BuffHamster
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BuffHamster
-
-
In response to post #39557130.Nope, I understood his point of view very well, tyvm.Brabbit1987 wrote:
Simply put, it is morally wrong to copy and/or distribute an Author's work against their wishes and/or claim it as their own work.
A very simple analogy is; if you spent months or years writing a book, then someone steals your book and notes, publishes it and either financially or reputation-ally benefits from this piracy of your hard work, you think this is okay? According to the anarchist element of the "anti-copyright" movement, the moment you finish typing the artistic work, it becomes "public property", freely available to all, ... and this is perfectly okay to do?
The answer is No, according to the majority of public opinion passed down through hundreds of years of debate, it is also morally wrong to pirate and distribute someone else's work. Why an author wishes to restrict access to their work is their business, it is not up to the pirate thief or the consumer.
Many claim that you can not steal something that is "free". This is a misinformed obfuscation of the term "free" in regards to authored custom content. It is only "free" to those who agree to 1) the terms set forth by the author of the work, and 2) the contractual terms that you previously agreed to of the hosting site.
The author has presented his work in good faith to those who download and use it and will follow the terms set forth. It isn't "free" as you have to agree to the author's terms. In this case, 0.00$ does not mean "free" as there are certain implied moral and legal obligations that you have to agree to in order to download and use said custom content.
For those advocating for Piracy of Property and claiming that it should be allowed, and irregardless of what "arguments" or mental gymnastics you use to justify said Piracy, you really need to go back and re-read the the Terms & Services contract agreement that you made with Robin Scott, Bethesda.net, and Zenimax.Hmm, I don't think you really understood his post very well. You went into a lot of details on things I don't think he was really speaking about. The fact of the matter is, copyright laws, have been pretty controversial ever since new types of medias have been born. There is no shame in needing to update these laws to be more specific, which needs to happen.
As for your moral argument, sorry, but I don't view moral arguments as being valid simply because morality is very subjective.
For example, I most certainly believe it's morally wrong to steal, in the sense where an item is being taken or removed and the owner no longer has it. I also think it's morally wrong to take something and claim it as your own.
Where I think it begins to become a bit of a grey area is redistributing something that is already distributed for free on the net. I don't think it's right to do, but I also don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be. It's no different than copying a picture and posting it on facebook. If we where to call this immoral, then everyone is guilty of it 100%. We redistribute other peoples works all the time without permission.
This is why there are problems with the copyright law, because there are double standards. Technically all fan art is against copyright. Don't even get me started when people sell prints and such of characters owned by other companies. Most people these days think fair use protects them, but that isn't actually true. Fair use is very limited.... redistributing something that is already distributed for free on the net.
It appears that you didn't understand what I wrote.
Financially it may cost nothing, but there is also an implied contractual obligation imparted on the user by the author and the host site, that the author's work may not be redistributed freely without the author's explicit consent. This is the main crux of the problem discussed here without the various obfuscations and mental gymnastics people have come up with to justify this practice.
Theft of property for any reason is taught as being not only illegal, but morally wrong. This is very clear and is not subjective to the individual. It is most certainly not a "grey" area.
Breach of Contract, is also wrong. The user agrees to the terms before being allowed to download and use the author's property. This too, is not a "grey" area.
A product may be free of financial encumbrance to the user, but the product is still "conditionally" given, ie; there are strings attached.
Unless you have actually created custom game content and found said content distributed under another name on a different site, you will never completely understand why the authors are so fully and completely against this piracy of their work.
(I have submitted no content for FO4, but have seen my work stolen from Simtropolis (me=North Country Dude) and posted to EA's SimCity 4 Exchange site while the perpetrator claimed it as his/her own work. I tried to get EA to take it down, but they ignored me. Thankfully, EA's SimCity Exchange site is no longer around.)
I would like to add that many have stated that just because "piracy" is inevitable, the authors should just apathetically accept it. This too, is wrong on many levels and has only served to create even more stringent DRM measures imposed by authors and their publishers.
There are, of course, even more graphic examples in history of such apathy, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
While piracy can never be completely eliminated, it can be "thwarted" and measures taken to minimize it's impact. Making the work of property theft as difficult as actually creating the original work will deter all but the most determined criminal, and even in that underworld, nothing is free.
