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

[PuFu 4600]

That is true. One of the reason a few addons are never gonna be released.

Still, i find that making it harder for the average user to get ideas is to protect your own work one way or the other. And releasing MLODs is anything but that

[Evil_Echo 11]

See no good reason to add locking in this context and plenty of bad reasons. Digital signatures are fine, they merely provide a way to enforce authenticity of the product. But locking code and the mindset that attempts to justify that are waste of time when BIS already has stated the rules for making free 3rd-party mods.

If you are that worried about your awesome product, go pro via DLC. You'll need lawyers, staff to manage business affairs, and a change of attitude towards supporting your user base ( e.g. no/bad documentation and the Not my problem, you idiot. response to repeat questions will not do well ).

[mattxr 9]

Any models that pass through O2 become part of BIS property and there terms on conditions sate they have to be open source. etc etc

Or something along those lines best to read up on that :)

[xxbbcc 6]

Don't need to generalize this to the whole community

Are you saying you've never opened a single .pbo done by someone else to learn from it? If so, how did you learn creating configs? How did you learn scripting logic?

A very good practice is to use a License for every bit of work you are doing. That way you can let others know in which ways they can use it. All of the CC licenses allow educational use for instance

Let's assume I read the license and I have every intention of following it. How does that help if the .pbo is locked (encrypted) and there's no way of opening it?

i find that making it harder for the average user to get ideas is to protect your own work one way or the other

That's exactly what you seem to be trying to do: make it harder for the average user (who wouldn't, in all likelyhood, steal it anyway) to learn from it.

[TRexian 0]

A slightly different point.

If a mod-maker is really that interested in 'protecting' his work, he won't make it for the ArmA community. It won't even be attractive.

Consider what kind of modders 'the community' wants to attract. The kind that are open and inclined to help? Or the kind that are protective and tend to focus on their own advancement? (Granted, those are generalities, but I think they are fairly accurate.)

I think the current arrangement has worked effectively for many years now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[PuFu 4600]

Any models that pass through O2 become part of BIS property and there terms on conditions sate they have to be open source. etc etc

Or something along those lines best to read up on that :)

Wrong. Any models that are using parts of the samples released by BIS for A1 need to be delivered as open source. Nothing else.

Are you saying you've never opened a single .pbo done by someone else to learn from it? If so, how did you learn creating configs? How did you learn scripting logic?

As i have already stated somewhere else, the only pbos i have opened are BIS. More to it, the entire config structure for OFP/A1/A2/OA is available on dev-heaven. So are BIS functions and scripts.

Let's assume I read the license and I have every intention of following it. How does that help if the .pbo is locked (encrypted) and there's no way of opening it?

The license suggestion is the current version for protecting your work.

That's exactly what you seem to be trying to do: make it harder for the average user (who wouldn't, in all likelyhood, steal it anyway) to learn from it.

Maybe i wasn't clear enough:

I am all for having every piece of code (configs/rvmats/scripts etc) available in unlocked version. The ones that i am against is the 3d mesh, and the only reason for that is because that can be used for commercial products outside BIS games, while everyhting else can't.

If there was a way to lock the exporting of certain meshes from O2 into universal formats (such as 3ds), i would gladly release the mlods as well for learning purposes, and i am sure i am not the only one who would.

Edited October 27, 2010 by PuFu

[jagheterjan 10]

I'm 100% with pufu here.

As a modeller I want to be able to make 3d meshes that I've created hard to read at binary level or even better, unreadable without the proper permissions.

Most of the folk I've met here and around the community is exceptionally friendly and helpful. I'm glad to help those people whereever I can, but I'm very reluctant to hand out my work on a plate to anybody. Especially not to those who tend to confuse freeware with free software when uploading stuff they "found" on the internet to turbosquid and the likes. That's why I'm all for having the possibility to encrypt Oxygen2 output.

[nuxil 2]

you seams to value your presur models so much because you spent so many houers.days and months making it.i can understand that.

but hey guess what. there are missions and scripts out there that also took months to complete. i dont see they have the same attitdue as some of you do.

is that only because it can not be used outside this game?

im not a modler but,

i thought the mlod's glod's and all that stuff where only functonable in the arma engine. so i see no reason why not to allow others to poke around and learing from your work.

the verry same way you are allowed to poke around in bis examples/work

question. how many times has a model from one of you guys been sold on turbosquid or whatever side that you use?

i guess we can count it on one hand.

and if your so worried about your models beeing stolen and sold. which rarly happens anyway. why dont you sell it your self. make a few extra $$$ while your at it.

and if your model has been stolen. pursue it. dont sit passive and think it should be like that. do something about it, make sure the person dont do it again.

it seams like its not about protecting your work fom beeing stolen and sold. it about locking it down for other users to not gain experiance.

since you all basicly are saying. ask me for premission to look at my work. thats just wrong. what if every scripter and misison maker had the same addetude as that. the community would not be as great as it is now.

and you guys are drifting offtopic. this was not about protecting your p3d. it was about beeing able to lock the pbo's. thats two diffrent things.

