Call for a new forum rule

[celery 8]

If BIS will not support it's 3rd party devs, then where is the incentive for them to help you? The mods are the keystone to ArmA. If it weren't for ACE, Vilas, Mando, Loki, Gnat, RKSL, Myke, and many others this sim would be dead and forgotten. And right now, in my opinion, the talent pool is decaying. BI forums and how it influences morale does matter in this.

Although I might be biased on the topic, I disagree with that. The cornerstone of the community is the missions that are made for the game. Mods are fun to play with for a while in the editor but without missions that realize those mods' potentials there wouldn't be much point to them, yet most missions don't depend on mods at all, and missions are the main playable content for the game and most servers run without mods.

[vilas 473]

Although I might be biased on the topic, I disagree with that. The cornerstone of the community is the missions that are made for the game. Mods are fun to play with for a while in the editor but without missions that realize those mods' potentials there wouldn't be much point to them, yet most missions don't depend on mods at all, and missions are the main playable content for the game and most servers run without mods.

me too, looking at how new community "want anorther dlc" sadly i agree

[Zipper5 74]

But the appearance of standing by while someone bullies a person off the boards with false accusations, hyperbole, OT flames do not make the moderators look good.

Maybe it was before my time as a moderator, but I have yet to see such an instance of this happening while I've been here. We can't be everywhere at once, but rest assured that if you report something that is legitimately wrong, we will deal with it.

If BIS will not support it's 3rd party devs, then where is the incentive for them to help you? The mods are the keystone to ArmA. If it weren't for ACE, Vilas, Mando, Loki, Gnat, RKSL, Myke, and many others this sim would be dead and forgotten. And right now, in my opinion, the talent pool is decaying. BI forums and how it influences morale does matter in this.

This is something I don't understand. While I agree that the games would likely not be anywhere near as popular as they are now without a modding community, when did it become peoples' self-imposed responsibility to keep the game alive by said modding, and not want but expect something in return? I've been viewing these forums since circa 2003-ish, and this is only a recently-developed attitude.

Depends if the police turn a blind eye if they like the mugger. Or occasionally let the mugger off with a warning doesn't it.

Or if the police just ignore the incident all together.

If we ignore a report it's going to always be because there's no legitimate claim in the report. We aren't going to act on every single reported incident as otherwise we'd have no forum members. If someone is legitimately infringing on the forum rules and/or policies, then they will always be dealt with by us. However, you must report such incidents to us if you see them as, as I said before, we can't be everywhere, nor see everything. That is why the report function exists.

Why are the BI Forum staff not enforcing a ban or infractions on people who insist that peoples stuff can be taken, mended and changed without the authors permission?

They haven't actually done it though, have they? If they did, they'd be immediately dealt with accordingly with what is deemed an appropriate punishment, be it a warning, infraction or permanent ban. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. Simply saying it's okay may receive confrontation from us but unless something drastically wrong is done by the offender he won't be banned.

We aren't perfect, but we're doing the best we can. The only way we can do better is with your help. If you see something you think is wrong, report it, we'll investigate and, if it is appropriate, will act on it. That's how it's always been and, for the time-being, will always be.

[soul_assassin 1723]

If someone is legitimately infringing on the forum rules and/or policies, then they will always be dealt with by us. However, you must report such incidents to us if you see them as, as I said before, we can't be everywhere, nor see everything. That is why the report function exists.

but what if, hypothetically speaking of course, a moderator is also participating in the said discussion and is visibly flaunting his support for one side or the other. How can impartial judgement be expected? How can an objective investigation be conducted?

I have to mention that I don't completely agree with the notion of "addon police", too many time have I seen indeed baseless (unresearched) accusations thrown at someone who lets say deserved benefit of the doubt. But saying: "hey you know what if you dont want everyone stealing your stuff just dont put it on the internet" is just plain retarded and quite frankly insulting to all the people who work hard to provide quality play time for all of you. Noone wants their shit to be stolen, and if everyone would just keep it on their computer well then this community just wouldn't be here past 2002.

These addon makers, zipper, dont expect anything in return. They just want it to be considered a little piece of themselves that they give away for free. And some would prefer that piece not be edited or ripped apart. In my opinion they have all the right to do so.

