Sorry

[wolfzq]

yes. no copyright. so my mod is not to sell at future.

smile

[Mig08]

"Параллельные прямые не пересекаются, даже если продлевать линии бесконечно" метафора

[Ark of Truth]

 

Either way. Wolfzq will get in trouble for selling mods by using Bethesda Tes editor. As you already see they are protected also under copyright. So if he used any part from oblivion.esm in his mods or used bethesda tools. He cannot sell.

 

You can't make a mod for oblivion without it. I think Skyrim goes under the thing that even though you make the mod it's still Beth's property but Beth pays you for making it. It's not really clear.

[Symon]

I know Donkey! It's all so fiendishly complicated, not helped that various vested interests all over the world are intent on reducing the Persons right to buy and own something. (They want us to rent it with the right to remove it at any time).

 

Here's a hypothetic example that I have no idea of the answer to:-

 

A team of modders produce a beautiful, bug free mod that they make available for download on their own website. It's is completely free of charge and available to anyone as it should be. There is a forum that people may join.

 

On the forum, there is an offer section, that allows purchase of an option addon pack for 5 US dollars. It contains well-mastered mp3 replacements for the silent voice mp3s included in the standard mod and exquisite high-res replacements for all the mods textures and normal maps. It is completley optional, doesn't include an esp or anything made with the Beth tools (they used Audacity and Gimp) and most people think it very good value for a mere 5 dollars. This addon is not advertized on the main website. It's a paid-for addon for enthusiasts.

 

Is this in violation of what? In which country? What can Beth do apart from sending a threatening email? If the modders are Russians and their server is in Russia, does this matter?

[demongoat]

I know Donkey! It's all so fiendishly complicated' date=' not helped that various vested interests all over the world are intent on reducing the Persons right to buy and own something. (They want us to rent it with the right to remove it at any time).

 

Here's a hypothetic example that I have no idea of the answer to:-

 

A team of modders produce a beautiful, bug free mod that they make available for download on their own website. It's is completely free of charge and available to anyone as it should be. There is a forum that people may join.

 

On the forum, there is an offer section, that allows purchase of an option addon pack for 5 US dollars. It contains well-mastered mp3 replacements for the silent voice mp3s included in the standard mod and exquisite high-res replacements for all the mods textures and normal maps. It is completley optional, doesn't include an esp or anything made with the Beth tools (they used Audacity and Gimp) and most people think it very good value for a mere 5 dollars. This addon is not advertized on the main website. It's a paid-for addon for enthusiasts.

 

Is this in violation of what? In which country? What can Beth do apart from sending a threatening email? If the modders are Russians and their server is in Russia, does this matter?

[/quote']

 

i think it might be different, since beth doesn't own mp3 but they do own nif, and esp and things like that.

you maybe right that all they can do is issue threats, i'm not sure anyone has tested the idea in court. it might fall under copyright since it is something being sold to be used as part of someone elses game product.

the legality of selling something to modify or be used with another persons product without telling them is coming up a big "?" for me.

 

it might be legal it might not be i've never seen anything with games, other products i have, but i assume that the company is aware of it.

 

from the unholy darkness example beth doesn't seem too keen on it though and neither does the players.

 

[Symon]

Tricky! Often you might expect this to be a derivative work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

They are quite common for software!

[canthics]

*puts on IP law hat*

 

...

 

*takes if off because it would be an unauthorized practice of law*

 

It's actually (well not altogether) very simple. Well, the black letter law may be complicated and, in this fact pattern, would actually involve some international treaties that I should really be studying right now instead of posting here, but the impact on us and wolf in particular is straightforward. That is first of all, this is fundamentally a copyright issue and there isn't a jurisdiction on the planet that actually has a copyright regime that would find otherwise, and unless the rights owner says otherwise, a mod of the form that you are describing is a no-go.

 

You can get into the semantics of whether you are simply offering up an individual set of assets that are developed independently of the actual work, but ultimately the fact that you still rely on the original property to express your product puts you squarely in the realm of a derivative work. A court decision otherwise would probably make for quite a few law review articles, and in this case, maybe even grounds for a WTO complaint. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but that is the gist of it.

