NAF still Banned (on LL) ?

[mrwiseman]

2 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Not the only. There are a few other areas that might be considered as "similar". For example, as Dagoba mentioned in the messages that are lost already - list of arguments passed to Play functions. But its similarity is very low - less than 20%. And moreover - it can be easily decreased to 10%. To the 0% - not so easily, but feasible.

Another aspect - importing XML files does not violate Dagoba's copyright at all. It is technical method that is not considered as creative work and falls to exclusions category. Even data model used to store imported data in memory is not the subject of protection.

The only thing that remain unclear - similarity of processes that uses the data. Dagoba states that it is not possible to achieve same result as in AAF using the same data without infringement. I say that it is possible. And I can see it from NAF sources.

 

Not at all. It is not necessary to read Dagoba's code to read AAF XML files. XML schema is publicly documented. Moreover - the strong documentation (XLS file) is published. It is enough to write code for data importing.

 

Stop, what? Where did you see an announce of replacement?

 

Why not? Pretty good idea. Standardization is a blessing.

 

Oh, no. Don't please. AAF design is pretty mediocre. I don't like the idea to replicate such crude design.

 

 

Sorry, i misread "NAF is a new multi-character animation framework, similar to AAF". My bad, i read "similar" as alternative. But let's be honest, it was never meant to be active in the same list order .
Did you ever ask for a Coca-cola and get a Pepsi instead ? It is similar, an alternative or a replacement. Both are drinkable fudge with CO2 bubbles, but different packaging and taste.

 

And you are right, the XML schema is well documented on AAF Wiki, it is useful for animation creator.
Not a permission to piggyback his work in another framework.

I really think similarities are bounded to appear when dealing in the same domain, using the same underline API (F4SE/F4EE) in the same game. 

if you read my precedents posts, i'm all for standardization, open source and above all good documentations.
But clearly it wouldn't be AAF one, why inherited the file format from a "mediocre" design instead of creating a new one better suited to NAF ?

Personally, i don't like Dagobaking decision, but i respect it.
He putted his time (and sweats and tears too, i imagine) into AAF, i honestly don't think i would act differently in his shoes.
Snapdragon shouldn't have included AAF animation pack support without Dagobaking consent.
And to be fair, i wouldn't even thought to ask myself, wrongfully assuming it was free to use.
Yes it suck, specially writing a file format for animation that feel "original", like designing a play button that isn't a triangle pointing right. 

But this is where we are and sadly, flaying each others on this topic until Fallout 5 will not change the situation.

[dagobaking]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:12 PM, sen4mi said:

Well, it's certainly true that the Oracle API issue covered quite a lot of ground, while here we're talking about a mod which (in comparison) relatively few people use.

 

But that does not mean that the concept of "fair use" becomes irrelevant just because we're talking about modding.

 

Your assertions here seem sort of like if Bethesda were to claim that they could monetize mods without mod authors agreements because mod authors are using their interfaces. There's a bunch of reasons why they do not do that.

 

And, here, your xml specification is little more than an interface to Bethesda's engine. Which you do not own.

 

Read the decision. The basis for the ruling in Oracle v Google does not have anything in common with AAF v NAF. Fair Use is an an exception to hold some things not copyrightable under very narrow, specific circumstances. It was not a ruling that all API's are not copyrightable, it was a ruling that THAT API was not copyrightable due to very specific circumstances.

 

One of the circumstances was the "impact on market" that ruling for Oracle would make. So, it actually is relevant that we're talking about modding. Not just modding but a free mod in an area where there are unlimited alternative ways to make animation frameworks. In other words, there is almost zero "market impact" to uphold copyrightability, which is the default position for peoples original work.

 

10 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

That's the "disgusting" part i whish to avoid :D. Having to chased Havok SDK on a suspect website written in Cyrillic just to get the tool is an harrowing experience.

 

I hear you. It's definitely not ideal.

 

9 hours ago, sen4mi said:

But an issue is whether this means that Dagobaking owns all of the mods which use that API -- whether he has the right to prevent other people from supporting that API.

 

The issue is whether or not someone can just make the same mod as me and open-source it without permission. Obviously not legally.

