NAF still Banned (on LL) ?

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

edit: but we still don't know what code was copied or "stolen"

 

You haven't proven that copied source code is the only thing covered by copyright law.

 

Again, do you want me to prove that it's not?

[shittyguy]

8 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

This doesn't show that copyright infringement is limited to source code...

 

Software is copyright protected automatically. Just like other works. The EULA does not make all mods public domain.

 

And how is your questioning not transparently proving my point about you being driven by a mod-related result? You're just rationalizing and testing new theories in one direction. Gee! No agenda here!

i showed that all codes can be copyrighted protected if source code or not.

Edited January 5 by shittyguy

[shittyguy]

6 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

You haven't proven that copied source code is the only thing covered by copyright law.

 

Again, do you want me to prove that it's not?

are you going to show proof for once? then do.

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

are you going to show proof for once? then do.

 

You haven't proven that copying source code is the only criteria for infringement.

 

It's not.

 

Look away from the cave wall.

[Stormer]

"Egos" and the hills they chose to die on. You will quickly see how slow, expensive and real law is if you decide to follow your threats.

 

Allow me to explain:

Imagine a framework like a vehicle, a blueprint of how something should/is supposed to work. Now you use said principle to make a vehicle, but somebody else also has that idea, but makes their vehicle slightly different, but using the same principle. They use different parts, but the principle is the same. How is it, we have so many vehicle brands? So many different things (phones, headsets, monitors, watches...), that run on the same principle but have million brands/options to chose?

 

This case here is derivative work (legal). If you don’t agree then take legal action like you threatened before. Many people online are "experts" just by doing quick google/chatGPT search. Everything is easy and simple when you are behind a monitor with your weaponized armies of likeminded individuals.

 

I will leave this nonsense discussion with a quote:
"Give man a mask, and he will show you their true self"

 

[dagobaking]

7 minutes ago, Stormer said:

"Egos" and the hills they chose to die on. You will quickly see how slow, expensive and real law is if you decide to follow your threats.

 

Allow me to explain:

Imagine a framework like a vehicle, a blueprint of how something should/is supposed to work. Now you use said principle to make a vehicle, but somebody else also has that idea, but makes their vehicle slightly different, but using the same principle. They use different parts, but the principle is the same. How is it, we have so many vehicle brands? So many different things (phones, headsets, monitors, watches...), that run on the same principle but have million brands/options to chose?

 

This case here is derivative work (legal). If you don’t agree then take legal action like you threatened before. Many people online are "experts" just by doing quick google/chatGPT search. Everything is easy and simple when you are behind a monitor with your weaponized armies of likeminded individuals.

 

I will leave this nonsense discussion with a quote:
"Give man a mask, and he will show you their true self"

 

 

Haha.

 

Derivatives are only legal to make and distribute by the original copyright holder.

Edited January 5 by dagobaking

[shittyguy]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

 

You haven't proven that copying source code is the only criteria for infringement.

 

It's not.

 

Look away from the cave wall.

dago the lier
do to you not even trying to prove your self, just show you can't be trusted in modding community.
i will not be reply back to someone can't show the littlest of proof and all you do is bark and no bite.
would have been easy to prove your innocents by show some proof, by doing you have proved to me you. all liers never show proof.

[epitaph78]

53 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Prove to me that copyright law says there is only infringement when source code is copied.

 

[Do you want me to prove otherwise?]

 

 

Dont get me wrong on this...

 

Your Mod is GREAT.. i think no one here would play Fo4 for so long without AAF and its LL-Mods.

But its old and feels like drove into a dead end.

 

I would understand all this copyright talk iff you would make money with AAF or Snapdragon would use your code to make money with NAF and your Code.. but its not like this iff i didnt miss anything.

 

AFF dont see any new updates or features.. its just looks like stucked. 

NAF and its new Features would be a Boost for new and old mods.

 

Just Please come to an agreement with Snapdragon.. for the Community. Make him Credit you with a big Letter Size, Collaborate or whatever..

 

Also the bashing on You is not ok.. AFF is your mod and NAF copied/reliyng on something.. but ppl just dont understand why you blocking the progress for the community so much.

Edited January 5 by epitaph78

[Z4chary]

Not like I have any horse in this race, but nobody will take any legal action since this is a grey area. Mods hosted on any platforms, offering payments for access is not exactly within the terms of service which you could be sued for.

 

Why can't we just enjoy mods? AAF has been around for ages, NAF offers a fresh alternative with a lot of improvements that AAF just didn’t think of/implement.