 

Although it's murkier, there might also be an actionable harm based on the liklihood that a paid mod would be confused as being sourced from bethesda. Due to the nature of the mod, this could potentially blow up in your face in a horrific way. Again, the details aren't in front of me right now but the moment you referred to it as DLC sent litigation alarms ringing in my head.

 

I wouldn't call myself 100% qualified to make this statement (yet), but if I were your lawyer and looking out for your best interests (again, however, this is purely hypothetical), I would 100% without reservation tell you not to go through with trying to sell it, and that it would be better to delete it and forget it ever existed than risk the shitstorm that trying to bring it to market would entail. Or, just keep it free and you will have no issues whatsoever.

[Symon]

Interesting. How do you square this with people who make and sell add-ons 'for use with Microsoft Word' (for a real world example) with no trading relationship with Microsoft. (They usually point out in the small print they they acknowledge Microsoft's trademarks and copy rights and are not challenging them.

 

An example would be a fancy tabular report to XL spread sheet converter. I've seen many derivative works on sale over the decades that are useless without product X but require you to have bought product X without any real relationship between the two parties.

 

Note I specified that the makers are NOT exploiting Beth's name to drum up sales.

[canthics]

Interesting. How do you square this with people who make and sell add-ons 'for use with Microsoft Word' (for a real world example) with no trading relationship with Microsoft. (They usually point out in the small print they they acknowledge Microsoft's trademarks and copy rights and are not challenging them.

 

An example would be a fancy tabular report to XL spread sheet converter. I've seen many derivative works on sale over the decades that are useless without product X but require you to have bought product X without any real relationship between the two parties.

 

Note I specified that the makers are NOT exploiting Beth's name to drum up sales.

 

 

MS has either taken the position that they support commercial third party addons or there has been some form of direct contact. The reality is clearly the former. This is fairly typical in enterprise software and in fact much of the IT service industry relies on it. That does not translate into the realm of game mods, however. Different companies and different industries will have varying approaches in how they manage their IP. I can think of no example in the game industry where commercial modding exists without developer involvement or a waiver of their right to get themselves involved. Modders may be entitled to certain rights to manipulate their software (and even that can be disputed) on their own for no commercial gain, but the moment there's money involved it becomes actionable.

 

The thing to bear in mind here is that I'm thinking purely from a litigator's perspective, or rather someone trying to avoid litigation. From here, it's not about looking at what the black letter law is and seeing if you can crowbar your way around it. It's instead looking at what Wolf is trying to do here from the perspective of the developer and imagining all the horriffic ways they can use said black letter law to push back. You may have a clever argument for why what you're doing isn't infringement, but you won't be able to see it shot down by their biglaw IP team until you've paid out the ass in attorney fees. By the time you get the cease and desist letter it's too late, and going forward with the constant fear of getting a cease and desist letter isn't wise either.

 

And the "tarnishment" argument (I guess this is the best way to characterize it, though the term of art is usually reserved for trademark disputes) doesn't require intent. By marketing and selling a mod for a product independently, a practice that is highly atypical in this industry, you are putting the developer's property in the corner right alongside your offering in the eyes of the consumer.

 

[chakaru11]

I acree with canthics here: Copyrights are copyrights, no matter where you go.

 

The problem with Oblivion custom content is, that it is never truly original as in 100% your own creation. A lot of stuff is based on vanilla content be it scripts, meshes, textures, whatever you want - and even if you can avoid that, you need to use the construction set to put it ingame. And since that is Bethesda software, any and all custom content (aside from mesh resources made from scratch without esps) are not 100 % original content.

 

So when it comes down to it, you earn money by editing the copyrighted work of a huge, well-known company and hyphothetically speaking Bethesda had every right to put the smack down on it.

 

Be that as it may, charging money for Oblivion content feels and will always feel shifty to me either way.

[Symon]

Actually, the example I gave clearly doesn't rely on the construction set AT ALL, to get it in game.

 

I can think of many examples over the years where I have seen 'X is Copyright so and so and this term is used without permission' disclaimers myself.

