holbrook

to post or not to post, what a conundrum... it's certainly easier to just to say "you're wrong, you're lying, and you're either misinformed or making things up in order to appear knowledgeable, but you certainly don't know what you're talking about either way", though it's so much more effective to point these things out and then provide proof of it. i'm just not sure this ol' camel can handle another one of my straws though. perhaps i'll just go the easy way for now since the only person gullible enough to buy into any of this bull in the first place is the one shoveling it out. besides, i could shed light on the truth all day long, but the real problem is how to get a grown man to stop acting like a child and i'm not sure i can tackle that problem. i think i'll just comment on one thing instead... i can't even begin to argue against that, as you are in this very rare case correct for once. i am indeed utterly incapable of separating what i wish for from what is reality. i'm not the strongest person around but i did give it an honest attempt though, yet no matter how hard i try to force them apart, what i wish for just refuses to stop being reality.

would you please point to where in the eula it says authors lose (or never had) the ownership rights of their work? (or should i say "of work created", since you don't believe what "they" create is actually "theirs"?) would you be so kind as to show us where in copyright law it states that intellectual property which is implemented into a video game loses its status of intellectual property and thus its protection of copyright, regardless of who put it there? would you mind telling us where it says that only the work's which are made by corporations and businesses are "actually copyrighted material", and that copyright protection is not in fact extended to every person and entity that lives and operates under these laws, for all works they produce? i don't know what you base this theory of yours on, but it doesn't come from knowledge of u.s. copyright law or what it in truth protects. even if it did, i would still have to ask what makes you think u.s. copyright law is the "be all end all" for a game that was released internationally, and modded on a site hosted in the u.k. with a world-wide audience. i'm afraid the merit of bethesda being a company based in america only goes so far. you are correct that you can't copyright the concept of a red sword, but if you're going to have a red sword in something that you release then YOU have to make it or have permission to use the one you did. you can't just take someone else's red sword and say "long red swords can't be copyrighted", and you can't just turn someone's steel sword red. the design of the sword and the artwork itself is copyrighted, it's merely the "concept" which is not. most importantly though, "accessible to the public" does not mean "public domain". just because you see someone do it doesn't mean it's allowed. the nexus does not allow or defend such things, and will punish rather than protect when this is actually the case; report it if you see it. if you use ONLY the materials that you've made yourself or that the original author created (and permitted you to use), then you can bypass the middle man altogether and upload your version IF you don't use any of the edited or added resources that the middle man (who did not grant permission for you to use) had in his mod. also you didn't clarify, but if by "use" you mean "for your own use" and not "to upload or distribute it to others" as well, then you don't need permission for that anyway. copyright is "the right to produce copies", not "the authority to tell people how they can use the copy they have". "opinions" are great and all, but the fact is that this isn't even close to what authors agreed to when they decided to share their work. you might find the concept of modder's rights ridiculous, but even in your "view" of things, somebody possesses "the rights". either the people that created and own the work have "the rights" (behold- logic), or the people who have merely been given access to the work have "the rights" (the supposed "rights" to treat anything they want as "fair game"). when someone possessing no rightful claim believes that they have more right to something than the owner does however, we simply call that a misplaced sense of entitlement. my question to you is why should anyone have respect for what is claimed to be user's "rights" if the users have no respect for (or even acknowledge) author's rights?

mine looks like this~ http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/screenshots/nexustables.jpg changing the window dimensions, font size, or browser never causes my text to buckle over onto a second line. it looks like it might be possible that you have a different font defaulting or possibly just different clear-type/anti-aliasing settings than i do, but it's hard to tell if it just looks that way because it's scaled down.

i kind of miss it being at the bottom of the description too, i guess it's because it's been embedded into our brains for so long to look there for permission information and credits. the text link is showing up fine for me though no matter what i try to do to break it. being the longest line in that table though, it definitely would be the first to go awry.