 

Think about it. It is not as you suggest merely about the files attached to AAF through the API. In the case of AAF (this isn't the case with all kinds of software) the API defines nearly everything that it does as a program. So, copying the API isn't just copying the inputs. It's copying everything that the application does from beginning to end.

 

9 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

You didi't. Screenshots you provided are lost. Code samples comparison is not provided. Data structures comparison is not provided. There is nothing to refer to. 

It looks like you think that just claim is enough to blame and punish someone, and you do not need to do anything to prove your point of view. But people still remember about presumption of innocence.

 

Of course, in court I would provide the same comparison that the Abstract-Filtration-Comparison test goes over and it would go into the specifics you refer to here.

 

However:

 

A. I would be insane to publish that here. I have no obligation to do so and this is not a court. It's an internet forum.

B. This is such a blatant case of copying that I do not even need to post those details to demonstrate a convincing case. See my previous post to you. In order for Snapdragon to make NAF he had to go through my API line by line, var by var, structure by structure and copy how it works IN THE APP. Not just the input files but also in what it does in the game.

 

9 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Definitely, it doesn't . When both of them borrow something from 3rd side work. 

 

Now you're just being obtuse. The point is that there are nearly unlimited ways to make animation frameworks with the tools we have WITHOUT copying other peoples work and WITHOUT violating any 3rd party requirements/limitations.

 

5 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

But its similarity is very low - less than 20%. And moreover - it can be easily decreased to 10%. To the 0% - not so easily, but feasible.

 

Dude. He literally brags about the mod using almost every XML type and promises to add the rest later. It's not 20% that is copied. It's almost the entire mod. Even the GUI is an imitation.

 

In any case, it isn't your money to gamble with. If it was, you might be worried that your 10% estimation would be off in the eyes of expert strangers who don't simply want to use NAF.

Edited January 8 by dagobaking

[sen4mi]

9 hours ago, dagobaking said:

 

Read the decision. The basis for the ruling in Oracle v Google does not have anything in common with AAF v NAF. Fair Use is an an exception to hold some things not copyrightable under very narrow, specific circumstances. It was not a ruling that all API's are not copyrightable, it was a ruling that THAT API was not copyrightable due to very specific circumstances.

 

One of the circumstances was the "impact on market" that ruling for Oracle would make. So, it actually is relevant that we're talking about modding. Not just modding but a free mod in an area where there are unlimited alternative ways to make animation frameworks. In other words, there is almost zero "market impact" to uphold copyrightability, which is the default position for peoples original work.

 

I see several things going on here:

 

1) To the degree that "modding" is a "market", it's pretty clear that there would be a significant "impact on market" going on here. But you are correct that this is trivial in comparison to the Google vs Oracle thing.

2) Your statement "It was not a ruling that all API's are not copyrightable, it was a ruling that THAT API was not copyrightable" implies that there's some other more recent court decision preventing people from independently supporting APIs. But I haven't seen anything like that that would apply here.

 

3) For example, I haven't seen any precedent to support the idea that publishing an xsd creates ownership of xml (which that xsd validates) sufficient to prevent other people from using that xml.

 

[Dlinny_Lag]

15 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

But let's be honest, it was never meant to be active in the same list order .

Why? I have both. They do not interfere.

 

15 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

why inherited the file format from a "mediocre" design instead of creating a new one better suited to NAF

It is not about better or worse. It is a matter of interoperability. Many people made their XML files for AAF. NAF author doesn't mock their effort and offers a compatibilty option.

 

15 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

but i respect it.

I guess all people respect his efforts... made in past. Many people still respect him now. But the problem is not in a respect, the problem is in rights violation. Dagoba's potential (no more or less hard evidence, just claim) rights violations causes Snapdragon's rights violation. LL administrtation allow this rights violation, and people are not happy with that. Especially, when such rights violation deprives them of a good mod on LL.

 

 

Edited January 8 by Dlinny_Lag

[Dlinny_Lag]

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I have no obligation

Got it. It is exactly what I'm saying. You have confirmed my guess. You think that you don't need to do anything to prove your point of view when other's rights are violated because of your actions. You disables presumption of innocence.

You desrerve your portion of hate. IMO, moders community doesn't deserve a person like you.