 

The classic example of 'useless without another product' would be Samba, which allows unix machines to talk to Windows machines on a network, and is very seriously NOT endorsed by Microsoft, who are not known for being free and easy with their IP. They did after all invest a lot of hope (and reputedly money) in the SCO vs IBM and Novel fiasco.

 

Anyway, anyone going to comment on the 'they are all in Russia' hypothetical? (I decided not to be nasty and say China, a place where Western IP just doesn't seem to reach.)

[Guest Donkey]

Well this make it interesting then:

 

It appears the Fallout fan who owns Fallout3-Posters http://www.fallout-posters.com/ has been in a on going dispute over fan made art for the game that Bethesda consider to be a breach of their intellectual copyright and want it removed according to Gamespot UK. They are also demanding the sites domain name be handed over to them.

 

The article seem to be from here: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/bethesda-threatens-gamer-over-fallout-fan-site-6372043

 

So if this guy was selling poster with fallout content then what is not to go after wolfZQ for selling game content..

 

This getting way to off-topic but you asked for it.

[canthics]

Actually' date=' the example I gave clearly doesn't rely on the construction set AT ALL, to get it in game.

 

I can think of many examples over the years where I have seen 'X is Copyright so and so and this term is used without permission' disclaimers myself.

 

The classic example of 'useless without another product' would be Samba, which allows unix machines to talk to Windows machines on a network, and is very seriously NOT endorsed by Microsoft, who are not known for being free and easy with their IP. They did after all invest a lot of hope (and reputedly money) in the SCO vs IBM and Novel fiasco.

 

Anyway, anyone going to comment on the 'they are all in Russia' hypothetical? (I decided not to be nasty and say China, a place where Western IP just doesn't seem to reach.)

[/quote']

 

Those disclaimers are technically unneeded but are useful to function as big loud deterrent. The rule is in absence of provisions that may waive a property holder's rights, they are the gods of their property.

 

Returning to the separate and distinct parts debate. Again, it's futile to attempt to import practices in other industries to the current example. The Samba example may not be the best, as in the first instance we are talking about developing a third party tool for a generalized platform which has an established history of third party tools being perfectly kosher. And second, you overestimate the extent to which MS is hostile to the existence of Unix-based platforms. I don't know if this is still the case, but surely during the period when tools like Samba were initially developed, the majority of enterprise servers still ran some variety of Unix. MS itself has tools that allow for interface with these platforms while still treating them as competitors. At any rate, this is turned into a discussion of business strategy.

 

In legal terms, if a work can be fully expresssed independently, such as the example you give of a soundtrack, it would be far less problematic. If wolf were offering up a collection of wallpapers and music that happen to work well within the game, it would not be an issue as long as the works themselves contain on infringing content. Again, however, a mod cannot exist independently in the same way. You cannot run it on its own and maybe find that it's useless, you can't even view it in a way that the author intended. A court will see past you trying to pull shenanigans of trying to say that it's merely a collection of meshes and textures. In the end, it requires actual operation on the original work in order to express itself. To distinguish from your Samba example, you confuse where the lines of property are drawn. Samba is a piece of code that, on its own, fully functions as an intermediary between platforms. That it happens to serve a function that may run counter to MS's business strategy is really irrelevant, because the platform it's running on and the only link to MS's actual IP is the operating system, for which MS has long accepted all-comers in third party development. If, on the other hand, Samba included proprietary code, it would become an issue. That's why a lot of open source applications such as music players will often separate the availability of open-source vs. proprietary codecs and whatnot. Again, however, this is all tangential. The point is that things work the way they do in MS's house because, well, it's their house, their property, their lawyers drafting licensing agreements. The game industry including Zenimax clearly run things differently. The game industry is far more restrictive in their licensing terms than other software because they can be. Most relevant caselaw I can think of to this regard is Blizzard vs. the BnetD folks, where literally the only thing the infringing software shared were the nature of the packets being sent. Like it or not, things like modding exist solely by the mercy and beneficence of the developers.