 

As it was stated before, NAF is on NEXUS which takes this stuff very seriously (and they have REAL lawyers), so that speaks for itself (so calm down law experts). If it was illegal, Nexus would have wiped their hands and deleted/BANNED the author.

 

So calm down and be happy that people bother modding for Fallout 4.

Edited January 5 by Z4chary

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, shittyguy said:

dago the lier
do to you not even trying to prove your self, just show you can't be trusted in modding community.
i will not be reply back to someone can't show the littlest of proof and all you do is bark and no bite.
would have been easy to prove your innocents by show some proof, by doing you have proved to me you. all liers never show proof.

 

Your posts just say something about you. Not me.

 

You won't even try to back up the premise of your question. You don't know how copyright law works. You are not qualified to demand or review anything about this.

 

2 minutes ago, epitaph78 said:

 

 

Dont get me wrong on this...

 

Your Mod is GREAT.. i think no one here would play Fo4 for so long without AAF and its LL-Mods.

But its old and feels like drove into a dead end.

 

I would understand all this copyright talk iff you would make money with AAF or Snapdragon would use your code to make money with NAF and your Code.. but its not like this iff i didnt miss anything.

 

AFF dont see any new updates or features.. its just looks like stucked. 

NAF and its new Features would be a Boost for new and old mods.

 

Just Please come to an agreement with Snapdragon.. for the Community. Make him Credit you with a big Letter Size, Collaborate or whatever..

 

 

 

Thank you. I appreciate that you are at least trying to approach this from a constructive direction.

 

There are some cool new updates in the works for AAF. But, there are outside factors that I can't get into that caused a pause/delay. So, it has been a bit stuck unexpectedly. One way or another, it will pick back up.

 

I'm not a grudge type of person. If SnapDragon just owned up to a mistake and was looking to correct and collaborate I would at least consider it.

 

The truth is, collaborating is probably my favorite outcome of modding in general. I think that raises a pretty big question that nobody has answered: Why didn't SnapDragon at least explore collaboration first, before making NAF in secret?

[dagobaking]

9 minutes ago, Z4chary said:

Not like I have any horse in this race, but nobody will take any legal action since this is a grey area. Mods hosted on any platforms, offering payments for access is not exactly within the terms of service which you could be sued for.

 

Why can't we just enjoy mods? AAF has been around for ages, NAF offers a fresh alternative with a lot of improvements that AAF just didn’t think of/implement.

 

As it was stated before, NAF is on NEXUS which takes this stuff very seriously (and they have REAL lawyers), so that speaks for itself (so calm down law experts). If it was illegal, Nexus would have wiped their hands and deleted/BANNED the author.

 

So calm down and be happy that people bother modding for Fallout 4.

 

Terms of service don't really come into play regarding the copyrights. For example, why would a dispute over that cause Bethesda or some other group to sue?

 

NAF offers improvements in your opinion. That's part of the problem here. Someone having an opinion that a mod is good can't give them special rights to use other peoples work without permission. That wouldn't work in law or even just a small community of artists.

 

I'm not sure why you have assigned legal or moral authority to Nexus. Even without this case, I would question the ethics of their decisions (along with quite a lot of other mod authors). In fact, I have done so fairly publicly in the past along with an entire exodus of other users. Which raises the question of whether or not their consideration of my case wasn't biased.

[Stormer]

30 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Haha.

 

Derivatives are only legal to make and distribute by the original copyright holder.

Could be derivative, but I don’t know enough to be certain. Not enough details were provided by both sides.

 

10 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Your posts just say something about you. Not me.

 

You won't even try to back up the premise of your question. You don't know how copyright law works. You are not qualified to demand or review anything about this.

 

 

Thank you. I appreciate that you are at least trying to approach this from a constructive direction.

 

There are some cool new updates in the works for AAF. But, there are outside factors that I can't get into that caused a pause/delay. So, it has been a bit stuck unexpectedly. One way or another, it will pick back up.

 

I'm not a grudge type of person. If SnapDragon just owned up to a mistake and was looking to correct and collaborate I would at least consider it.

 

The truth is, collaborating is probably my favorite outcome of modding in general. I think that raises a pretty big question that nobody has answered: Why didn't SnapDragon at least explore collaboration first, before making NAF in secret?

The way you behaved and acted this whole "issue" speaks for itself, the least you can do is to not lie to yourself. Somebody just wanted something improved, instead of waiting for you to do it. Saddest part is, that you are in the luxury of being paid for this, yet chose to slack on your patreons. You are just mad, because your income is in danger. If it is obvious to me, it is obvious to others.