Edited October 27, 2010 by nuxil

[Mr. Charles 22]

http://www.gtainside.com/download.php?do=comments&cat=358&start=0&id=26176&orderBy=

You see, it isn't that hard to put the mlods into other games, so I'd prefer an option for modelers to encrypt their work, too.

[dm 9]

What are the pros and cons of the ability of locking PBOs?

Pros: NONE (what do you or anyone gain from this? NOTHING)

Being able to protect your work isnt a pro? Clearly dont make addons, or you'd not be so one sided.

The optional ability to protect your work is important.

Just look at the unfortunate events with RKSL, theres a HUGE pro right there...

this would basicly kill the community

And DLC will kill the community, and a new engine will kill the community and new people in the community will kill the community...

Not everything is a community killer... Don't be so chicken little...

[nuxil 2]

Wrong. Any models that are using parts of the samples released by BIS for A1 need to be delivered as open source. Nothing else.

1. Ownership: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors

if i understand that correct. it means that everything going in or out of o2 is owned by bis

[TRexian 0]

Let me make sure I understand.

People who release model-packages for A2 know that there are tools out there that will export/convert the models for other formats, but they continue to release them?

Does that mean that people have models out there that they are not releasing, because they can't restrict the use of the models? Are they intentionally releasing 'bad' models that won't be good enough to use in other games?

And, I agree with the guy who pointed out that the work on any model is only half of the work to get it in-game (sometimes less). There's configs, and scripting support, etc. There's really no rational reason to make lods 'protected' but not scripts. Work is work.

[Mr. Charles 22]

You don't realize that you can sell 3D models on the web for quite a good price per model? SQF files and such are NOT resellable anywhere out of the RV Engine, just go to turbosquid and look up how expensive some of the really good models are, then you would understand why BI and moddlers do not want their work to be stolen.

As it is already said plenty of times here, people will help you with modelling or samples, if you ask kindly enough, so what's the problem??

[kklownboy 43]

That is true. One of the reason a few addons are never gonna be released.

Dont listen to the looters.. They will never understand.

Still, i find that making it harder for the average user to get ideas is to protect your own work one way or the other. And releasing MLODs is anything but that

Thats why BIS doesnt release the MLODs... Its About $$$$. It is a good idea have some protection.

[dmarkwick 261]

You don't realize that you can sell 3D models on the web for quite a good price per model? SQF files and such are NOT resellable anywhere out of the RV Engine, just go to turbosquid and look up how expensive some of the really good models are, then you would understand why BI and moddlers do not want their work to be stolen.

As it is already said plenty of times here, people will help you with modelling or samples, if you ask kindly enough, so what's the problem??

I've seen Turbosquid and some of the prices there. It doesn't mean that they sell :)

As good as ingame models are (and some of them are very, very good indeed) they're not filmwork standard as some of the prices would suggest, plus, it isn't hard to get that stuff for free in any case. I wouldn't go as far as to say that a pirate has never made any money by selling "found" models, but I'd say it's an insignificant problem. Righteousness aside ;) I might suggest that ArmA2-quality models might represent a 2nd or 3rd LOD for professional film use.

Speaking personally, and I'm not a great modelmaker, anything created for ArmA2 is for ArmA2 and the joy of doing it.

However, having said all that I'm pretty ambivalent on the encryption of models in any case :D

[jagheterjan 10]

*sigh*

I don't owe the community. The community doesn't owe me. I can still learn from others by communicating with them, there's simply no need for me to tatter around in their models and stuff. All I was saying is I need some way to protect my stuff from people trying to abuse it. This is just as on topic as everything else posted in this thread. You might happen to disagree. That's fine with me. I had my say, now I'll sit back waiting for whatever may come of this.

[5133p39 16]

Do not forget - it's not only about stealing the models, or trying to learn from them.

For example, in ArmA1 i was working on some missions for a LAN party with few friends, and i neded to make changes to some units models (do not remember why exactly, its a long time now).

So i downloaded some addon which was close enough, and modified it - not to steal it, not to release it, just to use it during our little LAN party.

If those addons were "locked" i wouldn't be able to do so.

I realize this is rather special case, maybe one in a million, but still...

On the other hand, i understand your worries, but there is simply no way to stop any thefts, only a way to make it slightly harder => too much work to implement such measures, and very little to gain = not worth it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No thanks. Bad bad bad idea. I'll abstain from giving any specific reasons from it, because few would like would I had to say, or even bother to read such a long post. This is my forth attempt on answering in this thread, as the three previous ones grew wildly out of hand.

The bad vibes that comes from "protecting your work", that I have seen elsewhere, has caused me to leave. If that possibility came here, I would leave promptly.

(Forth rant started, but deleted :))...

[rksl-rock 1301]

if i understand that correct. it means that everything going in or out of o2 is owned by bis

You dont understand correctly. That clause refers to the O2 software not the content made with it. Its a common BS myth that does the rounds every few months. BIS even made a very clear statement about it back in the OFP and then again in the ARMA1 era.