 

Since Russia is a fresh entrant in the WTO de jure enforcement may still be lax but it will come. China is a member and by extention TRIPs signatory. US IP is enforceable and is regularly enforced contrary to what election-year politics would have you believe, however the size of the market relative to the resources available devoted to IP enforcement make it difficult, not to mention that intellectual property as an economic entity is itself a foreign concept that is not altogether intuitive (you can look at the way Rome traditionally viewed monopolistic IP schemes and how patent schemes developed in Europe and England to see that not even traditional western notions take to it). It just doesn't make sense from a policy perspective to devote resources to enforcing provisions that have little or negative domestic benefit. That said, you hardly want to hinge a project where there's money involved on the cops being lazy. In this case, you need not even involve the local authorities. The cops are lazy, but the courts are not (they are simply overworked, which means you'll still get sued, it'll just take years). Beth can easily target the one mod that's trying to charge and actually bring the action in US court, maybe even make Wolf fly out to DC if he wants a say in the matter. Again, details are really unneccessary. Gist is, if they find out about it, they can find a way to screw you over, period.

[Symon]

All fascinating. However, I'd say Samba was for more relevant than you suggest.

 

Firstly, what is actually happening is one server, running one o/s is transmitting packets to another server running another o/s. Those packets are packets in the form Microsoft had developed them. At one stage it was Netbui over tcp/ip. Than, with active directory, it added LDAP and DNS to the mix and deprecated netbui, again with a mass of secret source. All this had to be deduced, or reverse engineered from capturing packets on the wire.

 

Microsoft Services for Unix have tended to follow rather than lead Samba by the way. If you can't beat it, try to Embrace and Extend. Active Directory causes a lot of muttering amongst those of us who have to maintain DNS.

 

Microsoft cheer-leading for SCO does tend to show how aggressive they are. (and how overconfident they can be).

 

One excellent point you raise is that for some reason, Games Companies seem to be far more aggressive towards their Customers than many other businesses. Quite why they think this a fine strategy I don't know.

 

This quote from the article Donkey quotes suggests one answer:

"He continued, "I'm tired of intellectual rights holders--be it RIAA, MPAA or in this case Bethesda--going after little guys like myself and threatening them into obedience. Some people doesn't have the intellectual capacity or money to fight their cause, so they just fold after receiving a letter like that. But just because you can't afford to fight, doesn't mean your opponent is right.

When a big guy goes after a little guy, many people call him a bully. Money lost to Beth due to his posters? None! Harm done? None! Well, except that reputation as a bully.

[Guest Donkey]

Well if mircosoft would have gone after samba then it would have been taken down just like fallout poster.

 

Don't forget modding a game used be called hacking in older days.. That companies condone does not make right.. Companies still hold the right to take this part down along the way.. If they chose too.

 

software and gaming idustrie has different prioritites when dealing with this kind of thing. So now it will look more like comparing apples with pears it just won't fit..

 

btw don't get wrong on this, i would not mind a bit if wolfZQ did earn some cash along the way, he invested allot of time and effort for creating the many things he did with his previous work. But it would be bigger loss if Bethesda did go after him and even forces his full site to be taken down, in that case we would lose even more as community.

[Symon]

The fact that Samba is now so established even Microsoft (belatedly) contributed some code in 2011 (the project started IIRC in 1992) shows what can be achieved.

 

Since US companies are demanding the right to be treated as 'persons' more and more (most recently 2010 IIRC - they'll want the vote next), it surely behooves them to act like decent 'people'.

 

I think we can all agree decent people don't bully!

[canthics]

If Samba contained proprietary code, it is an altogether different matter. Of course, with the way IP is applied to the software (and tech industry) in general, whether it would be wise to pursue litigation is always an iffy question. In many ways, tech is something of a poster child for why current IP regimes may be counterproductive in fostering innovation. IP litigation is increasingly becoming weaponized in the industry and it's certainly not benefiting consumers. The distinction with a game mod, however, does remain. We aren't dealing with property that could well exist as a utility patent as much as it would as copyrightable code. The fact that the game and mods are fundamentally creative works significantly shifts rights in favor of the rights owners. It may well be the case that the analogy to other software isn't quite apt, but a better comparison would be something like fanfiction. Actually, now that I think about it that fits much better in terms of what it's trying to achieve and where the meat of the property rights lie. You aren't just using the underlying technology to express a mod, but in fact much of the creative content as well. Regardless, the developer owns both and their ability to control its use is basically as broad as they want it to be, especially when it comes to commercial gain.

