Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      SSL Installed   05/29/2018

      Second IP obtained. The issues with IPv6 have also been fixed, but we can't switch to HTTPS until we switch forum software. We can't switch to HTTPS without a current license with IPS.
Vincent

ModDrop

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I admit to being inept about how copyright stuff works. I just remember to stick "if I don't respond to permission requests within a month you can do whatever with this" and forget about it. >.>; I would hate if my stuff festered in a hole in the internet because people were afraid to touch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality, however, mod authors didn’t even think about it. They created a mod and uploaded it. I doubt most would care what was done with their mod after that. That has been the case with the ones that I’ve been able to contact. I’ve never had anyone deny the request to upload elsewhere or to build upon their original work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

So by your logic we should stop bringing awareness to nefarious activities of any sort. Let the burglars run wild, let the copyright thieves go crazy, let the killers run free. Yeah, that's a great way to run things.

Regardless of how naive that viewpoint is, the end result was positive assuming the ModDrop people aren't lying through their teeth about having disabled the illegal mod sharing option.

And hey, if you're willing to risk a malware infection installing their client to see what's available, have at it. I'm sure their ad providers will be happy to have you on board.

You keep twisting the words of those who don't agree with you. Turning that around, by your logic we should call the police every time we see someone walk past our home to prevent them from breaking in, because they must be a burglar if they're walking past our home. Or perhaps we shouldn't do that in case the police are in on it, so instead we should run out and attack the person ourselves to make sure that they cannot steal from us. Criminals go to prison, but then they mostly get released again some time later. When they're released, they might get a job. Should the company they then work for be shut down because there's an ex-criminal working there? That's what you're trying to do: just because someone who (at least according to some people) did steal mods seven years ago is now a part of ModDrop, ModDrop must be evil and must be shut down. That isn't how the world works, real criminals are given a second chance, so even if the accused is guilty of having done something seven years ago (or three years ago as you're also stating) that doesn't mean he's still doing wrong now.

 

By the way, there are no ads in ModDrop, and no ads on the ModDrop website, so there are no ad providers to be made happy. There's also no malware, you can scan any download before installing it, which I did for ModDrop with two separate programs, it's clean.

 

You're simply promoting paranoia, while at the same time promoting ModDrop itself. In doing so, you're also appearing rather over-aggressive toward anyone who doesn't accept what you say. And we're not even rejecting or denying what you say, we're simply saying that we will wait and see whether wrong-doing occurs. That isn't like letting burglars and killers run wild, it is like letting unknown people walk past your house because there's a pavement out there intended for people to walk on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mods are software, and really should be bundled with a basic licence. For most, an open source license is sufficient- given that most consider the CK to be nothing more than a platform. Only then can those who distribute them contrary to the licensing terms be properly brought to task.

There's a rave about it on Reddit which begs the question: If, (in the rare case?) one hands over the rights of their mods to Valve/Bethesda, but the content somehow lands in the lap of ModDrop or similar, what then?

Edited by Schtearn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schtearn said:

Mods are software, and really should be bundled with a basic licence. For most, an open source license is sufficient- given that most consider the CK to be nothing more than a platform. Only then can those who distribute them contrary to the licensing terms be properly brought to task.

There's a rave about it on Reddit which begs the question: If, (in the rare case?) one hands over the rights of their mods to Valve/Bethesda, but the content somehow lands in the lap of ModDrop or similar, what then?

Well, Bethesda already owns any mod content created using their tools, it's in the EULA, so technically that supersedes anything the modder chooses to write into a readme, it's just that we modders agree to abide by the modder's terms rather than the CS/CK EULA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AndalayBay said:

In reality, however, mod authors didn’t even think about it. They created a mod and uploaded it. I doubt most would care what was done with their mod after that. That has been the case with the ones that I’ve been able to contact. I’ve never had anyone deny the request to upload elsewhere or to build upon their original work.

Mod authors may not have thought about it, but that doesn't change the law in any way. That you got told you could use the stuff when contacting them is all you needed to do - keep those messages as proof and everything is fine.

10 hours ago, Vorians said:

You keep twisting the words of those who don't agree with you. Turning that around, by your logic we should call the police every time we see someone walk past our home to prevent them from breaking in, because they must be a burglar if they're walking past our home. Or perhaps we shouldn't do that in case the police are in on it, so instead we should run out and attack the person ourselves to make sure that they cannot steal from us. Criminals go to prison, but then they mostly get released again some time later. When they're released, they might get a job. Should the company they then work for be shut down because there's an ex-criminal working there? That's what you're trying to do: just because someone who (at least according to some people) did steal mods seven years ago is now a part of ModDrop, ModDrop must be evil and must be shut down. That isn't how the world works, real criminals are given a second chance, so even if the accused is guilty of having done something seven years ago (or three years ago as you're also stating) that doesn't mean he's still doing wrong now.

