Jump to content

The right of mod users


Ixum

Recommended Posts

Get a male body that is SOS compatible use mesh rigger and transfer the bone nodes from the SOS one to the new male body once done dump SAM and replace it with your new male SOS compatible body problem solved. I have never used SAM before and after seeing the stupidity it can stay there collecting dust on the nexus site as I won't waste my time on it.

Link to comment

IMHO, SoS is safe.  Even if Vector demanded that it be removed from LL, (assuming that @Ashal would remove it) it would be posted somewhere else.  Heck, LadyM would probably host it since she is keeping control over SAM.  SAM-Refitted I believe it is called.

Technically, SoS is Smurf's mod.  He started it, and Vector joined up shortly after Smurf posted that he was working on it.  In a thread here at LL, as a matter of fact.  So Vector really doesn't have a leg to stand on where SoS is concerned.  He has also basically admitted that in a post on his forums.  It has been given to @b3lisario, so it's more his mod now than Vector's.

 

Aaaaaand... I meant to post this in the SoS thread.  Time for bed....) ;)

Link to comment

As a mod user creating video's / screenshots the only potential part of the EULA you would fall under is...

 

c) use SAM - Shape Atlas for Men to create any questionable content that depict or promote harassment, racism, rape, bestiality or child abuse.

 

which is a vague as hell and would not stand up to any form of argument

 

So i'd do whatever you like with the mod while remaining in the user category, its worth pointing out even with the EULA's that are for mod creators using other mods contents they are basically a gentlemens agreement enforced by the good will of the community so i highly doubt any would ever reach any sort of arbitration let alone a court, unless you happen to both be in the same country you'd probably waste years just working out who has jurisdiction

Link to comment

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

Link to comment

 

There actually are complications with SOS as it was originally made by the same person who made SAM. The current person who maintains it also appears to be quite involved in the development of SAM, according to SAM's description on a certain site that requires you to register just to see the SAM section.

 

Couple that with the fact that said author is a proven dick (no pun intended) and appears to have a personal vendetta against Ixum, there is some potential for further shitstorm, however legally groundless as they may be.

 

 

:s  :angry:

 

Great. So much for boycotting that guy's work. I think I will go jump off a cliff now...

Link to comment

As a mod user creating video's / screenshots the only potential part of the EULA you would fall under is...

 

c) use SAM - Shape Atlas for Men to create any questionable content that depict or promote harassment, racism, rape, bestiality or child abuse.

 

which is a vague as hell and would not stand up to any form of argument

 

So i'd do whatever you like with the mod while remaining in the user category, its worth pointing out even with the EULA's that are for mod creators using other mods contents they are basically a gentlemens agreement enforced by the good will of the community so i highly doubt any would ever reach any sort of arbitration let alone a court, unless you happen to both be in the same country you'd probably waste years just working out who has jurisdiction

 

Not worried about IRL legal actions. More worried about the online harassment he'd do, like shouting "theft" all over the place, having my vids taken down from sites, trying to get my blog taken down etc. Video sites tend to take vids down just in case, without any kind of "legit" reason.

Link to comment

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

you can't compare an orange with a mod.. these 2 don't mix. :P

Link to comment

 

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

you can't compare an orange with a mod.. these 2 don't mix. :P

 

 

If you're attempting to imply you can enforce a new EULA backwards so that content already created before said EULA existed must now follow it, I don't believe you're standing on too firm legal legs there...

Link to comment

 

 

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

you can't compare an orange with a mod.. these 2 don't mix. :P

 

 

If you're attempting to imply you can enforce a new EULA backwards so that content already created before said EULA existed must now follow it, I don't believe you're standing on too firm legal legs there...

 

 

I think what he's saying is:  If you mix a computer mod with an orange, you're going to get a very messy computer...

Link to comment

Just as I suspected, Vector made all of this fuss just because he didn't want you to use SAM for videos with beastiality/rape in it. Which is insane since by logic he could have applied the same EULA to SOS and go witch-hunting on whoever made/makes those kinds of videos. Plus this is just a fucking body mod, I don't understand why he should be so mad at people using it however they please. I doubt any other body mod author has ever been so obsessed on how their mods are used.