no idiot quoted your post out of context. a supposed idiot however quoted only the relevant part of it before explaining that the esp files that people make do not in any way belong to bethesda under any circumstance. yet upon us releasing those files, bethesda gains "licensed" rights to the resulting contents contained within the esp file; regardless if you originally penned them in notepad, or directly in the editor. the point was to express that a person's original creations are unfailingly the intellectual property of that person regardless of what program was used to create it or what text box someone happened to be typing into at the time. one program is no different than the other in terms of protection offered or in bethesda having license to it. the other point was to express that, so long as you are the creator of the esp's contents (scripts, etc.), when your property is made available to others in an esp format, bethesda gains a license to use those contents; not because you created "the script" in their editor, but because you created and then released "the esp" file that contains it with their editor. it's fairly pointless to assume that scripts don't belong to bethesda, because it wouldn't change anything for us even if they did. they're very clear and encompassing about it; "All uses of the Editor (pushing ctrl+v) and any materials (esp files) created using the Editor are... subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement." in other words, there's no wrong way to eat a reese's; the result is always the same in the end. created in and used to put into the game are different things, but as far as it concerns "this" issue it's just 2 different recipes for making the same thing. no one has to take my word on that, they can hear it from bethesda and call them the idiots if they prefer. http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/downloads/updates-GECK-fnv-eula.html more importantly (well maybe not), the last post wasn't an attempt (or occurrence) of you being misquoted nor being taken out of context, and it carried no intent of stretching your words, twisting the truth, or to piss you off in general. as it just so happens, neither is this one. cheers,

a reasonably understandable misconception, but potentially far from minor. esp files are the inherent property of and belong solely to the author. bethesda (and bethesda alone) is merely granted license to use our property if we make our property available to the public, and when that property was created using their editor. just like anyone else does, bethesda needs permission to use our work; they are neither the owners of nor privy to any claim on our work simply because we use their tools. however, since we agreed to their terms of use for the geck, we agreed that if we choose to release our files, we also grant bethesda (alone) permission to use them. that includes any scripts, settings, and quite possibly dialogue or story elements regardless of where they were originally written, as they are still undeniably utilized (inside the geck) to create the resulting esp file (or any other file the geck is capable of producing). the reason they can do this is not because they own the property itself, but because they own a license that was given to them by the property owner (even if in ignorance brought upon by neglect). simply... your work is always your work, but releasing your work that was put together in the geck is subject to the pre-existing conditions you agreed to when downloading/installing the editor. they gave us a license to create, and we gave them one to utilize our creations. of course this is not inclusive of meshes, textures, audio etc. as these are neither things possible to create within the geck, or possible to store within the esp itself. the esp merely "points" to and "references" these outside assets. this is why we now have iron sights, weapon modifications, and item recycling/repair workbenches in new vegas. when these mods were put onto the fallout 3 nexus, bethesda (and bethesda alone) immediately gained the right to use that property in their own work such as we see in new vegas. also... when re-reading the legal documentation provided by bethesda for its released games and editors to make certain that the information i spoke was correct, i ran across several interesting lines that have greatly provoked the urge for me to further mutilate our deceased equestrian friends. i hope you can appreciate that i'm currently resisting such temptation, even if i can't seem to suffer in silence properly~ =p

well, the effort in sentence structure wasn't in vain at least, but regardless; as you've requested i will leave things lie. you've heard me out on the issue, and i couldn't reasonably expect anything more than that. please offer your horse my apologies. p.s. i would still very much so be interested in hearing whether or not you think something like... http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/flaguse.jpg ...would be worth your effort to implement or significantly help the "distribution permission" information become more clear and readily understandable to others.

oh sure... why bother cutting your grass when we could all just move to antarctica. as much of a big deal as i might seem to be making over what some people regard as being "nothing", my oh so scary and long paragraphs should not be exaggerated to mean i think poorly of the nexus due to one conflict, or consider the owner to be a hypocrite because of one instance of contradiction. the lack of calling something "smart" does not mean i find it "stupid". it is because i like this place that i have concern for what happens in it, and it is because i want- and plan to stay here that i take interest in what occurs on this site. if that is too much for you to grasp, so be it. doing the right thing rarely makes you popular; it doesn't make me a troll to have opinions contrary to yours, it also isn't a crime to actually "have something to say" when speaking. sure i would love to have simply come on here and said "yay this is awesome" and let that be the end of it, but i have more on my mind than 3 sentences could adequately express. some might call that a good thing, but i won't fault you for thinking otherwise.

