greed. If there is another reason, I'd love to hear it.

If there is a way to both protect the content we develop and at the same time allow you to learn form it without the possibility of theft lets hear it.

Let me ask you how about this.

We lock the PBO's with the actual content in it. And we leave the 2nd PBO with the config open. Would that satisfy your voyeuristic tendencies?

That's a stellar argument you've got there, Rock. Are you an unquestionable authority on all topics, or just property rights?

Its as good as yours.

Nope, I don't claim to be an authority on many things. I only comment on things I actually know something about or have practical experience of.

I am against all intellectual property rights as I believe they create artificial scarcity, which has several negative economic and cultural consequences. Furthermore, the very idea of intellectual property necessarily invalidates the very first premise of the theory of property, the homestead principle, making it a self-defeating doctrine...

Look you are entitled to your own opinion but as you go onto say you recognise their existence and therefore their use in the real world.

...First, there are no criminal laws in place that deal with non-commercial intellectual property. Simply put, it is not a crime to download, use, alter, redistribute, etc. free software. It may be a breach of contract, but it is not a criminal offense; contract law is dealt with in civil court, not criminal court.

But it is still illegal.

Assuming that it is a breach of contract, this could only possibly have ramifications if such a breach resulted in monetary gain for the breacher. As such, it is perhaps possible but certainly not practical to sue someone for "stealing" your freeware, altering it, and redistributing it again as freeware. If the breacher were to turn around and make a commercial venture out of it, then the original author would be entitled to some or all of the profits that came from such a venture, but no such compensation can be offered in a situation in which no one intended to gain anything.

This is where the IP laws and copyright come in. If someone makes use of your IP in a way you do not like or intended you can under law take legal action against them.

At best, you could theoretically get a court to order the person that "stole" your freeware to stop redistributing it (or take their name off of it, or whatever), but I can think of no situation in which this would be worth the cost, trouble or time involved.

Correct. As I've said before in this forums it is up to the Author to make that judgment. It depends on what their IP is worth to them. It doesn't make it impossible as some here are trying to claim.

Edited November 4, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[[aps]gnat 28]

Go Google Intellectual Property

Quote from IP-Australia

intellectual property

Intellectual property represents the property of your mind or intellect. Types of intellectual property include patents, trade marks, designs, confidential information/trade secrets, copyright, circuit layout rights, plant breeder's rights etc.

industrial design

Design refers to the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation which can be judged by the eye in finished products. Design registration is for manufactured products and NOT artistic designs. In other words, registered designs protect the way manufactured products look.

manner of manufacture

A legal term used to distinguish inventions which are patentable from those which are not. Artistic creations, mathematical methods, plans, schemes or other purely mental processes usually cannot be patented.

The models shape is the IP of the REAL WORLD maker of the RL item

The System(s) and the Tools which are used to get an addon onto a computer is the IP of BIS

The technical methods of visualisation and ingame usability is the IP of BIS

The model and scripts can be said tobe the Copyright of the original creator.

The addon maker may well have copyright, but is very unlikely to have IP rights.

Therefore peeking is not a breach of the addon makers IP rights, because they don't have it

When someone peeks at a model or script and learns how X feature or X script command actually works or can be applied, they are not breaching IP or copyright, because that feature was originally provided by BIS.

An addon maker has simply applied the tools that BIS provided.

An EULA from an addon maker is fine. But an EULA can't claim something that isnt defendable fact and can't take for their own something that belongs to others (ie BIS)

And your lack of response to my eariler post I think is interesting ..........

[rksl-rock 1300]

I'll reply properly tomorrow im about to log off for the night...

Gnat;1782266']And your lack of response to my eariler post I think is interesting ..........

Which post is this? I wouldnt read to much into a lack of reply in this thread. There is some many posts and so many cross linked replies i probably missed it. Can you give me a link?

Edited November 4, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
crap typing

[xmongx 0]

The simplest way to protect your work is to not release it, i see no reason to introduce encryption when an easy method is already at hand.

I can see why its a touchy subject though and why you're so eager to be able to encrypt, you dont want people to steal your work yet not releasing isnt really a good option as it removes the platform from which you showcase your talents and gain your authority, tough choice.

In the end this thread will probably go nowhere, both sides to the argument are valid. Its also worth considering if its even technically possible without being easily defeatable, any discussion about the matter should really have started there.