Edited January 5 by Stormer

[Z4chary]

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Terms of service don't really come into play regarding the copyrights. For example, why would a dispute over that cause Bethesda or some other group to sue?

 

NAF offers improvements in your opinion. That's part of the problem here. Someone having an opinion that a mod is good can't give them special rights to use other peoples work without permission. That wouldn't work in law or even just a small community of artists.

 

I'm not sure why you have assigned legal or moral authority to Nexus. Even without this case, I would question the ethics of their decisions (along with quite a lot of other mod authors). In fact, I have done so fairly publicly in the past along with an entire exodus of other users. Which raises the question of whether or not their consideration of my case wasn't biased.

I wish I could downvote 

 

Nexus has LEGAL TEAM you don't (and I bet you're the type of person to go mass report with your followers, so Nexus knows about this). NAF is on Nexus, hasn't been taken down. I rest my case.

Edited January 5 by Z4chary

[shittyguy]

Just now, Z4chary said:

I wish I could downvote 

 

Nexus has LEGAL TEAM you don't. NAF is on Nexus, hasn't been taken down. I rest my case.

that why he can't say shit there. he got flame in the comments.

[Dlinny_Lag]

3 hours ago, dagobaking said:

As I pointed out above, it is not possible to use "the same files" in the structure I designed, without re-implementing the same rules, processes, etc. to get the same in-game results. That is copyright infringement.

1) "re-implementing" does not mean copyright infringement. 

 

2) Do you think rules/processes implemented in AAF can not be implemented in a different way?

23 hours ago, dagobaking said:

There is no way to utilize "the same files" without copying the original work I created.

Regardles of your opinion, it is possible. Moreever, it is possible to achieve exactly same result using the same source data without any code "lifting". An example from our reality - Wine project. Same data - .exe files, same result - Win application run exactly same under Linux.

3) NAF has a different set of features. Not same. Users do not get the same result.

 

 

23 hours ago, dagobaking said:

But, the core of the application is simply a copy of AAF in a different language

4) Code structure in NAF significantly differ from AAF's code structure. It will not be possible to prove substantial similarity as the code in NAF and AAF noticeably differ in all aspects - organization, structure and sequence. 

 

 

23 hours ago, dagobaking said:

NAF is designed to work specifically with XML files IN A STRUCTURE THAT IS PROPRIETARY TO AND PART OF AAF.

You have to prove that it designed specially. You have to prove the intention. Otherwise - it is just your personal opinion.

Moreever, I never heard that any proprietary data structures documentation was published. You published it. Are you sure that AAF XML files structure still "proprietary"?

 

23 hours ago, dagobaking said:

NAF is unusable as a product without referring to the AAF documentation.

It is just your opinion. Version of NAF recently published on LL (and disabled again) can be used without AAF XML files.

 

 

The only thing that you may actually appeal to - similarity of data structures. NAF partially replicates data structure of AAF XML files. It is necessary to implement this structure, otherwise it is not possible to import that files. Intention to import that files was publicly mentioned - compatibility with existing animation packs. If you think differ - prove the different intention. 

Objects populated from AAF XML files are used directly in NAF's animation engine? It is not a prove of intentional infringement. It can be a result of optimization.

 

 

An yes, some level of similarity in processes/structures/sequences is unavoidable. Domain is same and the game engine dictates some things.

Edited January 5 by Dlinny_Lag

[dagobaking]

2 minutes ago, Stormer said:

Could be derivative, but I don’t know enough to be certain. Not enough details were provided by both sides.

 

The way you behaved and acted this whole "issue" speaks for itself, the least you can do is to not lie to yourself. Somebody just wanted something improved, instead of waiting for you to do it. Saddest part is, that you are in the luxury of being paid for this, yet chose to slack on your patreons. You are just mad, because your income is in danger. If it is obvious to me, it is obvious to others.

 

No. I assure you. Copyright law automatically gives the right to make and distribute derivatives to the copyright holder. So, if you think NAF is a derivative, you also think he infringed upon my rights.

 

And how did I behave badly? By defending myself? By daring to insist that my rights dont get infringed? How exactly is that bad behavior?

 

Waiting for me to do it? He could have asked or offered to add any feature through his own plugin, just like LLFP does. I'm pretty easy going to work with. I can't say that I would just add anything in any way. I would want to be a part of the design/decision-making. But, I'm telling you, the path for SnapDragon to collab and add things on a fast schedule through AAF was there. And he knows that as well as anyone else. If he is suggesting otherwise, he's being dishonest.