As for the ability to lock PBOs. Personally I'd like it. Hell I'd even pay for the ability to lock them. I know about 20 people that feel the same way too.

While the majority here are "honest" there are a small few that repeatedly lie, cheat and steal on a regular basis. I think anyone that wants to should have the right to protect their own custom content.

@DMarkwick... re Turbosquid they do sell. Ask BIS, quite a few of their models appear on there on a regular basis. As do mine and quite a lot of others from this community. So please don't make out its not an issue. Because it really is a HUGE issue.

And I know of at least 3 other that won't release content publically for fear of it being stolen.

RE learning possibilities. Yes they exist with an open file system and they are very helpful. But I think closing the PBO format, or at least the option to close the format would actually help the community. It would force people to actually talk to each other for once.

I don't have a lot of time right now but ill come back to this thread later.

[Zipper5 74]

I'm getting this feeling that something happened behind the scenes in this community recently to make people very paranoid about protecting their work. I know of events in the past where people have blatantly taken someone else's work and released it as their own, but never has it provoked this level of paranoia. Community websites and members simply boycotted them. Can someone fill us in?

Or is it literally just people becoming paranoid all of the sudden? :p You may have been concerned about the protection of your work since you started, but this concern over it has only recently just flared up within this community...

[Baff1 0]

Someone smelt money I expect.

Do not forget - it's not only about stealing the models, or trying to learn from them.

For example, in ArmA1 i was working on some missions for a LAN party with few friends, and i neded to make changes to some units models (do not remember why exactly, its a long time now).

So i downloaded some addon which was close enough, and modified it - not to steal it, not to release it, just to use it during our little LAN party.

If those addons were "locked" i wouldn't be able to do so.

I realize this is rather special case, maybe one in a million, but still...

On the other hand, i understand your worries, but there is simply no way to stop any thefts, only a way to make it slightly harder => too much work to implement such measures, and very little to gain = not worth it.

This pretty much mirrors my usuage of this software.

As far as possible I want it all open source, so I can just diddle about with stuff at my leisure.

Not much point having editing software if the things you might want to edit do not function with it.

I recognise that some people want to lock their PBO's. And everyone should have what they want as far as possible. I can't offer any serious justification for people not being able to "protect their work" if that's what they want to do.

However in my opinion them doing so is bad for the modding communty in general. It creates a block to entry.

You know, like I am really inspired by that tank model and want to tweak around with it a bit for 20 minutes for a laugh.... but now I have to email some guy and ask him if I can, and then he has to get back from work or his holiday, check his emails and then agree and blah blah... but I only had 20 minutes of free time. Passion killer.

Still, if people want it they should have it. I can always play something else if modding for fun suddenly turns into a giant legal session instead. No one owes me anything.

There is a real industry trend these days to encrypt game content and sell DLC rather than support a game with mod tools and make it as easy for people to customise their game as much possible.

I picked up Supreme Commander 2 the other day. No more map making tools, just encrypted content and a pay money DLC.

Making it ultimately a much shallower game.

I regret buying it.

I expect I will go back to playing Supreme Commander 1.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Baff1

[dmarkwick 261]

@DMarkwick... re Turbosquid they do sell. Ask BIS, quite a few of their models appear on there on a regular basis. As do mine and quite a lot of others from this community. So please don't make out its not an issue. Because it really is a HUGE issue.

In that case it sounds to me like the encryption doesn't work in any case for the determined, and I didn't find any information about sales of any particular model. But anyway. I'm prepared to accept that models might represent a different and separate issue as far as encryption is concerned. Perhaps O2 should have a lock option, but I wouldn't like to see BinPBO have one.

[[frl]myke 14]

I guess we can agree that locking content is not meant for scripts and configs, stuff that is worthless outside of the Armaversum.

Models is another topic since O2 can export p3d to 3ds format. Abuse happened in the past and it would be naive to think that it wont happen anymore in the future.

So, that said, a model made from scratch by a addonmaker is his own intellectual property. It is his own right to allow or deny any manupulation of his works. In a perfect world, everything would be freeware and abuse wont happen. Contact me if you found this world.

Meanwhile, model maker should have tools to prevent abuse as good as possible.

And locking MLOD's doesn't automatically mean that no one can profit from it. It is about asking. Not very long ago i saw something in another addon which was interesting for me but the creator prohibited any manipulation on the pbo, including extracting. So i kindly asked him if he could/would share that part that was interesting for me and maybe some kind of tutorial for it. And guess what, i've received everything i've needed to include it into my own work. So i could look at it, learn from it and work with it.

So maybe people should start thinking about how they speak and life with each other and start to ask for something instead of speaking against mechanism that would allow some more addonmakers to release even more addons.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Guess that everybody feels a bit safer and happier if there is an option to lock his own property and creative hard work. ;)

[Cookieeater 10]

I think the best option here would be to have the ability to lock models, not PBOs. I've tried modeling before and the models you make really can actually make profit on sites.