-
As posted here by SixT4
... Being "The LAW<sup>TM</sup>" doesn't exempt it from being anything other than being illegal. :B It can still be unreasonable, it can still be extreme, and it can still be wrong. Since it seems this discussion is going the "legal" route, I'll say this- I live in the US, where I have the right to an opinion and the freedom of expression, as well as to speak out against laws that aren't just as peaceful protest; so yes, there IS something to disagree with and I have every right to do so. If the law was right just because it was the law, we wouldn't have any more copyright laws in the US other than the Copyright Act of 1976, because it would've never had to be changed because it would be instantaneously right because it was the law- thus, the DMCA would've never existed; being an extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. Obviously that's circular logic and things aren't that black-and-white. The DMCA is an extension of US copyright law, it isn't the legal definition of copyright in the US. A broken one at that- a few months ago (I think in April?) the US Copyright Office asked the public basically "What's wrong with the DMCA?" Several thousands of explanations and complaints were sent within the first hour, mostly about the takedown process and anti-circumvention measures. :B The DMCA is very controversial- with good reason. It's more of a witch hunt than valid due process; all you need is "good faith-" not a jury by court or even evidence at that. Most people who disobey copyright do it not to be jerks, not to be selfish, but because God forbid you draw a character you like that everyone knows who made it to show your appreciation rather than toss wads of cash at its creator. Copyright criminalizes simple, innocent acts of appreciation, and needs some serious repair for it to actually "promote progress of science and the useful arts" rather forbidding doing just that.The mental convolutions needed by this explanation to justify piracy make my head hurt, but it is what the "anti-copyright" movement believes. The argument against the DMCA is not new. But, the weight of public opinion has been against "piracy" of this kind for centuries.
Patent Law
The first instance of Patent Law got it's start in 1474 in Venice. Today's Patent Law still follows the model set forth in Venice hundreds of years ago.
Reading through all the legal terms, it simply boils down to; copying someone else's hard work and inventiveness and passing it off as your own has been frowned upon and formally made into a criminal offense world wide for centuries.
Copyright Law
Using this simple explanation from the Wikipedia on Copyright Law:
The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute.Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law
... illustrates that the practice of "piracy of intellectual or media" has been illegal long before the creation of the Internet or mp3s.
Put plainly, it is against the Law to copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own. Websites must follow the law or be taken down. Many, if not all, game modification hosts put this into their Terms of Services Contract, that you must agree to, before using their service. Break the Contract and they can legally deny you their service, it also means that they can ban you, for life if they wish.
Patent, Copyright, and Contractual Law is heavily weighted against Piracy, but so is the moral argument.
Besides the legal argument, there is also a moral argument in favor of the "intellectual property rights" of the Author given in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 that states:
... "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author"Simply put, it is morally wrong to copy and/or distribute an Author's work against their wishes and/or claim it as their own work.
A very simple analogy is; if you spent months or years writing a book, then someone steals your book and notes, publishes it and either financially or reputation-ally benefits from this piracy of your hard work, you think this is okay? According to the anarchist element of the "anti-copyright" movement, the moment you finish typing the artistic work, it becomes "public property", freely available to all, ... and this is perfectly okay to do?
The answer is No, according to the majority of public opinion passed down through hundreds of years of debate, it is also morally wrong to pirate and distribute someone else's work. Why an author wishes to restrict access to their work is their business, it is not up to the pirate thief or the consumer.
Many claim that you can not steal something that is "free". This is a misinformed obfuscation of the term "free" in regards to authored custom content. It is only "free" to those who agree to 1) the terms set forth by the author of the work, and 2) the contractual terms that you previously agreed to of the hosting site.
The author has presented his work in good faith to those who download and use it and will follow the terms set forth. It isn't "free" as you have to agree to the author's terms. In this case, 0.00$ does not mean "free" as there are certain implied moral and legal obligations that you have to agree to in order to download and use said custom content.
For those advocating for Piracy of Property and claiming that it should be allowed, and irregardless of what "arguments" or mental gymnastics you use to justify said Piracy, you really need to go back and re-read the the Terms & Services contract agreement that you made with Robin Scott, Bethesda.net, and Zenimax.
-
I will have to send a PM about the reasons why AQFH 4 will not continue as they are more of a personal nature, ... I am not entirely sure what will happen, but suffice to say that everything is now on "indefinite hold/cancel". AC may or may not return, but for now? not.
Interesting choice, Ft. Detrich, ... they did bio-weapons research there at one time.
I imagine a lot of thought will have to go into what was obliterated and what survived "The Great War".
Fallout Canon does not really say too much about what types of weapons were predominately used, bombers or missiles or both? It mentions in passing that both were used, but what types of defenses existed in that timeline of 2077?
I would think that with energy weapon designs, very few Bombers would get through on a first strike, and missiles more than likely were the first strike weapons of choice, but they too would be vulnerable to energy weapon technology, ... ah! this is too confusing.
It is a really screwy alternate reality to be sure, as the only bomber relics you find are the B-29 Superfortress and the fighters are the old Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star variants. Perhaps all the new stuff got used up in the war and only the museum pieces survived?
Vertibirds, ... odd. They could be from the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey designs?
The defunct Van Buren Project mentioned the use of the B.O.M.B. orbital platform as a contributing reason for the war (besides fossil fuel shortages), ... but?
Well, you can certainly get lost trying to make sense of what happened in that alternate world. Starting small and accumulating as you go is a good way to experiment with what works and what doesn't.
