Clarification on the MLOD release issue.

[adogmc 0]

Sirs of BIS all this débas would not exist if you had provided all the documents, the assistances which fournires can professionals.

I caussionnes not but you aite faulty on all the line.

Begin with guard people justified instead of accroite the escape of the players towards other horizons.

You have create more the big game of the world, but your fidel one it impression to be taken for imbeciles and at all listening.

cordially

[norsu 180]

As far as derivative works go, bolting on to existing MLOD's is actually a really bad idea. It creates a very high risk of section-heavy models which hurts performance big time. It's a risky and easily abused crutch.

That's true, but it's also very easy to bypass the section problem. Let's say we give BIS civilian model a shemagh. As a standalone model part it would increase selection count by one. But if you spend a little more time you can easily add the shemagh texture and its materials into existing BIS textures. They usually have enough empty UV map space for little extra stuff.

There's always a risk of making your addon a performance killer and section count is just one of them. Apart from retexturing, addon maker newbie's first addon is usually "bolted". A list of section counts for each BIS model would be nice reference for those who want to "bolt" things .

[Dwarden 1124]

maybe just some BIS site for MOD developers (sorta like Unreal Dev Net http://udn.epicgames.com/Main/WebHome.html )

where MODdev would register to obtain more data sensitive MLODs , configs etc...

as part of registration there will be agreement to 'fit' use of models and other rights ...

BIS got theirs IP covered, mod makers and developers gets what they want and need ...

[shinRaiden 0]

maybe just some BIS site for MOD developers (sorta like Unreal Dev Net http://udn.epicgames.com/Main/WebHome.html )

where MODdev would register to obtain more data sensitive MLODs , configs etc...

as part of registration there will be agreement to 'fit' use of models and other rights ...

BIS got theirs IP covered, mod makers and developers gets what they want and need ...

Statements like that are in poor form, and are easily mis-interpreted to suggest that BIS is withholding information, which is not true at all. Secondly, it also recommends the segregation of 'elitists', which has been consistently been rejected by the community. To even suggest such is to show a total lack of understanding about BIS or the community, and is directly inviting vicious and destructive community in-fighting.

Absence of desired information from the Community Wiki does not imply withholding on BIS's part, rather, in most if not nearly all cases that information might not be documented within BIS. This is a not-uncommon blessing and curse of small development teams, where a lot of 'vital' information remains in peoples heads or in direct communication.

[miles teg 1]

I agree Dwarden. Some type of common sense system to protect BIS's product would be the most practical way of pleasing everyone. In that agreement would also have to be the a statement that all such BIS based addons must be binarized before release in order to at least reduce the amount of rips by mod teams from other games. Only a few super hardcore rippers would go to all the lengths to figure out how to decode a binzaried ArmA addon.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Shin Raiden:

The "elitest" issue I mentioned before had NOTHING to do with suggesting that there is an elitest sect of the community that looks down upon those who have not met their level of quality.  The best addon makers for ArmA have in fact been VERY helpful to those of us who are still learning and not so talented.  

The usage of the word "elitest" was meant to suggest that on their own, the more poorly skilled or less motivated addon makers will simply give up making addons because its just too time consuming trying to search through forums for scarce information and trying to figure out stuff by comparison to other addons.   What will be left (the elite) are those who are really hardcore and talented.  That is the way in which I was using that word in terms of the "survival of the fittest" mentality that BIS seems to believe is good for the community.  

The weak disappear, the strong stay, and quality of addons and mods improves.  In theory this may work, but in practice, it will simply limit the number of mods available for ArmA.   If I am wrong about this mentality, then Placebo or another BIS spokesperson is free to correct me.   But it is not a evil way of doing things or anything.  It simply may be a rationale used given their limited resources and time to assist the community.

I was simply suggesting that they take a look to see if things could be done better to further enhance the community and the ease of which new talent can grow and be nurtured within the community.

As for why you are attacking Dwarden's statement, I am not sure why you did so.  All he did was give a very logical common sense approach as to how BIS could deal with the issues of BIS property rights that would protect them and allow the community to use and develop their models.

I must also speak out on the issue of selections.  

I will be the FIRST to say that my mod's addons are VERY VERY half-assed in terms of proper selections and what not.  Why?  Because we don't have the time to devote to learn all of the proper methods and we often simply don't understand the limited information available on how to do proper mapping and such things.    I also must add, that despite our crappy addon configurations, we have not had any serious problems as far as performance.  Maybe in super massive missions there may be some problems, but so far, nobody has complained of major performance hits.   So I think that issue is a bit exaggerated.  