 

By the way, there are no ads in ModDrop, and no ads on the ModDrop website, so there are no ad providers to be made happy. There's also no malware, you can scan any download before installing it, which I did for ModDrop with two separate programs, it's clean.

 

You're simply promoting paranoia, while at the same time promoting ModDrop itself. In doing so, you're also appearing rather over-aggressive toward anyone who doesn't accept what you say. And we're not even rejecting or denying what you say, we're simply saying that we will wait and see whether wrong-doing occurs. That isn't like letting burglars and killers run wild, it is like letting unknown people walk past your house because there's a pavement out there intended for people to walk on.

No. I'm not the one twisting words here. I never once said to go after ModDrop for possible future violations. I am saying to be wary of them because they are currently engaged in violations as we speak. The logic of what you're suggesting is equivalent to witnessing an actual burglary in progress and concluding that ignoring the crime will make the criminal stop doing it. If instead you call the cops and they come to arrest them, you can bet they'll also take the criminal's past history of burglaries into account and if convicted that will lead to a much harsher sentence. That's what we have here with ModDrop. They are now on their 3rd violation of copyright on mods. There is absolutely no reason to cut them any slack just because the last two instances were 6 and 3 years ago. They have now demonstrated a pattern.

19 minutes ago, Vorians said:

Well, Bethesda already owns any mod content created using their tools, it's in the EULA, so technically that supersedes anything the modder chooses to write into a readme, it's just that we modders agree to abide by the modder's terms rather than the CS/CK EULA.

No they don't. This myth needs to die and die yesterday. The current EULA governing both Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE even explicitly spell this out, but the older ones covering previous games never once says Bethesda owns copyright to your work, just that they have a license to use it for themselves if they so choose. At no point does that EULA give them copyright over your work. They cannot legally do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arthmoor said:

Mod authors may not have thought about it, but that doesn't change the law in any way. That you got told you could use the stuff when contacting them is all you needed to do - keep those messages as proof and everything is fine.

No. I'm not the one twisting words here. I never once said to go after ModDrop for possible future violations. I am saying to be wary of them because they are currently engaged in violations as we speak. The logic of what you're suggesting is equivalent to witnessing an actual burglary in progress and concluding that ignoring the crime will make the criminal stop doing it. If instead you call the cops and they come to arrest them, you can bet they'll also take the criminal's past history of burglaries into account and if convicted that will lead to a much harsher sentence. That's what we have here with ModDrop. They are now on their 3rd violation of copyright on mods. There is absolutely no reason to cut them any slack just because the last two instances were 6 and 3 years ago. They have now demonstrated a pattern.

No they don't. This myth needs to die and die yesterday. The current EULA governing both Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE even explicitly spell this out, but the older ones covering previous games never once says Bethesda owns copyright to your work, just that they have a license to use it for themselves if they so choose. At no point does that EULA give them copyright over your work. They cannot legally do that.

You are twisting peoples’ words. To suggest that I was saying that we don’t need laws regarding murder and burglary is ludricous. And Bethesda does take mods and incorporate the ideas into their games. Look at all the stuff that’s in Skyrim (barrel animations to name one). The entire DB questline was the second DBC team’s idea from 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not twisting peoples' words and nobody has proven I have, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the false accusations.

As far as Bethesda taking ideas from mods and using them in their future titles, more power to them. Even if they ganked the mod line for line, there'd be nothing anyone could do about it because of how the license is worded to allow them to. They've never done that though and that's likely because license or not, someone could still potentially sue them and force them to spend money having it dismissed from court.

None of which allows someone to take a mod you upload and distributed it elsewhere without your permission. The EULA never grants such rights and wouldn't legally be able to either.

BTW, barrel anims are not a native feature of Skyrim. That's something SMIM added. I also have serious doubts that their DB quest line was that similar to the story line for the second installment of DBC. Stealing the story from a non-published mod would land them into a serious amount of hot water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Arthmoor said:

BTW, barrel anims are not a native feature of Skyrim. That's something SMIM added. I also have serious doubts that their DB quest line was that similar to the story line for the second installment of DBC. Stealing the story from a non-published mod would land them into a serious amount of hot water.

Ok, it was something else then. I saw or read something that talked about the stuff they added to Skyrim that was added by mods in Oblivion.

That’s not what you said before. ;) I still have the forum backup to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

Mod authors may not have thought about it, but that doesn't change the law in any way. That you got told you could use the stuff when contacting them is all you needed to do - keep those messages as proof and everything is fine.