 

My income is in danger? lol - The tiny amount that Patreon contributions and banner ads make... It's around .012% of my income. So, guess again.

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, Z4chary said:

I wish I could downvote 

 

Nexus has LEGAL TEAM you don't (and I bet you're the type of person to go mass report with your followers, so Nexus knows about this). NAF is on Nexus, hasn't been taken down. I rest my case.

 

Nexus not taking NAF down apparently means way less than you think it does.

[Yannis Valentine]

I mean his only proof is his argument lol so its up to the moderators at this point if just believe what he is saying without hard proof 

[Yannis Valentine]

2 minutes ago, Yannis Valentine said:

I mean his only proof is his argument lol so its up to the moderators at this point if just believe what he is saying without hard proof 

Feels like twitter at this point

[Stormer]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

 

No. I assure you. Copyright law automatically gives the right to make and distribute derivatives to the copyright holder. So, if you think NAF is a derivative, you also think he infringed upon my rights.

 

And how did I behave badly? By defending myself? By daring to insist that my rights dont get infringed? How exactly is that bad behavior?

 

Waiting for me to do it? He could have asked or offered to add any feature through his own plugin, just like LLFP does. I'm pretty easy going to work with. I can't say that I would just add anything in any way. I would want to be a part of the design/decision-making. But, I'm telling you, the path for SnapDragon to collab and add things on a fast schedule through AAF was there. And he knows that as well as anyone else. If he is suggesting otherwise, he's being dishonest.

 

My income is in danger? lol - The tiny amount that Patreon contributions and banner ads make... It's around .012% of my income. So, guess again.

Still has to have the last word, flex and cope. Stop charging your patreons then, if you slack on updates.

 

This is a waste of my time, not mentioning a thread high-jacking...

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

1) "re-implementing" does not mean copyright infringement. 

 

2) Do you think rules/processes implemented in AAF can not be implemented in a different way?

Regardles of your opinion, it is possible. Moreever, it is possible to achieve exactly same result using the same source data without any code "lifting". An example from our reality - Wine project. Same data - .exe files, same result - Win application run exactly same under Linux.

3) NAF has a different set of features. Not same. Users do not get the same result.

 

 

4) Code structure in NAF significantly differ from AAF's code structure. It will not be possible to prove substantial similarity as the code in NAF and AAF noticeably differ in all aspects - organization, structure and sequence. 

 

 

You have to prove that it designed specially. You have to prove the intention. Otherwise - it is just your personal opinion.

Moreever, I never heard that any proprietary data structures documentation was published. You published it. Are you sure that AAF XML files structure still "proprietary"?

 

It is just your opinion. Version of NAF recently published on LL (and disabled again) can be used without AAF XML files.

 

 

The only thing that you may actually appeal to - similarity of data structures. NAF partially replicates data structure of AAF XML files. It is necessary to implement this structure, otherwise it is not possible to import that files. Intention to import that files was publicly mentioned - compatibility with existing animation packs. If you think differ - prove the different intention. 

Objects populated from AAF XML files are used directly in NAF's animation engine? It is not a prove of intentional infringement. It can be a result of optimization.

 

 

 

 

You are simply starting from the same premise as shittyguy. You are arguing that copying source code is the only thing protected. It's not. Shall I prove it to you guys?

 

As soon as you realize I am right about that, all of your arguments fall apart.

[Yannis Valentine]

Dagoba is your work licensed just curious

Edited January 5 by Yannis Valentine

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, Stormer said:

Still has to have the last word, flex and cope. Stop charging your patreons then, if you slack on updates.

 

This is a waste of my time, not mentioning a thread high-jacking...

 

Well. You made the accusations. But, you don't stick around to answer the follow up?

[Z4chary]

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

Nexus not taking NAF down apparently means way less than you think it does.

Nexus is now a big company. Company that generates profit, company that has to follow the law and be audited (example: they did a major overhaul to comply with GDPR in the past). They have actual legal team. All you have are smoke and mirrors.

 

Imma head out.

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, Z4chary said:

Nexus is now a big company. Company that generates profit, company that has to follow the law and be audited (example: they did a major overhaul to comply with GDPR in the past). They have actual legal team. All you have are smoke and mirrors.

 

Imma head out.

 

So, your idea is that when companies reach a certain size and profit, all of their employees always follow the law?