But of course all this discussion is nonsense. First of all almost every addon comes with at least a measly readme with a little section about what can be done with it. If you take the stance of " I can do anything I want, open it for learning even if the license specifically states that I can't" or "everything is opensource" then you clearly dont understand what a license is. If a forum member states "it is ok to open ALL addons to learn from them at least" then he is preaching the intentional breaking of the licenses of addons which strictly forbid it, which should be consider enough grounds for an infraction.

[Zipper5 74]

but what if, hypothetically speaking of course, a moderator is also participating in the said discussion and is visibly flaunting his support for one side or the other. How can impartial judgement be expected? How can an objective investigation be conducted?

We have a team of moderators, and we regularly consult each other.

If a forum member states "it is ok to open ALL addons to learn from them at least" then he is preaching the intentional breaking of the licenses of addons which strictly forbid it, which should be consider enough grounds for an infraction.

Again, continuing the police metaphor, just like them we cannot do a whole lot until someone actually breaks the law, in this case the forum rules. Saying something is one thing, but people doing it is another. If they say it's okay, it won't matter until someone actually does so, at which point they will be punished. They know the consequences, and if they don't, they will after they step out of line. We can take preventative measures if required, like deleting posts, issuing warnings, closing threads, etc. but infractions or bans are unlikely to occur unless the person blatantly breaks the forum rules.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Zipper5

[celery 8]

but what if, hypothetically speaking of course, a moderator is also participating in the said discussion and is visibly flaunting his support for one side or the other. How can impartial judgement be expected? How can an objective investigation be conducted?

Are you saying that those who disagree get banned because they disagree? If that happened, the mod who did it would get sacked.

If a forum member states "it is ok to open ALL addons to learn from them at least" then he is preaching the intentional breaking of the licenses of addons which strictly forbid it, which should be consider enough grounds for an infraction.

That's simply stupid.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Celery

[max power 21]

Personally, I don't think it's BIS's responsibility to be guarding our property. They give us a lot of modding support as it is- access to tools and a very, very nice license where they don't claim ownership of the work generated with them. I don't think it's out of bounds to ask BIS for support in terms of new ways to help protect our work, and it's certainly not out of bounds for them to say 'no'. When they do say no, they are cordial and I really have nothing but positive things to say about the BIS staff I have seen interact on the forums.

The moderators are here to help keep us on track with the forum rules. Now the forums rules include some things about respecting the work of others, and so they can get involved when those rules are broken. In comparison to other forums, these moderators are highly professional and very fair... and they seem to allow a lot of discussion- even heated discussion- and the free flow of ideas. I think that's great. It must be hard to read the same bullshit argument over and over again without busting out the lock/ban buttons.

End user licenses inform the user on the limits of use of your addon, but they are useful insofar as the end user has a positive attitude towards licenses. If not, you have to rely on the threat of action. The only person that's capable of enforcing the license is the one that owns the IP, and it's his sole responsibility. Since one person can't comb the whole internet, we have to work together and helping each other out. It's our IP and our responsibility.

In a perfect world, no one would get agitated, no argument would become heated, and no feelings would be hurt. Then again, in a perfect world, no one openly disrespect the rights of other people and dare them to do something about it. People who are pissed off tend to say things they would not normally say. The discord on the forums I think is a result of the antagonistic behaviour of certain individuals. Trolling works, and when you're flaunting your ability to fuck with someone else's blood, sweat, and tears, no doubt people get angry and regrettable shit gets said.

In this I must support Soul Assassin. Perhaps not in an all out ban, but if people are doing this taunting bollocks, it would be I think favourable to the 'forum culture' if it was intervened by a moderator. I really think this is where most of these deteriorating discussion problems come from.

[soul_assassin 1723]

Are you saying that those who disagree get banned because they disagree? If that happened, the mod who did it would get sacked.

no.

That's simply stupid.

why? because you simply disagree?

[celery 8]

no.

What, then? It seems that you feel someone has or hasn't been banned or got an infraction because of moderator bias.

why? because you simply disagree?