No. I'm not the one twisting words here. I never once said to go after ModDrop for possible future violations. I am saying to be wary of them because they are currently engaged in violations as we speak. The logic of what you're suggesting is equivalent to witnessing an actual burglary in progress and concluding that ignoring the crime will make the criminal stop doing it. If instead you call the cops and they come to arrest them, you can bet they'll also take the criminal's past history of burglaries into account and if convicted that will lead to a much harsher sentence. That's what we have here with ModDrop. They are now on their 3rd violation of copyright on mods. There is absolutely no reason to cut them any slack just because the last two instances were 6 and 3 years ago. They have now demonstrated a pattern.

No they don't. This myth needs to die and die yesterday. The current EULA governing both Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE even explicitly spell this out, but the older ones covering previous games never once says Bethesda owns copyright to your work, just that they have a license to use it for themselves if they so choose. At no point does that EULA give them copyright over your work. They cannot legally do that.

The majority of people do not even know that copyright is implicit (I didn't until I looked it up a couple days ago, I thought that if you didn't announce it or possibly even register the right, then it was not legally valid) - the only people who actually know these things tend to be those who care about protecting their work, those who don't care, don't know and don't make statements restricting user rights. So mod authors who haven't thought about it most likely don't care about it, they just don't know to say that they don't care about it.

You are in fact stating to go after ModDrop for possible future violations, as they have not carried out any violations as far as I can see. You are (again) mixing up the actions of ModDrop and its developers with the actions of ModDrop users - it is the users who upload mods onto ModDrop, so it is the users who are violating modder rights (which again only stand if their readme or mod description elsewhere states that there are restrictions). You should be targetting those ModDrop users instead, and if you wish I can provide you with their usernames as the uploader is clearly stated on ModDrop (all mods for Oblivion were uploaded by a user named Zimmer, for example). Until the developers of ModDrop clearly demonstrate an intent to ignore reports of stolen mods (by saying so or through clear inaction following known valid reports), they have not broken any rules, as (like I said before) it is exactly the same as someone uploading a stolen mod onto Nexus or another site, where the uploader is in the wrong and not the web site owner.

A pattern of past deeds does not mean automatic guilt, any lawyer/solicitor/law enforcer will tell you that. What it does mean is possible future guilt, and so be cautious, which is precisely what I and some others are recommending rather than going on the attack prematurely.

I never said the Beth EULA states ownership of copyright, so please stop twisting my words to suit your needs. I said they own the mod content created with their tools, and I now provide the extract from the Oblivion Construction Set EULA:

"If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials."

 

10 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

I am not twisting peoples' words and nobody has proven I have, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the false accusations.

As far as Bethesda taking ideas from mods and using them in their future titles, more power to them. Even if they ganked the mod line for line, there'd be nothing anyone could do about it because of how the license is worded to allow them to. They've never done that though and that's likely because license or not, someone could still potentially sue them and force them to spend money having it dismissed from court.

None of which allows someone to take a mod you upload and distributed it elsewhere without your permission. The EULA never grants such rights and wouldn't legally be able to either.

BTW, barrel anims are not a native feature of Skyrim. That's something SMIM added. I also have serious doubts that their DB quest line was that similar to the story line for the second installment of DBC. Stealing the story from a non-published mod would land them into a serious amount of hot water.

This is just turning into a flaming match. But actually I have three times in this thread (four times?) quoted you twisting what either I or Andalay has said and making it into something bad or foolish, so it's not a false accusation.

 

You also just stated what I said in my earlier post which you had responded to say wasn't correct (and twisted what I said into a statement that Beth owns the copyright, even though I didn't even mention copyright), so you're contradicting yourself. You now agree with me that the EULA for the CS/CK states that Beth owns content created by their tools (regardless of whether or not they demonstrate that by taking the mod content for their own purposes). And in point of fact, since the mere production of copyrightable material makes it copyrighted automatically, this does actually mean that as Bethesda claims ownership in the EULA, they have the copyright, so I am now saying that which I did not say earlier.

 

 

It seems to me that this is going absolutely nowhere (or around in circles and heating up), so I'm not going to respond to Arthmoor any more in this thread. I shall of course advise if the two mods I reported on ModDrop get taken down or if I receive a response to the take-down request. I have better things to do than get worked up over an issue which hasn't even occurred yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let's be perfectly clear:

Quote

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials

This is the thing. New materials refers to new  S/W construction or creation materials. Not anything related to the end product.

If A sells a pile of bricks, and B build a house from those bricks, there has never been, to my knowledge of the history of the law, of commerce/contract a claim made by A from B for any ownership of the bricks that now form the house. A is concerned only when C comes in with a new lot of bricks and sells his bricks & A's bricks, as A's product, without A's permission.