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

The point is that there are nearly unlimited ways to make animation frameworks with the tools we have WITHOUT copying other peoples work

And NAF is the case. I'm able to show it. I'm able to show it partially without your sources disclosure. And I'm able show it completely with disclosure.

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

WITHOUT violating any 3rd party requirements/limitations.

Are you sure that AAF doesn't violate any 3rd party copyright? Absence of claim doesn't mean absence of infringement. AAF definitely uses a lot of things from other projects. 

Why do you think that only you have rights to borrow something from 3rd party work. Why do you disable Snapdragon's rights to do the same? 

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Dude. He literally brags about the mod using almost every XML type and promises to add the rest later. It's not 20% that is copied. It's almost the entire mod. Even the GUI is an imitation.

Please be more precise. Looks like you mixed up different areas. 20% I mentioned doesn't relate to XML structure.

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

In any case, it isn't your money to gamble with.

It is up to me what to do. I don't need your advices.

 

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

It's almost the entire mod. Even the GUI is an imitation.

This "almost" estimation doesn't reflect the reality. See below

 

13 hours ago, dagobaking said:

If it was, you might be worried that your 10% estimation would be off in the eyes of expert strangers who don't simply want to use NAF.

Seems like you are still thinking that I have the single purpose only - use NAF. If you didn't realize it yet... no, it is not the only reason %)

I'm expert, and I can prepare investigation report that can be reviwed by those "expert strangers". And it can be verified if they are qualified enough. The only question - how long it will take. I would estimate it as "a few weeks" for a complete report.

As I understand you are not an expert. But you are arrogant enough to show that you are the "exceptional" person who may say something and it should be considered as a truth.

If you haven't realized it yet - no, many people do not trust you already. 

 

 

On 1/6/2024 at 10:39 PM, dagobaking said:

I have proven, over and over

Why you do not show once again your "evidence"? The messages you refered are lost already. Community doesn't have access to them.

It is not so hard to display it once again, isn't it?

 

Edited January 8 by Dlinny_Lag

[MysticDaedra]

I'm not a coder, but I'm fairly familiar with US copyright law. That being said, I'm late to this party and I feel like I'm missing half the picture since dagobaking refuses to re-post any physical/textual evidence of any specific alleged copyright infringement in this thread (there used to be another thread with some "hard proof" so-to-speak, but that thread no longer exists?).

 

Here's my take: if NAF uses AAF as inspiration, that is not enough to establish copyright infringement. That's like saying "any vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine is infringing on patent rights" (patents and copyright are very similar), or "a book with exactly 200 pages infringes on my book that had 200 pages first". The exception would be if dagobaking actually established a patent for AAF's design, but afaik he never has. Regardless, it is very apparent that NAF does not have the same design or functionality as AAF...

 

Which leads to the conclusion that the actual copyright infringement must be either specific copied code in NAF that is more than just generic functions, or in the back-end functions in an identical manner to AAF, possibly in a different programming language. Are either of these the case, @dagobaking? Snapdragon has denied both claims as far as I am aware.

 

Simply implementing compatibility hooks that rely on some of AAFs code does not establish any copyright infringement. It's pretty standard open source legal precedent that some amount of code similarities to enable compatibility between open source and closed source software is not a violation of copyright law or rights.

 

Bottom line: if dagobaking won't post any actual evidence besides claims ("can't use NAF unless you use the AAF documentation"), then I don't really see any productive value to keeping this thread open, since it's really just a massive flame war. Mods, for the love of all that's holy... please either require some form of open evidence posting by dagobaking (since he's the one making the allegations of illegality), or just lock this thread already. Right now all it is doing is fueling a fire for no reason, and causing even more speculation by all of us uninvolved voyeurs. This is either a private matter between dagobaking and snapdragon, in which case a thread like this has no business existing, or it is a matter of public or community concern, in which case all evidence should be laid out so we can draw our own conclusions.

 

EDIT: I want to state for the record that I'm very grateful to dagobaking for his work on AAF, as it has been an invaluable tool to the FO4 modding community for years. That being said, due to the lack of evidence provided to back up his claims, I get a very bad taste in my mouth reading dagobaking's posts in this thread, as his posts come across as condescending, arrogant, and combative. I understand feeling defensive, especially if there is legitimate copyright infringement occurring, but it is really hard for me to believe that is the case: I personally never just take someone's word for it, which it appears is what dagobaking wants us all to do.