 

To be fair to the developers, they have an interest in holding the line in terms of how they control their IP. I've been taught to always be skeptical of slippery slope arguments, but where usage can quickly evolve into widespread practice that would be problematic to limit, there are good reasons for them putting their foot down so harshly. The poster case is a different animal than modding, however. That's more a matter of fair use (and imo, it really ought to count as fair use, I'm in disagreement with the law on this one), as infringement is clearly occurring, whereas in the case of mods I feel the real interesting question is the extent to which infringement is occurring in the first place.

[lengxuelc]

I think everyone should drop the question"whether it's illegal",cause even we finally have a conclusion that is legal.Still some players and beth think is illegal or go against the principle of modder.

The most important thing is to find out a way of paying but without ruin everyone's mood

PS:I respect the principle i also believe in huamnity cause not everything is "black or white"

actully i think life itself is a abssy of chaos sometimes we only need to struggle to find out what is the most comfortable way of living without hurt others.

sorry about my poor english

我觉得大家没必要争论是否“合法”，首先狼大的行为绝对不会导致他被告上中国的法庭，其次即使我们得出了这样做合法的结论“黑岛”公司和其他的一些玩家也会认为狼大的行为很难接受。

我们还是想出一个不影响大家心情的支付方法比较合适

附注：我个人坚信原则也深信人性，这并不矛盾，在我看来生活就是个混乱的深渊，很多时候我们只需要找出一种不伤害别人的方式去痛快的活着就好

[blueblue]

You are free to charge what you want, but I think you are going to lose supporters, especially with the last mod never even being finished. Unless you can garuntee that the mod will be worth the money, and better than cursed armour, it's unlikely many are going to want to buy it.

[gregathit]

I think everyone should drop the question"whether it's illegal"' date='cause even we finally have a conclusion that is legal.Still some players and beth think is illegal or go against the principle of modder.

The most important thing is to find out a way of paying but without ruin everyone's mood

PS:I respect the principle i also believe in huamnity cause not everything is "black or white"

actully i think life itself is a abssy of chaos sometimes we only need to struggle to find out what is the most comfortable way of living without hurt others.

sorry about my poor english

[/quote']

 

Actually, it is ILLEGAL. It always has been, and unless the law changes, it always will be illegal. The question is really: do you want to risk it, possibly get caught and prosecuted?

 

Sure, everyone agrees there are "grey" areas but trying to sell mods isn't a grey area. It violates copyright and could get you in trouble.

 

Putting a price on a mod is a terrible idea IMHO. I am fine however with someone putting up a voluntary donations option.

NOTE: Not a "no donation, no download" policy, but rather simply a voluntary one if people wanted to show their appreciation. Beth or any other game developer might still be able to go after you with this type of setup, but it would be much more difficult for them.

[canthics]

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation. You won't get thrown in jail. Certain industries like to muddy the waters by conflating piracy and infringement, but unless Wolf plans on bundling Oblivion along with his mod, it's not piracy.

 

You can get sued, however, but not prosecuted. Two different things.

 

Bottom line, you can make all the arguments you want about how this isn't infringement, or it's fair use, or it's legal and right and you're the awesome little guy fighting the man or whatever. I'd rather put money on the dev and their battle-hardened and expensive legal team disagreeing with you. You want to fight that and prove that you're right, you're welcome to spend a couple years and at least a mil in legal fees battling it out in what will most likely be US federal court. You can cut that down by some time, but it'll likely involve the judge summarily executing your case on summary judgment and the dev's lawyers opting for a quick, merciful kill instead of a slow, agonizing fight that suits their interests better by forcing you to give up and serve as a grisly example to future potential infringers.

 

If you win, cool beans but you better hope that your mod sells because there is no way to recup your litigation expenses (that can happen for patents, btw). In the meantime, you'll get slapped with an injunction before litigation even starts and your mod will never see the light of day during those years at trial. Meanwhile, everyone will have moved on to xLovers Skyrim/Fallout 4: New Canada, Renminbi will be free floating (~2015 optimistic), and Chinese legal reform will have progressed to the point where you might be in doodoo with them as well as the US rights holder.