Nevertheless, I do agree that it is important to try and make addons as professional as possible if the information is easily available on how to do it.  But so far personally I either can't locate the tutorials I need or when I do find them I simply can't understand them due to their highly technical language and because they often skip steps that the writer thinks is "basic knowledge" but that the newbie absolutely needs in order to understand the tutorial.   When you have limited time to spend on these things... you end up getting frustrated and just doing "whatever works" and taking short-cuts.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[shinRaiden 0]

I see where you're going Miles, and that's a fair interpretation. What I really meant though is the notion of BIS setting up their own private 'club' to control access to the 'privilege' of 'exclusive' info is a subject that's been at the center of some of the most contentious fights on the forums and elsewhere.

You still have the problem to deal with on BIS's side of how do they manage from a business standpoint the need for multiple non-revenue positions and infrastructure.

-edit-

The majority of my complaints here are focused not on the legal issues, rather they have to do with opinions and practices that lead to poor content design. Reliance on content that has legal issues for derivative works also has serious content design complications on a strictly technical level. Imho, it's pointless bantering about assumed past policies and pleading for changes to the stated policies, as the result of that would directly lead to poor content development standards on a strictly technical basis.

[Dwarden 1124]

shinRaiden everyone could register into that 'dev net' if he got e.g. legal responsibility Age ...

i guess You don't have access to UnrealDevNet nor Egosoft DevNet or similar ...

btw. Egosoft is indepedent developer like BIS

X-devnet http://forum.egosoft.com/login.php?redirect=mainpage/devnet/index.asp

it's not THAT hard to accept some agreements or sign by hand some legal document to obtain access ...

i assume You are able understood some type of informations can't be shared w/o at least such step(s)

so please explain to me where i slide to 'elitism' or 'hindering info' ...

[miles teg 1]

To ShinRaiden: Ooooh...ok I see what you are saying.  Yes I agree, that if BIS were to develop a system for addon makers to use their addons it must definitely not be an "exclusive" club where you must prove your merit somehow in order to get access to the addon.  That would definitely be a problem.

Hmm.... yeah I see where things could get very complicated.

Although it could just be a matter of filling out a legal form with an electronic signature of some type.  

But overall, for the most part, I haven't heard of a major problem with BIS stuff being used in other games.  

It seems that it is more of an issue of "ease of access" of BIS copyrighted material being just waaay too easy for anyone from another game community to snag those models/textures and use them in other games.

So perhaps it's just a matter of BIS wanting to keep any such models low-key where it is just passed quietly between mods rather then released in blazing headlines on every major ArmA website.

Hopefully BIS will clarify themselves and things will continue to improve for the community.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[shinRaiden 0]

As a moderator you should be well aware of the significant number of individuals in the forums who are not of legal responsibility age. Furthermore, citing UnrealDevNet is also nonsense because you get tools and references, but not the whole raw content package, unless you front the $350K 'club fee'. Additionally, if you actually browse the Unreal Dev net you will notice that all the black 'public' links require no special 'club pass' to access, which also happens to be the policy at the BIS community wiki. So if you propose controlling access, then you are proposing a 'private exclusivity' tighter than what BIS or Epic are already doing. On the other hand, if you are proposing a full raw p:\ca distribution, you have to be a Gears of War level licensee to get that kind of service from epic.

[max power 21]

I've skimmed the thread and I have a couple of comments.

I think it's fair to respect and support BIS's policy regarding using legal and ethical practices when modifying their product, since they are supporting ethical treatment of the IP of community modders. On the other side of the same coin, I think that if BIS is in the business of doing what they can to enforce ethical IP practices, ie. if they feel everyone has a right to their own IP, that they would be hypocrites if they allowed themselves to be robbed blind.

It is my understanding that the MLODs of BIS material were not widely available up until this point, skimming the MLOD thread from time to time.  The conclusion that I draw from some of these highly alarmist reactions is that they regarded that as soon as someone 'cracked the code' and MLODs would be a simple button press to rip out of ArmA, this would constitute an 'ace in the hole' for people who aren't interested in working very hard to produce community content.  It does seem to be very difficult to produce a decent addon from the ground up, and I sympathize.  The issue is that BIS cannot control what becomes of the content once it's been broken into.  

Regarding the state of the biki as a useful source of information:  The state of the biki is the community's responsibility because it's a community document.  It's only as good as what the writers put in there, and everyone here is a potential writer with a high degree of control over the format of the pages.  The links provided here for 'real tutorials' could be converted to the biki or links could be provided within the biki.

I don't see any problem with the concept of identity confirmation of bondable persons for the purposes of having a legal scapegoat in the case of abuse of bis properties.  That particular tactic relies on the assumption that things are less likely to be leaked if someone is actually subject to prosecution if they don't follow the rules.  This is true to an extent but I severly doubt that this could be guaranteed.  It's a measure to reduce abuse, not to completely stop it, and I think that the users and proprietors at that unrealdev webset know this.