Edited January 8 by MysticDaedra

[Dlinny_Lag]

2 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

there used to be another thread with some "hard proof" so-to-speak, but that thread no longer exists?

Correct. That thread was disabled by LL administration and no longer available. Maybe it is not hard deleted, but in any case we can't refer to the messages from that thread.

 

2 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

then I don't really see any productive value to keeping this thread open

The reason I have - put the attention of LL administration to the situation of Snapdragon's rights violation. As I know one of LL staff said to Snapdragon that NAF and AAF are too similar from their point of view and this is the reason of Snapdragon's work ban on LL. However no criteria was provided from LL side about how things was compared. And no guidance how to compare to get the same result.

I have a hope that providing of enough technical information about unsimilarity between AAF and NAF in addition to inability of Dagoba to win in a court will be enough to unblock Snapdragon's work on LL as the result of recovering of his violated rights.

 

It was obvious (for the people who know how it works) from the beginning that Dagoba have no chances in a court. But it seems insufficient for LL administration.

 

2 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

I'm fairly familiar with US copyright law.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge from a law point of view. I'm sure it is useful for community to understand the situation correctly.

 

 

2 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

This is either a private matter between dagobaking and snapdragon, in which case a thread like this has no business existing

It doesn't look as a private matter. It was escalated already - community expectations about mods are affected. But more important thing - modmaker's rights are violated. LL was created for modmakers (as it stated in Rules section) and what to expect next from LL staff?

 

2 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

it is a matter of public or community concern

It seems like that. And from my point of view it is the result of LL administration actions against Snapdragon's work.

Edited January 8 by Dlinny_Lag

[sen4mi]

3 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

EDIT: I want to state for the record that I'm very grateful to dagobaking for his work on AAF, as it has been an invaluable tool to the FO4 modding community for years. 

 

Yes. I am also grateful for Dagobaking and his AAF.

 

(But that does not mean that I have yet to see a reason to agree with his position on this issue.)

Edited January 8 by sen4mi

[DoctaSax]

4 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

As I know one of LL staff said to Snapdragon that NAF and AAF are too similar from their point of view and this is the reason of Snapdragon's work ban on LL. However no criteria was provided from LL side about how things was compared. And no guidance how to compare to get the same result.

 

As Ashal said earlier, NAF wasn't banned. It was temporarily hidden while the matter was under review because my initial position was that there is indeed a case to be made for infringement, maybe not as clearcut as I'd like but also not frivolous. Hiding the thread at that time minimized our exposure.

 

I argued my position using about a thousand words, with quotes and links, and the rest of staff and both parties were called in to discuss it further, as it's clearly not as obvious as the usual "hey, I uploaded this file that isn't mine because I felt like it" situation that we regularly encounter and can make short work of without consultation. During this dagobaking expressed he was confident of winning in court, at which point snapdragon said they'd remove "all traces of AAF compatibility". This meant that the rest of staff moved on with their lives as there was no reason to dig into it anymore. Nobody else was informed because nobody else had to be.

 

Over three months later, this thread started. It contains rather interesting versions of events. Uniformly so, even. I'm a big boy so I'll just shrug at so many people here & on Nexus insisting there was collusion and favoritism. I just ask myself how so many people can claim to know what happened in a private conversation to begin with. It also contains behavior that is entirely unacceptable. AAF is shit so dagobaking has no rights. Moddingham sells your private info. Mod ownership is determined by "you snooze, you lose". Should've worked harder, you slob. All are serious LL rule 1 infractions, take it from a world expert on the matter.

 

Nothing much has changed since four months ago. NAF hasn't been adjusted, and it either has to be to get its thread unhidden or to be reposted according to how things were left, or the rest of staff needs to re-evaluate and overrule my position, which hasn't changed. All the while, we are still not a copyright court, so even if it goes against dagobaking he still has options there.

 

6 hours ago, MysticDaedra said:

This is either a private matter between dagobaking and snapdragon, in which case a thread like this has no business existing, or it is a matter of public or community concern, in which case all evidence should be laid out so we can draw our own conclusions.

 

Well, it can't be the latter so I'll just close this.