 

So in a nuthshell, as someone who doesn't wish the full weight of our ridiculous legal system unleashed on even my worst enemies, I implore Wolf and modders who have similar ambitions: don't do it, man. It's not worth it.

[Ark of Truth]

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation

 

Then explain Privacy and MegaUpload?

 

Beside i'm sure the mods of this forum said, Post pay to download mods was against the forum rules?

[demongoat]

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation. You won't get thrown in jail. Certain industries like to muddy the waters by conflating piracy and infringement' date=' but unless Wolf plans on bundling Oblivion along with his mod, it's not piracy.

 

[/quote']

uh it wouldn't be piracy because he isn't on a boat, it is however copyright infringement. also you can go to jail for copyright infringement, 2 years up to five, you get punished less if you stole something than if you infringed on copyright.

 

piracy, is a slang term for copyright infringement, when people use the term they aren't conflating piracy with copyright infringement. if people were doing that, they would be conflating copyright with robbing people at sea , we are talking laws here and not slang use of words.

if however we are using the slang term, trying to sell mods for a game someone doesn't own the rights to, would be copyright infringement and "piracy".

 

using the term piracy implies something horrible when it is fairly mundane, copyright infringement is pretty dang common. it happens all the time, so they have to call it "stealing" or "piracy", i mean according to the laws in place singing happy birthday to more than two people is a crowd and you need to pay the copyright holder for it.

 

 

[demongoat]

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation

 

Then explain Privacy and MegaUpload?

 

Beside i'm sure the mods of this forum said' date=' Post pay to download mods was against the forum rules?

[/quote']

 

i think it depends on if you can argue the intent and damages caused, megaupload has i believe, been found to have intentionally set out to facilitate copyright infringement.

so they could be tried for a felony, along with anyone who does the same, such as isohunt, the owner was found to have intentionally made it easy to violate copyright.

most of it is civil though, a tort mostly.

 

[canthics]

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation

 

Then explain Privacy and MegaUpload?

 

Beside i'm sure the mods of this forum said' date=' Post pay to download mods was against the forum rules?

[/quote']

 

Megaupload is easy to explain (see below) and quite frankly, is unneccessary to explain in this discussion. Worry about getting sued before worrying about getting arrested, and at any rate what we're talking about here isn't the type of infringement that would get you arrested.

 

Copyright infringement isn't a criminal violation. You won't get thrown in jail. Certain industries like to muddy the waters by conflating piracy and infringement' date=' but unless Wolf plans on bundling Oblivion along with his mod, it's not piracy.

 

[/quote']

uh it wouldn't be piracy because he isn't on a boat, it is however copyright infringement. also you can go to jail for copyright infringement, 2 years up to five, you get punished less if you stole something than if you infringed on copyright.

 

piracy, is a slang term for copyright infringement, when people use the term they aren't conflating piracy with copyright infringement. if people were doing that, they would be conflating copyright with robbing people at sea , we are talking laws here and not slang use of words.

if however we are using the slang term, trying to sell mods for a game someone doesn't own the rights to, would be copyright infringement and "piracy".

 

using the term piracy implies something horrible when it is fairly mundane, copyright infringement is pretty dang common. it happens all the time, so they have to call it "stealing" or "piracy", i mean according to the laws in place singing happy birthday to more than two people is a crowd and you need to pay the copyright holder for it.

 

 

 

"Piracy" as in software piracy and the like and not the jus cogens violation of international law "piracy," is a term of art in the law enforcement community. If you want to distinguish it in legal terms, you could say that it's infringement for which criminal penalties have been authorized by statute. I'd rather use the term than "copyright infringement for which criminal penalties are authorized by XXXX act." Note that most if not all criminal penalties for infringement come from specific legislation, and in most of those cases the reason why the specific type of infringement is carved out of the traditional scheme of civil remedies is to address the problem of "piracy." At any rate, it is NOT the default remedy for copyright infringement. Honestly, the civil remedy is scary enough as it is, so all this confusion as to whether something is "illegal" versus cause for legal action is really moot.