[USSRsniper 0]

I don't get this, do we now have to get permission? It makes no sense, as long as pople not releasing models in other games or make money on them, or claim they made it themselves. In other games you can easily modify already ingame content, why should we not able to do the same? For example what if someone wants small detail added to vehicle? Why model the whole model from scratch just to add one detail, while you can add it on already existing model?

If BIS doesn't want this to happed why not release proper example models?

In that case, ArmA community is bunch of thieves, modifying models when its illegal   Because large precent of addons released is modified BIS models.... Thank you for putting another nail into ArmA's coffin.....

[MehMan 0]

Nobody knows, as always.

How about actual clarification on the MLOD release issue? Can somebody ask? Or can somebody answer some questions please?

[surpher 1]

Situation has been clarified on page 2 by Placebo.

Guys this is getting blown out of all proportion.

Its business as usual apart from we cannot MLOD the general arma content and put it on a server for public download which is fair enough. Nothing has really changed on the Modding scene.

Quoted for truth.

As I already wrote in the Ask a Mod thread the other day:

Quote[/b] ]At the end of the day I think the main issue is that Marek wasn't happy that every BIS produced addon for ArmA had been stripped bare and uploaded to a website for all and sundry to download and use in any way they wish. There's no reason to believe that items cannot be modified and used for ArmA addons/mods the same as they were for Flashpoint addons/mods.

That is an accurate summary of where the problem arose.

So the MLOD's cannot be hosted on a public server but can be modified for use with ArmA.

[baddo 0]

What I saw happening was that some people made an alphabetic list of ArmA objects and put it on a website, and as I understood, their intention was to publish every model from ArmA on the website on that alphabetic list in MLOD format.

I'm sure all of you people see a problem with that...

...it certainly wasn't a surprise to me when I saw that it had been stopped by BIS.

[USSRsniper 0]

So whats the issue with MLODS? public mirrors are closed but i have the all on my HD, does this mean its illegal to modify and release any of them?

[Tomislav 0]

err, i guess it is somehow useless to keep on discussing here as long as no official answers to the question about that grey zone. looking at the thread about 1 % of the questions was answered by an official, and i don'T want to sound rude in any way, but it was an easy question.

[max power 21]

So whats the issue with MLODS? public mirrors are closed but i have the all on my HD, does this mean its illegal to modify and release any of them?

Baddo just answered you above this post. Do not host them and you should be alright. Before that it was answered RockofSL, quoted and confirmed by Placebo, and then requoted and reitterated by Surpher. Noone can claim that that don't know what's going on if they've read the freaking thread.

[binkster 0]

I think placebo's words are to superior to most minds. From what I understand you cannot use the mlods at all. The models that were released by bis I belief those are ok but the ones that were released without there permission should not be modified and released.

Is that simple enough?

[Blackknight.au 0]

I think placebo's words are to superior to most minds.  From what I understand you cannot use the mlods at all.  The models that were released by bis I belief those are ok but the ones that were released without there permission should not be modified and released.

Is that simple enough?

It would be simple if it was simply stated. It is not.

If you cannot use the MLODs at all, how can you use the ones released by BIS?

[abs 2]

It would be simple if it was simply stated. It is not.

If you cannot use the MLODs at all, how can you use the ones released by BIS?

I hate to say this (really, I do), but let's think about this for a second.

Why would you not be able to use the MLOD's released by BIS when they are the rightful owners of the work created, you have agreed to the terms under which they have released it (at least if you read the agreement), and they have released it for the community to use?

Again, the issue is that they had a problem with the community grabbing the models from the game for the purposes of addon making (I say this, as there is no proof that I have seen that these MLOD's were being used for anything else). I think the sentence from the original post that worries the folks here the most is:

Quote[/b] ]to counteract this unfortunate situation where BIS' copyrighted work was already released to the community and is apparently being further used to create custom content.

Custom content for which game? ArmA only, as far as I can tell. When you call this an "unfortunate situation", you begin to make the community think that you're upset that they're using your models to create addons for your game.

I think everyone here can relate to the fears of BIS models and textures being used in other games. If that's the case, instead of shutting down, wouldn't a reasonable approach be to add the EULA to the already released models as well?

Abs

[Jahve 0]

No, because BIS didnt release those bunches of models, and they never condoned the release of them. It's interlectual property wich they never said "OK" to make public in editable form.

[abs 2]

No, because BIS didnt release those bunches of models, and they never condoned the release of them. It's interlectual property wich they never said "OK" to make public in editable form.

No what?

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

There is a permissions thread also on the go. If your intending to release a version of a bis model that wasnt in the example pack, ask them for permission before you release it, same as you would before modifying anyone elses adoon.

Its a simple way to get an answer if your modified BIS content is acceptable or not.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Well I know Synide said he'd been waiting on a permission answer from the BI team, not sure what he got, if anything.

Speaking of which, have we lost him? I don't really blame him for this flare-up, seems someone was going to trip over this little landmine sooner or later.