interestingly enough, looking at the top 10 most endorsed files of all time on fo3 nexus revealed that 6 out of 10 of them did not include permission details in the description, and often times lacked a readme altogether. of the 4 that did include details within it, there were mixed results with some allowing free use, and others not. if those that did list this information had mixed results (not to mention only 1 actually even gave permission), why wouldn't the "unspecified" files be expected to have mixed results as well; leaving the ability to "assume" nothing more than pure speculation which is completely unacceptable. considering that out of 4 defined files, only 1 of them gave us permission to use their work; i think it would seem obvious that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the authors of the files that aren't defined would be any more likely to approve of us using their work either, nor would it be acceptable for us to believe it "doesn't matter" as time passes. you, alongside every other moderator would surely attest to spending plenty of time removing stolen work of which is reported by active users; isn't it only logical to think that the big reason you don't spend as much removing the stolen work of inactive users is simply because... well... they're inactive? rather than because they would for some reason feel differently about the misuse of their work than any of the rest of us presently here would? now i won't know for certain unless i spend like 3 weeks or more looking at every mod ever created, but from where i sit, it looks entirely likely that what you called "most" is less than half, and what you called "cases of rare occurence" to be the majority of cases. that is... unless you meant you only consider it "rare" for the author to "have a problem with something that they're unaware of and don't know about", in which case i'd agree. it is afterall pretty hard and rare to be able to know what goes on behind your back. if the generosity of the people who have shared their files in the first place is allowed to be betrayed, if rather than be thankful to the authors who continued to share their work (under the belief and impression that it would remain exactly as they had left it and intended) instead of pulling their files down before leaving us is allowed to be treated as "not good enough" by those who aren't happy unless they're allowed to get everything they want; perhaps i should ask a question posed by one of the members of your staff. by now, i'm exceedingly aware of your ability to ignore my words, and perhaps the words of one of your moderators will not go much further... but what about the ability to ignore your own words? i know how much you hate 1 line paragraphs and posts that require you to use your mouse wheel, but for the sake of not misquoting you, and to leave no doubt as to why hot air is going to be blown when you provided us the heater; i'm afraid i have no choice. so... what effect will a wall of text have when the bricks were made by you? will you come down on me for being the biggest pain in the *** you've had to deal with lately? will you clarify your words and policy to make them unquestionable? will this effort simply go ignored as well? i suppose i'll find out soon enough, and i risk pissing you off (further) knowing full well what it might afford me in the end, but it's time for me to stop doing the talking and let your own words paint the picture. that... is quite simply flawless. this however is where things get ugly... this is where you appear to be arguing with yourself. these are the contradicions in your words that began appearing for the first time as of 2 days ago, and regardless if this is "new policy" or it has "always existed", that gives plenty of cause for concern for any user on here. this thread has also made clear that i'm not by any stretch the only one who is concerned as to what it will mean to have you go back on your word, or what those words were. though i may be the only one dumb enough to not bite his tongue; yet.