Link to comment

Just as I suspected, Vector made all of this fuss just because he didn't want you to use SAM for videos with beastiality/rape in it. Which is insane since by logic he could have applied the same EULA to SOS and go witch-hunting on whoever made/makes those kinds of videos. Plus this is just a fucking body mod, I don't understand why he should be so mad at people using it however they please.

 

Where are you getting that info from?  Wasn't anywhere in the info Ixum posted:

 

 

 

I do know why this is happening: I told him a couple of years ago that I do not agree with his idea of mod distribution. I do not like his self segregation, the self loathing he so much loves. I told him to put his mod up everywhere! Be proud of your work, force it on, and if u do not it will die! Anyway, the next day I was off his Skype. He did not appreciate that at all.

 

Did you see this info about bestiality and/or rape somewhere else?

 

Basically sounds like VP got his delicate panties in a wad (well, OK... "sensitive boxers in a bunch" ) about a comment that Ixum made.  Hell, I might head over to his new site and ask point-blank what HE thinks the true issue is:

 

 

[From VP:]Also, would like to give you a fair warning. I’m not disclosing publicly the full motives that led me to take this decision, but if I get again, anyone harassing me and questioning my motives, and that are coming from your “fan base”, I will have no reserves in explaining them my reasons in full detail. You would be wise to discourage this kind of action, just as much as I did. I don’t want to have to deal with harassment, nor do I want anyone harassing you over this.

 

So if anyone bugs him there, they'll get the "real" explanation?  Yeah, I seriously doubt it...

Link to comment

 

Just as I suspected, Vector made all of this fuss just because he didn't want you to use SAM for videos with beastiality/rape in it. Which is insane since by logic he could have applied the same EULA to SOS and go witch-hunting on whoever made/makes those kinds of videos. Plus this is just a fucking body mod, I don't understand why he should be so mad at people using it however they please.

 

Where are you getting that info from?  Wasn't anywhere in the info Ixum posted:

 

 

 

I do know why this is happening: I told him a couple of years ago that I do not agree with his idea of mod distribution. I do not like his self segregation, the self loathing he so much loves. I told him to put his mod up everywhere! Be proud of your work, force it on, and if u do not it will die! Anyway, the next day I was off his Skype. He did not appreciate that at all.

 

Did you see this info about bestiality and/or rape somewhere else?

 

Basically sounds like VP got his delicate panties in a wad (well, OK... "sensitive boxers in a bunch" ) about a comment that Ixum made.  Hell, I might head over to his new site and ask point-blank what HE thinks the true issue is:

 

 

[From VP:]Also, would like to give you a fair warning. I’m not disclosing publicly the full motives that led me to take this decision, but if I get again, anyone harassing me and questioning my motives, and that are coming from your “fan base”, I will have no reserves in explaining them my reasons in full detail. You would be wise to discourage this kind of action, just as much as I did. I don’t want to have to deal with harassment, nor do I want anyone harassing you over this.

 

So if anyone bugs him there, they'll get the "real" explanation?  Yeah, I seriously doubt it...

 

It's in the EULA, this is the only explanation I see for Vector's bullshit.

c) use SAM - Shape Atlas for Men to create any questionable content that depict or promote harassment, racism, rape, bestiality or child abuse.

 

Link to comment

Besides I love SAM to pieces, just as I loved SOS when I used to have it installed. I couldn't really enjoy skyrim anymore without it, so to see it being privatized and locked to whoever he doesn't like makes me really sad.

Link to comment

 

 

Just as I suspected, Vector made all of this fuss just because he didn't want you to use SAM for videos with beastiality/rape in it. Which is insane since by logic he could have applied the same EULA to SOS and go witch-hunting on whoever made/makes those kinds of videos. Plus this is just a fucking body mod, I don't understand why he should be so mad at people using it however they please.

 

Where are you getting that info from?  Wasn't anywhere in the info Ixum posted:

 

 

 

I do know why this is happening: I told him a couple of years ago that I do not agree with his idea of mod distribution. I do not like his self segregation, the self loathing he so much loves. I told him to put his mod up everywhere! Be proud of your work, force it on, and if u do not it will die! Anyway, the next day I was off his Skype. He did not appreciate that at all.

 

Did you see this info about bestiality and/or rape somewhere else?