-
Your signature link brought me here, ... of course, you have to be logged in to see anyone's signature, but there you have it.
No criticism, but feedback and suggestions, yes. It is certainly an ambitious undertaking and when finished should be quite an awesome adventure.
For a large military base, it depends on the branch of service:
For the Army, it would be Fort Bragg as it spans 251 square miles and four counties in North Carolina. It is also the largest military base in the world which is spread across 214,968 acres of land and with the population of 217,003 military personnel. Several airborne units of the U.S. Army are stationed at Fort Bragg, notably the XVIII Airborne Corps HQ, the 82nd Airborne Division, and the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC).*
For the Air Force on the east coast, it would be Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) located approximately 3 miles southwest of Valparaiso, Florida. The base covers 463,128 acres (1,874.2 km²), and is one of the few military air bases in the U.S. to have scheduled passenger airline service as the Northwest Florida Regional Airport (VPS) is co-located on the base property.*
For the nearest large AFB near DC that would be Dover AFB, located 2 miles southeast of the city of Dover, Delaware. The base has a total area of 0.7 square miles (1.7 km²), all of it land.*
For the Navy, Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk Virginia occupies about four miles (6 km) of waterfront space and seven miles (11 km) of pier and wharf space of the Hampton Roads peninsula known as Sewell's Point. It is the world's largest naval station, supporting 75 ships and 134 aircraft alongside 14 piers and 11 aircraft hangars, and houses the largest concentration of U.S. Navy forces.*
For the Marine Corps, Camp Lejeune, is a 246-square-mile United States military training facility in Jacksonville, North Carolina. The base's 14 miles (23 km) of beaches make it a major area for amphibious assault training, and its location between two deep-water ports (Wilmington and Morehead City) allows for fast deployments.*
* from source material found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
So I am guessing that the huge military base would be, ... Fort Bragg? home of the 82nd Airborne Division?
Another consideration? : Greenbrier Bunker, USA. "It was originally called project Green Island and was designed as a full scale bunker complex located under the luxury hotel the Greenbrier.
The bunker was a secret and remained fully serviced and operational from 1959-1992 when a Washington Post reporter exposed it. The bunker was large enough to hold all of Congress, both houses and staff for over a year or more." -source and http://www.coldwarcomms.org/greenbrier/greenbrier.html
Are you using original Real Life Insignias? I Like the Chemical Corps design and they will certainly add to the immersion. So would Real military organizational designations and abbreviations, which even the writers a Bethesda got wrong.
New world spaces? Awesome. Earning Rank in a military organization? Very cool idea for Fallout 3. The player may have to get his hair cut for boot though, ... :tongue: for female players it is different.
A black ops mission running for 200+ years? could be scary in its implications, but not as scary as the Top Sarge looks, ... reminds me of my boot days, ... :ohmy:
-
A good subject. I would like to add that there is quite a bit of custom content in New Vegas for dog, and, yes cat companions. It is possible that the scripting for the four-legged custom companions is more detailed for better control and balance. Here are a few:
"Balls the Talking Dog" (evil aligned)
Deployment failed....
in Vortex Support
Posted · Edited by BuffHamster
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:52:13 GMT - warn: failed to link error=EXDEV: cross-device link not permitted, link 'C:\Users\BuffHamster\AppData\Roaming\Vortex\7daystodie\mods\A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509\UIAtlases\ItemIconAtlas\vehRustyCar01.png' -> 'F:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\7 Days To Die\Mods\ZZZZ-A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509\UIAtlases\ItemIconAtlas\vehRustyCar01.png', link=UIAtlases\ItemIconAtlas\vehRustyCar01.png, source=A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509
Nope, still fails. All mods are being installed from the same HD, same partition, so, idk, ... having Vortex on a drive different than where the Steam game is installed might be the cause? Okay, uninstalled and reinstalled Vortex to the HD Steam is on, grrr, ...nope, ... same error:
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 18:02:16 GMT - warn: failed to link error=EXDEV: cross-device link not permitted, link 'C:\Users\BuffHamster\AppData\Roaming\Vortex\7daystodie\mods\A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509\ModInfo.xml' -> 'F:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\7 Days To Die\Mods\ZZZZ-A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509\ModInfo.xml', link=ModInfo.xml, source=A18 New Cars Lootable (Biome Decoration)-313-2-0-1571150509
hmmm, this rodent is not giving up.
So, I downloaded the 'custom install' Vortex, assigned it to the HD with Steam, then reassigned the Download and 'staging' folder locations in the Vortex 'Settings', ... all on the same HD, ... that seems to work for now.
For myself, the "cross-link" error was caused by Vortex trying to assign links across different hard drives. The solution was that Vortex, including the folder's the app uses, have to be on the same device. In this case, the same Hard Drive.
Hope that helps somebody.