Because your reason for wanting to ban people seems to be based on you disagreeing with them.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Celery

[soul_assassin 1723]

quoting my first post:

- anyone who releases a unauthorized (from the original author, not moderator) addon - banned

- anyone who voices support for stealing/rereleasing without permission - banned

- anyone who suggests it is ok to take other's work and disassemble it without permission - banned

- anyone who ignores the license information provided by the addon - banned

I highlighted the reasons for you. I dont see anything about disagreement in there.

How can you in any moral sense disagree with me that it is wrong to steal and treat others work with disrespect?

[celery 8]

I highlighted the reasons for you. I dont see anything about disagreement in there.

How can you in any moral sense disagree with me that it is wrong to steal and treat others work with disrespect?

Who says I disagree about that? It doesn't change that banning people for voicing their views is stupid and would be the death blow for this forum's openness for discussion. You'd be giving an equal punishment to those who do steal stuff and those who don't.

[soul_assassin 1723]

It doesn't change that banning people for voicing their views is stupid and would be the death blow for this forum's openness for discussion.

when this discussion comes to it's enevitable conclusion the true nature of the openness of the discussion will be revealed.

[Rindier 10]

I have to admit that because of all this crap, copyrights, add-on theft, ect it kept me from releasing any mods ive made so far (that and people making something similar and releasing the beta befor me. thats what i get for being slow)

[celery 8]

when this discussion comes to it's enevitable conclusion the true nature of the openness of the discussion will be revealed.

How mysterious.

[W0lle 1046]

The question is always: What is 'stolen stuff'.

Can a model ripped and released again without permission under a new tag considered stolen?

No doubt, for sure it is and the person in question will be banned.

Is unpacking a mission, modify it and release it again without permission considered be stolen?

See above.

Is unpacking a mission and using a script from it in another mission stolen content?

Depends on how complex the script is in the first place.

Is unpacking a mission and check how certain aspects are made stolen content?

No, simply because it can be damn hard to provide a proof for that.

We surely don't ban someone because he used a 5 line loop script that he could have done itself in a few minutes, or using a mission idea someone else had before.

At some point we need to stop else the forum would be empty real quick. And without proof no one will be banned here anyway. Just because someone complains about content being stolen, means not the target person will be terminated at once.

One thing each of us should keep in mind: Everyone has looked into other peoples content before, I doubt that anyone here was born with the specific knowledge he has. :p

The ones now demanding lockable content should think one minute about this. If content would have been encrypted from day one, there would be none or only very little modding around.

Let me repeat what I (and zipper) said before: Everyone who is using content without permission and/or claims that the stolen content is his work will be permanently banned from here, no exceptions.

The same goes for ports from/to other games, no import/export without the original authors permission.

However if the original addon/mission has been released without any EULA or general statement what is allowed or not, it could be considered public domain.

[rksl-rock 1300]

...However if the original addon/mission has been released without any EULA or general statement what is allowed or not, it could be considered public domain.

And if he re appears and objects to his IP being disposed of without his consent are you going to accept liability or is BIS?

EDIT:

The reason i ask is that it seems to be a new rule. I cant find any mention of that in any previous posts or the forums rules. So im curious where its come from and who made it up.

Addon/Mod Ownership - Q&A. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=44973

doesnt mention it nor do

Rules of content permissions http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=113376

Edited February 11, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[TRexian 0]

Liability for allowing free distribution of free derivative works from free source content?

Assuming the complainant could make a valid claim of IP protection, the damages would be very close to zero. :) Like, almost indistinguishable from zero.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Liability for allowing free distribution of free derivative works from free source content?

How is it free source?

By default its the authors IP. The only change possible change of that status is if the author actually waives his rights and releases it as open source.

[max power 21]

@W0lle

My legal understanding is that content with no license information is assumed to be under the most restrictive license possible, not the opposite... so if I publish a render shot of something without a legal preamble, if another website mines that and is using my work for advertising purposes, I have prerogative to pursue legal action.