 

Basically sounds like VP got his delicate panties in a wad (well, OK... "sensitive boxers in a bunch" ) about a comment that Ixum made.  Hell, I might head over to his new site and ask point-blank what HE thinks the true issue is:

 

 

[From VP:]Also, would like to give you a fair warning. I’m not disclosing publicly the full motives that led me to take this decision, but if I get again, anyone harassing me and questioning my motives, and that are coming from your “fan base”, I will have no reserves in explaining them my reasons in full detail. You would be wise to discourage this kind of action, just as much as I did. I don’t want to have to deal with harassment, nor do I want anyone harassing you over this.

 

So if anyone bugs him there, they'll get the "real" explanation?  Yeah, I seriously doubt it...

 

It's in the EULA, this is the only explanation I see for Vector's bullshit.

c) use SAM - Shape Atlas for Men to create any questionable content that depict or promote harassment, racism, rape, bestiality or child abuse.

 

 

Yes, but VP seems to be specifically targeting Ixum for something that has absolutely nothing to do with "bestiality" or "rape", and has all to do with VP being a delicate snowflake that got his feelings hurt because of a comment Ixum made.  So you saying

 

 

...Vector made all of this fuss just because he didn't want you to use SAM for videos with beastiality/rape in it...

doesn't jive with the info provided (so far) by Ixum (and the lack of info provided by VP).

 

[To note:  I do suspect that what you are saying about VP actions is generally true - he may have not have liked his body mod used with bestiality/rape stuff, but again the info provided by Ixum from VP and the minute information provided by VP nimself doesn't not support the supposition that VP's targeting of Ixum is related to bestiality/rape content ...]

 

[EDIT]

 

 

Besides I love SAM to pieces, just as I loved SOS when I used to have it installed. I couldn't really enjoy skyrim anymore without it, so to see it being privatized and locked to whoever he doesn't like makes me really sad.

 

Couldn't agree more.  Personally I still use SOS.  I looked into switching to SAM but at the time the armors were severely lacking (not a 'go it nude' player - tried, but just never seem logical to me to run around naked fighting dragons - some things just should not be exposed to open flame :o )  And me looking into SAM in the first place was DIRECTLY related to seeing Ixum's texture mod and the tattoo packs he created for the SAM body.  Hell, I use the tat packs exclusively for my male characters (they work on SOS and on the ADEC bodies very well - except for anything nipple-centric). 

Link to comment

There is also the matter of that watermark issue, but I keep thinking that VP having an issue with beastiality could be one of the reasons why he won't publicly state his motives for this mess. Maybe he doesn't want to do anything with it so he won't even mention it out loud for fear of it being linked to this mod (which would be irrational since, as I said earlier, no other body mod author has made such a big deal out of it).

But there ARE other video makers that use SAM and beastiality mods together, like ad-games on tumblr, and VP doesn't seem to come after them too. So yeah, his reasoning can be personal issues with Ixum and his views (with which I wholeheartedly agree).

Link to comment

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

Link to comment

 

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

 

 

That dose not change anything.

Link to comment

 

 

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

 

 

That dose not change anything.

 

 

Not to derail the topic, but doesn't that mean the whole debacle over people "stealing" (pc) mods and uploading them to Bethesda.net becomes moot?  If "mod authors does not own shit" then they cannot make Beth remove their (mod author) mods from Beth's own site.  No?

 

Asking out of curiosity.

Link to comment

 

 

 

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

 

 

That dose not change anything.

 

 

Not to derail the topic, but doesn't that mean the whole debacle over people "stealing" (pc) mods and uploading them to Bethesda.net becomes moot?  If "mod authors does not own shit" then they cannot make Beth remove their (mod author) mods from Beth's own site.  No?

 

Asking out of curiosity.

 

 

And who will make mods then? Bethesda?

 

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

 

 

That dose not change anything.

 

 

Not to derail the topic, but doesn't that mean the whole debacle over people "stealing" (pc) mods and uploading them to Bethesda.net becomes moot?  If "mod authors does not own shit" then they cannot make Beth remove their (mod author) mods from Beth's own site.  No?

 

Asking out of curiosity.

 

 

 

And who will make mods then? Bethesda?

 

 

 

In a way they do except they call it either an 'update' or a 'dlc'.  Anyway, I was just curious as to the general consensus as to whether any mod made by a consumer is, to some extent, the property of the creator or, as you stated, not at all.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

Well AFAIK only the esp/esm is bethesda's property, every other asset (meshes, textures, etc) is property of the mod author.