That's why Bethesda are not particularly concerned with how these materials are used in creating any new product. They are concerned only with the condition of their S/W.

The word purpose in these definitions, or whatever the S/W is used for is another thing. If it is known the end-product turns out to be a e.g. nasty virus, the Mfg abrogates all responsibilities for any damages resulting from it.

But Mods, as creations in themselves, AFAIK, have no licenses defined as such, and the makers of the kits don't care whether they do or not.

Edited by Schtearn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vorians said:

It seems to me that this is going absolutely nowhere (or around in circles and heating up), so I'm not going to respond to Arthmoor any more in this thread. I shall of course advise if the two mods I reported on ModDrop get taken down or if I receive a response to the take-down request. I have better things to do than get worked up over an issue which hasn't even occurred yet.

 

The fundamental problem here is that you are assuming nothing happened when in fact it actually has. That's the only reason Elianora brought the issue to everyone's attention. If at this point you are seriously going to sit there and say you don't know what the violation was after you were given direct links to the evidence then I can only conclude you are being willfully ignorant of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Schtearn said:

Let's be perfectly clear:

This is the thing. New materials refers to new  S/W construction or creation materials. Not anything related to the end product.

If A sells a pile of bricks, and B build a house from those bricks, there has never been, to my knowledge of the history of the law, of commerce/contract a claim made by A from B for any ownership of the bricks that now form the house. A is concerned only when C comes in with a new lot of bricks and sells his bricks & A's bricks, as A's product, without A's permission.

That's why Bethesda are not particularly concerned with how these materials are used in creating any new product. They are concerned only with the condition of their S/W.

The word purpose in these definitions, or whatever the S/W is used for is another thing. If it is known the end-product turns out to be a e.g. nasty virus, the Mfg abrogates all responsibilities for any damages resulting from it.

But Mods, as creations in themselves, AFAIK, have no licenses defined as such, and the makers of the kits don't care whether they do or not.

Actually no, the EULA makes clear what they mean by the term "material" - it means mods.

"All uses of the Editor and any materials created using the Editor (the “New Materials”) are for Your own personal, non-commercial use solely in connection with the applicable Product(s), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement."

 

The Editor in this context can only create ESPs (without the additional use of third party tools), so it refers specifically to mods.

20 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

The fundamental problem here is that you are assuming nothing happened when in fact it actually has. That's the only reason Elianora brought the issue to everyone's attention. If at this point you are seriously going to sit there and say you don't know what the violation was after you were given direct links to the evidence then I can only conclude you are being willfully ignorant of the issue.

I am not going to respond to this other than to state that again you have twisted what I said into something completely different. Please stop doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If calling you out for ignoring the evidence and saying you're waiting to give them a chance is somehow twisting your words, well, maybe you should choose different words so your meaning is clear. Otherwise you need to stop attempting to deflect the argument with bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

All uses of the Editor and any materials created using the Editor (the “New Materials”) are for Your own personal, non-commercial use solely in connection with the applicable Product(s), subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement."

The materials component of the mod, possibly, but not the input from the human. That's why it isn't a proper license.

It's vague, because they never refer to the end-product. An end product is the materials plus the human input in creating them. We go to a tailor and likely ask him to make us a suit, not more materials.

It might be possible to create a .nif file with the editor, that certainly is a material, but is it a mod?

Edited by Schtearn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

If calling you out for ignoring the evidence and saying you're waiting to give them a chance is somehow twisting your words, well, maybe you should choose different words so your meaning is clear. Otherwise you need to stop attempting to deflect the argument with bullshit.

Enough! Vorians and I are waiting to see the current response, not basing our view on the word of others or past actions. Saying our stance is spouting bullshit is abusive and will not be tolerated. Consider this a warning to everyone. The arguments in this thread have become circular and we are not getting anywhere. We'll leave this thread open to report on concrete actions or responses to reports, but the arguments about Moddrop as a service or disservice stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have performed concrete actions in the present and that's what you guys are willfully ignoring. If it's considered abusive to point this out then you can go ahead and delete my files and ban me from the site for daring to point out facts in an argument about a factual issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a mass-purge of Elder Scrolls mods on ModDrop since the last time I checked. There are now zero mods available for Oblivion, only 8 for Skyrim SE, 7 for Skyrim, and 2 for Morrowind - there used to be many more for all of these games.

 

So that's a very promising sign, looks like ModDrop moderators/developers/whatever are taking things seriously. It would be nice if the website and the tool contained some form of blog or news thread so they could tell us what they're up to and confirm these are take downs following reports or similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, that's progress at least. Hopefully the stuff that remains is legit.

What they really need is a way to go to the website and view what's available via the network so that one does not have to install their client just to find that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×