Regarding the appeal to convention, I think that we as a community have come a long way since the early days. We are more aware of licensing issues than we were before. Also, we have more and more resources available all the time, the newest being ArmAstack.info. People are not just learning new ways of making addons- but putting considerable time and effort into thinking of new ways of sharing and recording information. Now, the past 'need' to break licenses to perpetuate the community I think is not a very strong argument, but it happened and we have to nod to that fact. I think that all fruitful discussion lies in future practices, not past ones, though. And as I said in another thread (and was subsequently accused of being a hypocrite before I could respond), these past practices include ones accepted by the community as a whole and discrete past actions by individuals. I have never looked in anyone's work without permission... and this is really as irrelevant as discussions about individuals who have looked in other peoples' work without permission for whatever reason. I think the overriding factor here is permission and licensing, and the notion that the ends justify the means.

[TRexian 0]

How is it free source?

By default its the authors IP. The only change possible change of that status is if the author actually waives his rights and releases it as open source.

Indeed, free does not necessarily equate with open. That's why I said 'free' and not 'open.' To my knowledge, no one charges for ArmA addons, so any addons that would be 'orphaned' would be free/no charge. My point was more to the liability for damages. Damages from no-cost derivative works originating from no-cost source content would basically be zero.

Going further, though, unless we're talking about BI actually incorporating these orphan projects into BI content, we're really just talking about BI allowing the distribution of the derivative content. At an even more basic level, all they can really do is allow/not allow such content to be linked from their forums. It would be a rather tangled argument to say that allowing such links somehow makes them liable for some other party's creation of derivative works.

The liability for infringing on the IP would attach to the creator of the infringing work. BI's passive allowance of linking would be unlikely to create any additional liability. My understanding is that that allowance would be a change.

But again, unless the claimant can point to some monetary gain by BI as a direct result of the infringing derivative work, damages would be very difficult to prove.

[max power 21]

I think that what Rock was saying is that w0lle was expressedly contradicting conventions of ownership in this regard, and could assume some liability for that because he is a figure of authority.

[W0lle 1046]

I need to correct myself. Of course an addon/mission released without any EULA/disclaimer is still the IP of the original creator unless stated otherwise.

However if one does not contain any EULA/disclaimer one could assume that the author doesn't care about what happens with his content.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. :cool:

[rksl-rock 1300]

...However if one does not contain any EULA/disclaimer one could assume that the author doesn't care about what happens with his content.

Yes you could assume. But the moral question is should you? :cool:

But you didnt really answer my question:

The reason i ask is that it seems to be a new rule. I cant find any mention of that in any previous posts or the forums rules. So im curious where its come from and who made it up.

Is it a moderator made rule or is it actually BIS policy?

Edited February 11, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typo

[max power 21]

I need to correct myself. Of course an addon/mission released without any EULA/disclaimer is still the IP of the original creator unless stated otherwise.

However if one does not contain any EULA/disclaimer one could assume that the author doesn't care about what happens with his content.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. :cool:

That's one possible scenario. Another is that he or she didn't put any EULA in his or her work because he or she is a little naive but knows that it should be assumed to be copyrighted in that state. I don't think that we should by default assume that someone doesn't care. It seems like more good would come out actually pursuing what their thoughts are and not hazarding an assumption.

[W0lle 1046]

Yes you could assume. But the moral question is should you? :cool:

But you didnt really answer my question:

Is it a moderator made rule or is it actually BIS policy?

If you can't find it here, then most probably it's the personal opinion of some of us no?

And to make this clear: None of us moderators has his 'own rules'. I don't know how you came to that conclusion at all.

Below text is my personal opionion!

And to say it again: This whole discussion about IP and the self-proclaimed 'addon police' one day will kill the whole modding. Simply because at some point people are too scared of releasing stuff when they have to deal with all that legal crap.

I really wonder why we now must have this endless discussions again and again and again. No matter how hard I look, back in the first five years there was no such discussions at all - and there were countless of similiar addons (may I remember the dozens of M4 mods?) and no one ever was complaining about addons being stolen. So why now? And why always the same group of people?

If you guys are really that scared that someone could open your work and have a look at it, well then don't release it. Sounds hard but it is like that.

The modding community was only possible because of the ability to look at other peoples work and learn from them, that's a fact.

Don't tell me that you addon guys never opened a pbo file and took a look at the models, configs or scripts. And now as you have the knowledge you want to limit it, for a reason only you know.

Maybe you should sit down and think about that for a minute, none of you gonna loose anything if Joe Doe unpacks your pbo and looks at a script or config line. A little bit more tolerance wouldn't hurt.