i'm still a little shaky as to what the stance is because there are a lot of conflicting comments, but it looks like it's cleared up as well as i could reasonably hope to expect. while the way i've been taught (or have learned) to write might get under your skin, i implore you to grit your teeth and bear with me for at least this last post. a "summation" of the post that was focused on my feedback. i'll do my best to keep it short. as i was explaining with your comment on tabs and why you didn't choose that locale for adding this, the site often already has issues with the tabs of a file not having enough room for a single row when viewed on 1024x displays. it starts out well enough, but as the numbers for images and comments grow over the lifetime of that file, things get further pushed and run out of room. examples of 3 different levels of this effect are provided here... http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/1024overlap.jpg i thought it might be useful to point it out to you, but honesty i think it was better to have this located at the bottom of the description anyway. it was much harder to overlook when it was there and quicker to get to and see than if it were on its own tab or exists where it does at the time of me writing this. what i'm more concerned with however, is the belief that you could greatly improve this new implementation by using readily identifiable and simple graphics (of which the ones i use in my demonstration attempt to match the look and feel of the site's current appearance), which would allow greater ease of use and be highly distinguishable. much to my own amusement; i'm suggesting a "TLDR" equivalent for permission options. this would allow users to "get the point" of what the author allows for a file at a mere glance. something like these... http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/buttonexamples.jpg lastly, while the graphics are of great help to our more "familiar" users; which of these "categories" an author picks to have their work listed under would also cause the file to display a specific bit of text nearby. clarifying to new or unsure users what this "graphic" represents, and what concern it holds for them. obviously the "general text" in my examples are just examples i wrote, and probably possesses the ability to grate your nerves to which i apologize for; i only wish to illustrate how much more simple and easy to understand that this "permission information" could be displayed to users. if you do nothing else, please... just look at these 5 examples... http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/flaguse.jpg finally, in the event that what i've presented here holds any appeal to you or can offer any use, benefit, or save time; i'm offering you access to the source (photoshop) file. you may do whatever you please with it, if it holds any value to you at all. http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/nexusbuttons.psd TLDR - if you read nothing else i ever write, and even if it compels you to ban me 6 ways from tomorrow after suffering through it; please just read this one post and look over the links. cheers.

please avoid the use of improper words if you're going to critique the improper grammar of my dissertations. which is another way of saying, yeah i'll get right on that just as soon as your post magically becomes a worthwhile contribution to the thread and not a childish attempt to be cute and make unnecessary quips at others in order to feel important. TLDR no. or as "lawyer types" might say, "because this is in fact a real life application of one's efforts the same as any other endeavor". the thing that really bothers me now that it comes to mind, is that changing the policy in a rush displays a lack of faith for the new permission system to even work or aid in combating ignorance/negligence. shouldn't it have a significant span of time to test its effectiveness before resorting to such a change of heart as to say "not knowing the truth for certain shall now be good enough for you to pretend you did."? for the files of authors that are no longer here to defend themselves or their work, it doesn't change a single outcome with or without this system if the policies suddenly double over and no longer provide protection to them. if the goal of this system is to help stop people from uploading things without permission, how is telling them they no longer need permission for a majority of files supposed to further that cause?

demanding? that word gives me the impression that (in growing trend with the staff); you either didn't actually read what i wrote, or deemed it was easier to simply dismiss my reply in whole rather than confront any of the points i've raised within it. though i do appreciate receiving implications that what i posted was read; all things considered, i think i'd just as well prefer it actually was read~ what i was suggesting was that the below statement, which is stated by none other than Dark0ne himself, both at the very start of this thread and any day prior to it... a statement that we were all assured would continue holding true no more than even a day ago; is a statement i suggested continues to remain true. now this rule which has stood for what... 7 years? is suddenly being changed to... now think about this... site policy just did a complete 180 on their standpoint for modder's rights as you call them; does it really seem so outlandish when you bear that in mind for me to question such a rash and unexpected decision? if you had read my words, you would have discovered that i was only urging the reconsideration of the decision to alter a tried and true policy that this site (and just about any other site of decency) has always operated under. the neat thing is that if you do that; then you don't have to change a single word in the ToS. however if you do change policy, (and as to what my post had actually said), then you get the pleasure of informing every author ever to post their work on this site that what was "said and agreed to" in the ToS was only partially true, no longer honored, and is being changed. you mean common sense such as "no permission; no upload"? as much as it might appeal to you to be able to pass me off with utter disregard by labeling me a "lawyer type" who likes to insist upon masses of convoluted rules; the words i have posted say nothing about how i would enjoy seeing any addendum's whatsoever to the ToS, or enjoy changing the existing ToS into a confusing mess. since the beginning, all my words have revolved around one thing, which will also be the 5th irony thus far (for those keeping track), if it ends up that all the people who preached "no permission; no upload" to us all these years now looks at me like i'm some kind of a lunatic for repeating those exact words. in short, what you should have seen, was that what you're saying is "my hard wired stipulation that states you must do it this way and this way only" has actually been your hard wired stipulation all along; since the very beginning. the new policy is the only source of convolution here; backed by the simple fact that the new policy tells us we may post someone else's work without permission under certain (convoluted) circumstances, but without disclosing to us what those circumstances actually are, it leaves us as users without the ability to know whether or not we are even following or breaking the rules when doing so. it is ludicrous that a policy just went into effect where 2 users doing the exact same things could lead to one member being banned and the other applauded, but it is far more ludicrous that a policy regarding permissions just did a complete 180; diminishing the rights of modders and in exchange empowering other people to use a modder's work without needing consent on a site that is "extremely pro modders rights". TLDR - why are you suddenly going back on your word now? there's no way of getting around the fact that you have, but in light of it- do you actually believe this is a "good" decision, or is lifting the rule simply the "easy" way of dealing with people who don't care to follow those rules? sincerely, a concerned and longstanding fan

