Trykz

This law office say the opposite: http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/ They are saying nonsense too? Well if that's really the case, Facebook and all the others would have been condemned to paid million dollars and this is never happened yet. And by the way the License Agreement=The Law it's the basic. A License Agreement have force of Law. Yes. Nonsense. Answer this: why do you think Bethesda went with the *file a legal DMCA takedown order* method of reporting stolen mods? Because they know their EULA is SO one sided, it couldn't possibly hold up against a legitimate claim of copyright infringement or DMCA order: A standard form contract (sometimes referred to as a contract of adhesion, a leonine contract, or a take-it-or-leave-it contract) is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position. While these types of contracts are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability. In addition, in the event of an ambiguity, such ambiguity will be resolved contra proferentem against the party drafting the contract language. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract What is deemed *unconscionable*? Well, lets see: Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability Reading just the basic law and rulings of completely unrelated case law is not always the best way to prove your point :wink: When you're talking about video game EULAs, you need to extend your knowledge *beyond* just the basic content language of the agreement. You also need to understand the underlying provisions that make them legally binding. Read the EULA. It gives you NO RIGHTS whatsoever. It's so laughably one sided that I'm pretty sure it's more a running joke among Beth/Zeni's legal department, than anything meant to be legal or binding.

LOL.....

It's clearly stated here on the EULA: It even stated that they can sale (sublicense through multiple tiers of distribution) or include your mod to other games than Fallout 4. Wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. I explained in another thread how NO EULA BY ANY COMPANY can circumvent US Copyright laws. Which by their wording, is exactly what ALL game company EULAs try to do constantly. NO company can simply "do as they please" with anything an asset's author does not give them express permission to do. And they cannot *take* that permission by force through ANY instrument. Read this: https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/4498360-dont-get-angry-get-organised-stolen-mods/?p=39040825 It very clearly debunks the whole *but the EULA gives them this and that* nonsense. EULAs depend on one simple thing: ignorance. They bank on you not doing your own research so they can have their way. Mods are protected by copyright law the second the ESP/ESM is created by the author. Regardless of what toolkit they use to create it. Have you ever known a company to take an asset they didn't create and use it? No? Because they can't. And they know it. Seriously..... stop with the whole *but the EULA says......* nonsense. Because that's exactly what it is. Nonsense. EULA = toilet paper. They have the same value where copyright laws are concerned.

I'd win by default. It only costs about $12 to file a claim and become such a pain in the @ss, their lawyers would likely offer up some form of compensation, or at the very least, the immediate removal of said content, just to save the plane fare (since the claim is filed in the locality of the aggrieved party, and their representative must attend to argue the claim) :thumbsup: Trykz

Trykz I agree...for things like original armor. If you mod ONLY uses Bethesda assets, however...those assets are still bethesda's assets, regardless of how you've rearranged them. It matters not. Because the very *idea* behind their usage is what is considered an *original work*. They're Bethesda's assets, yes. But the idea for their arrangement belongs to the author who arranged them, and is subject to copyright law the second that idea is placed onto an ESP/ESM. Take retextures for example. Do those belong to Bethesda just because the person who retextured them did so using Bethesda's original mesh? Of course not. The mesh belongs to Bethesda. But that retexture is STILL the intellectual property of the modder who created the textures. In any event, a legal argument between modders and Bethesda is not something either side needs. The modding community has existed peacefully and relatively without incident for over a decade. It works, and Bethesda simply needs to understand that they aren't going to simply waltz onto the scene and start changing everything. I offered the perfect solution. Incidentally, the EXACT solution that has existed for as long as game modding itself has existed. They simply have to accept that it works, and stop trying to change it with nonsense policies that accomplish nothing but animosity between themselves, console and PC gamers, and modders alike. The solution is right there in front of them. They simply need to adopt it as long term proven, and employ it like every other modding site has before them. Trykz

You should rely on more than just a companies EULA to prove your points: What is copyright?Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to the authors of "original works of authorship" fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The manner and medium of fixation are virtually unlimited. Creative expression may be captured in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic media. The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works. Copyright protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display the work. In the case of sound recordings, the copyright owner has the right to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. These exclusive rights are freely transferable, and may be licensed, sold, donated to charity, or bequeathed to your heirs. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. If the copyright owner prevails in an infringement claim, the available remedies include preliminary and permanent injunctions (court orders to stop current or prevent future infringements), impounding, and destroying the infringing articles, and monetary remedies. The exclusive rights of the copyright owner, however, are limited in a number of important ways. Under the "fair use" doctrine, which has long been part of U.S. copyright law and was expressly incorporated in the 1976 Copyright Act, a judge may excuse unauthorized uses that may otherwise be infringing. Section 107 of the Copyright Act lists criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research as examples of uses that may be eligible for the fair use defense. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. The Copyright Act also contains a number of statutory limitations covering specific uses for educational, religious, and charitable purposes And this as well: This is a frequently misunderstood topic because many people believe that you must register your work before you can claim copyright. However, no publication, registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a "copy or a phonorecord for the first time." For example, a song can be fixed in sheet music or on a CD, or both. Although registration with the Copyright Office is not required to secure protection, it is highly recommended for the following reasons: Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.Registration is necessary before an infringement suit may be filed in court (for works of U. S. origin).If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration establishes prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies.source: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics In layman's terms, it means Bethesda CANNOT circumvent the law through wording in their EULA, because they cannot *take* my works and use them in ANY manner that I do not give my express permission for. Yes, I used THEIR toolkit to put MY assets into their game. But the use of their toolkit does NOT give them control of my assets. Because that would be like CD makers taking an artists music and doing as they please with it, merely because they used a CD to record it on. As the cited example CLEARLY states. Trykz