 

 

That dose not change anything.

 

 

Not to derail the topic, but doesn't that mean the whole debacle over people "stealing" (pc) mods and uploading them to Bethesda.net becomes moot?  If "mod authors does not own shit" then they cannot make Beth remove their (mod author) mods from Beth's own site.  No?

 

Asking out of curiosity.

 

 

 

And who will make mods then? Bethesda?

 

 

 

In a way they do except they call it either an 'update' or a 'dlc'.  Anyway, I was just curious as to the general consensus as to whether any mod made by a consumer is, to some extent, the property of the creator or, as you stated, not at all.

 

 

It is nothing more than consensus, years before moding was called hacking.

 

Link to comment

I remind you that game EULA come first, and it states that mod author dose not own shit. You can't claim copyright violation on something that shouldn't exist. So all that "legal" talk is just pointless.

 

 

If that is the case how legal is monatize of mods by users then ?? earning stuf that is not yours how does that make sense now ?? Well that is not true that user don't own anything if the stuff is created with blender then the users who created it is protected by blender Eula and if bethesda take claim of that then they will have to fight this off with the blender community and they will lose this. the same goes for 3dmax. bethesda don't own shit if they take this away from users who used third party tools to create this in the first place.

 

We users are protected by blender Eula.. :P

Link to comment

 

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

you can't compare an orange with a mod.. these 2 don't mix. :P

 

Unless it is an Orange mod to add to a game... ;)

:P

 

Since I made a blog post about this, pls look at this, it contains the original msg:

 

http://mmoboys.tumblr.com/post/146664168842/no-more-sam-part-2-a-disclaimer-since-this

Thanks for some further info.

 

 

 

You can't attach an EULA to something you've already given. A guy can't give you an orange, then later on say that he's adding an EULA that permits you only taking pictures with it but not eating it.

 

You already own the orange. Similarly, you already own your copy of the mod which you've downloaded in a no strings attached format.

If he wanted that EULA in place, he should've made full damn sure that it's there for the initial release, not two years after the fact.

 

Going back to my earlier analogy, that orange would have at this point been fertilizer but not much else, and he can't reasonably be upset with you for having eaten it earlier against this new made-up EULA.

you can't compare an orange with a mod.. these 2 don't mix. :P

 

 

If you're attempting to imply you can enforce a new EULA backwards so that content already created before said EULA existed must now follow it, I don't believe you're standing on too firm legal legs there...

 

The info linked above by OP shows that

 

Hello Ixum,

 

As you might be aware, all my content is subject to an EULA (End-User License Agreement) since 11 June 2016. This message is just a formality, to inform you about that. Since I, VectorPlexus, can terminate any license at any time, at my own discretion, I would like to inform you that any license for you to use it, will be revoked on 11 July 2016. By terminating the license, you won’t be able to use SAM - Shape Atlas for Men any longer, and while I will not take any action against any past content, I will take the appropriate measures for any future content that you post after that date.

It shows that he isn't going to act on any past content as some believe he will be doing. At least according to this post quote.

 

So what now? If no one else does, I could go up and ask him straight what's his problem.

With 6 pages of comments and speculations and all manner of insults being tossed about it would be very useful to have his statement to the accusations given here. Just to be fair. We do need to hear both sides of the story, however... I don't believe we will hear his side. which is a shame. Even if the community don't agree or think his reasons are wrong at least some of the community would be satisfied.

 

Anyway... if someone wishes to remove their mods from the communities and lock them up into their site and use extremely strong EULA to protect them... perhaps we should just leave him and his mod alone now that the shock of the situation has had some time to sink in.

 

The results likely will be less development for his body in the overall community due to the exclusiveness and EULA fears that the right to the content could be revoked. As for any mods that have unauthorized SAM content according to VectorPlexus. The best course of action likely will be for all those authors to change their EULA to "OPEN and FREE to use distribute and modify". And release them to the wilds of the internet and various sites so their works can have a chance to live on. Those that are authorized (currently) move them to his site as he requested.  I know.. I know.. However think about it.. It is the only place where you can get the current version of the mod... therefore they need an account etc. Might as well have it on the same site as well.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use