@extr3m3 that's wonderful and all, but despite their option to clarify; saying nothing leaves us with only the option to assume we do not have permission rather than to assume we do. the fact is that there are several ways to fail to gain permission from someone, but there is only ONE way to be given permission, and that's by having them tell you it has been granted. if you haven't been informed by them that you have permission, you simply do not possess it. the truth of this exists irregardless of whether they would react negatively to your actions or be fine with them. it does fit- the corresponding stipulation of having "50 cents" is having "permission"; that's the price of admission. without having what you need, it's impossible to get what you want. what we have needed has always been clear, and what we've wanted has always been clear; it's what we possess that people are fuzzy on. @mur_zik cheers~ @ginnyfizz thank you <3 @dark0one ... every post i've made that was more than 2 or 3 lines long has included a "TLDR" summation at the end since you first requested it. though admittedly i did this less in the interest of being "polite" and more because i thought reading the short version would convince you to read my words in full. it's slightly discouraging to hear you "can't be bothered" considering the last two "walls" of text are directly addressing you. perhaps i'm doomed to go unheard by the only person i held concern about reading it, but despite what my intentions are; i can't justify sacrificing the ability to explain and rationalize my points just for the sake of making sure people don't have to use their mouse wheel. whether it be from an easy to read and understand message going unread or a small message that doesn't concisely illustrate the point i'm attempting to make, which warranted me bothering to write in the first place; it's a tragedy either way. it sits better with me to have you not read it than to have me not write it; not being heard is better than not being voiced. v >////////////////////////TLDR//////////////////////< ^ something tells me you'll notice it this time, but i've actually included one of these in every reply of significant length since the moment you requested it of me. it wasn't for my benefit that i have posted on this thread, nor did a lack of having something worth saying give rise to having more than 1 sentence. if it goes unread then that's simply a pity. (it's also the 4th instance of irony) while i assure you that the 2nd to last "wall" existed primarily to try and help, and the last "wall" being there to urge you to reconsider whether you're making the best decision by changing policy; my posts could have contained racial insults, sexist comments, and links to pirated software among other things that would lead to my being banned, and you'd just never know. (that by the way is not what is ironic) though i'd imagine if you read the last wall you might have decided to ban me for my "insolence" of questioning your better judgment anyway; though bear in mind that that's not my underhanded attempt at baiting you into reading it at this point. yeah... i do want you to read the last two "walls", but not if you aren't concerned with what i have to say, and not if it's going to be seen as a "bother" to you; i didn't go through the trouble of collecting my thoughts simply to cause grief. alas, i've breached 4 paragraphs in this post too, but i know what to expect this time around at least. sorry to have been a bother.