Agreed. I made my suggestion. Both here and on Beth.net. And it conforms to every other major modding site's solution to the letter. As it has for over a decade. Remove the mod in question first, make the uploader verify later. It doesn't get any simpler. Trykz

You can call it arrogant all you want. And your assessment of how the legalities of modding/IP extension work could not be further from fact than what you posted. Certain rights stemming from Bethesda's IP extend to EVERY modder by virtue of their creation tool provision. Have you even read the EULA for the CK and ALL of their past toolkit releases? Modders have EVERY RIGHT to protect their hard work. And them patching their games to prevent mod use? Or to prevent the use of mods from sources other than their site? Laughable at best. Would you shoot yourself in the face just to spite the very people who breathe endless life into your games with a consistent flow of new content? Are you new here or something? Because you certainly seem like you're new to all this stuff. We've been doing this for a loooong time. And we're set in our ways. And I'm telling you right now, not even Bethesda will change that. They are certainly NOT the ONLY studio that produces moddable games. And they know it. Let them *lock down* modding as you elude they might. You think things are bad now? You haven't seen anything yet. Especially when a much more understanding studio decides to capitalize on their sudden loss of fanbase and revenue. They might as well start digging their own holes right now. Trykz

The solution here is really quite simple. And I said EXACTLY the same thing on Beth.net: Employ the same method Nexus uses concerning mod theft. ACT FIRST, verify later. If an author reports their mod (or assets from their mod) stolen and uploaded without the author's express permission, the mod is immediately removed (or hidden for review), and the onus for proving the mod is NOT stolen falls squarely onto the uploader. NOT the mod author through some legal process that could take weeks to resolve while their users continue to enjoy stolen content they willingly host. Which is EXACTLY what Beth.net is doing. No member has been banned from their site for uploading the stolen mods that they have removed. No disciplinary actions have been administered either. The same users who took the mods and uploaded them, are continuing to do so. Unchecked. Just ONE TIME I found assets from one of my mods in another mod here on Nexus. ONE. I reported it, the mod was hidden, the uploader banned when he couldn't prove I had given permission for use of the assets, and the mod was then deleted from Nexus entirely. A few assets from some of my Skyrim race mods are still in use in other mods here (companions of a custom race, etc.). And the users who uploaded them all requested, and received, my permission for their use. They also credited me for my work. As it should be. Bethesda has turned the modding community inside out. And now EVERYONE is paying for it. Including users here at Nexus. The modding community has existed for well over a decade, and developed it's own *etiquette* and self-policing policies for dealing with mod/asset theft. Etiquette and policies that WILL NOT be forcibly altered by ANYONE. For over a week, modders warned of the consequences for disrespect to modders and theft of their work on Beth.net. Warnings that obviously fell upon deaf ears. In EVERY modding community I take part in, the modder is considered FIRST. Including here. Because communities like Nexus, LL, and others understand ONE fundamental truth: These communities would NOT EXIST without them. And now Bethesda simply strolls in, tramples everything in their path, and takes off for the weekend? While their users blatantly bash modders openly on their forums, and steal their hard work? Sorry Bethesda/Zenimax, but you're not special simply by virtue of being a development studio. And you WILL NOT alter how this community has developed and functioned for well over a decade. Trykz

Anyone else getting this "Steam error 16" message every time you run the game? It's like it's version checking workshop installed mods, and not getting any response. Hasn't affected gameplay..... yet. But I was just curious if this was a unique thing only I am experiencing, or if others are getting it too.

From everything I've tried, the only way I could stop the CTDs completely, was to deactivate EVERY player housing mod I have. Dovahkiin Hideout, Retreat, Lakeside Home, Riverview Home, and even the basement mod that adds basements to the vanilla player homes. As I deactivated each one in turn, I noticed I could play longer without crashing. Once ALL housing mods were disabled, the CTDs stopped. I played for hours last night and today, and not one CTD until I installed that PlayerShip Home mod. About 10 minutes into a clean save, BOOM, CTD. My guess is, most of the player housing mods will need to be thoroughly updated and re-released. Bethesda likely broke a lot of mods with this patch. But mostly the housing mods. Or so it would seem at least.