that's an unexpected call, i guess it can't be said that "policy remains unchanged" anymore. if you change this standpoint though, wouldn't you need to change the terms of service, and wouldn't this change of terms that previous authors did not agree to lead to "grandfather" protection or legacy issues for files before these changes were put into effect? currently it states... won't there now need to be a line to mention that the above statement is no longer honored by nexus if you become deemed "inactive" due to being absent from the site for an amount of time that also isn't even going to being defined to them? it would seem necessary to me at least, as there's currently no mention on the ToS about how authors can lose control of how the work they upload if they're not actively here to defend it. there's also no mention of how neglecting to give permission now has the ability to be considered "good enough"; having your work treated as though you've given someone permission despite never in fact giving it, unless you yourself are presently here to contest it. (or contest that a new rule changed how your property may be used without your acknowledgment of these terms changing, and that it is in contradiction to what you agreed to when you did upload your work) people often found it disappointing to run into an impasse or become stymied by a lack of permission, but that's simply unavoidable if you're going to protect the author's rights to their own work. has the amount of people uploading someone else's work without permission really raised to a level that the best option you see for dealing with it is to "deal with less" by allowing this activity in the cases where people not currently on the neglected to outright forbid it? isn't the presumption that "well hey, since they didn't say they didn't want me to take their work, they must be ok with me doing it or they would have told me otherwise" just a bit too much speculation? hasn't the absolute reverse always been the standpoint taken? uploading work you need permission for is sort of like walking up to a vending machine and trying to buy a can of coke. we need permission to upload, and we need 50 cents for the drink. saying "the file didn't state that i didn't have permission and the author never wrote back when i tried to contact him" doesn't change that you still haven't obtained permission is the same as saying "mom wouldn't give me any money when i asked and i don't have any of my own. can people tell vending machines that they haven't been able to get money from their mother because "she hasn't been around lately" and expect that's a valid reason for the machine to spit out a free drink? the machine doesn't care what your reason for not having 50 cents is, and the nexus didn't care what your reason for not having permission was. lacking what is needed, regardless of "why" is still lacking it. why should that theory change and exception be made today? as i mentioned before; how are you going allow people to ignore the current terms of service based on an amount of time passing without define what that measurement of time is? also, if the decision for how long is long enough is based simply on "how a moderator feels at the time", (which leaves no clear understanding for users as to when they're following or breaking the rules) yet you've just invited somewhere around a quarter of a million people to "do whatever they wish with anyone else's work" if that author didn't expressly state "you can't do whatever you wish with my work"... isn't it carrying great potential if not an outright certainty for it to become a bigger nightmare for nexus staff (when you already have your hands full) to not only deal with people uploading work without permission like they always do, but to add dealing with mods uploaded without permission when the parameters to decide if it's acceptable or not is utterly indecisive and unclear? this would have been fine if the authors agreed to such conditions on their work in the past, or were forced as we are with the new system to fill in and leave no doubt as to what our intentions were, but i can't see why or how you expect this sort of a decision to be in the best interests of anyone other than the people who don't like following your rules. p.s. earlier you mentioned copyright law was irrelevant on this subject because you were going to protect author's rights to their work on here even if copyright law wouldn't. you said you would require having permission from authors in order to use their work in uploads of your own regardless of what copyright laws "might" not consider infringement. if you can no longer say "our policy isn't changing", i don't think you can say "copyright law is irrelevant" anymore either. not just because[/] of what copyright law consists of, or because like any other intellectual property or creation; our mods are protected by copyright laws in the same manner, but because the terms of service does include statements which are extremely relevant and conflicted by allowing the use of someone else's work without permission regardless of them being "inactive and unresponsive". TLDR - because you asked nicely. well... maybe not but close enough. (seemingly my third irony) - excuses for why you have not been able to obtain permission (they didn't reply / they didn't give permission, but they didn't said i "didn't" have permission either) does not change the fact that you still fail to possess permission. - if permission is the be all end all "cost of entry", this situation is no different than telling a guy standing guard at the door collecting tickets for a concert "well, the lady selling tickets isn't there anymore, and they didn't say i couldn't have a pass for free, so could i just get in and watch the concert now and if she shows up later saying that i did need a ticket to be here then she can ask me to leave?". - has the building pressure and nuisance that has come from the issue of people uploading work for new vegas without permission escalated to a degree that you've made felt making a bad judgment call was the only suitable option you had? - aren't authors and their work protected by the terms of service that they agreed to, as it existed at the time, when they uploaded that work to the site? and wouldn't they remain under that protection in the event of a change in rule that compromised what they previously agreed to until they acknowledged and agreed to the new terms? - if "our policy hasn't changed" is no longer true; "copyright is irrelevant" is no longer true. also, i'm still curious on your opinion for simplifying the permission information and using small simple graphics to make it easily and readily identifiable even at a glance such as with these 5 examples... http://home.insightbb.com/~ljhinc/images/misc/flaguse.jpg cheers

wow... sorry lol, fixified.