Michalius
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Michalius
-
-
No, the rule means that someone else can't modify the integrity of their work without their consent. Full control means full control.
And that brings us back to the copyright argument I guess - I don't believe a patch mod in any meaningful sense modifies the integrity of the original work. It's a separate creative work that allows the end user to modify the original work (or more precisely - the original works effect, since original mod file which is the subject of copyright is never modified itself) themselves after aquiring both legally - and modification for private use is end users right.
-
Undue authority? Says who? Mod authors are the people who are creating mods, not users. The author should have full control over their creation, full stop.
They have full control over their creation. This rule gives them control over someone elses creation.
-
Your overall argument - ignoring copyright law - uses the concept of patching as a diversion from the deeper issue at hand. If I were to create a "patch mod" for the Inigo or Lucien mods that patched the voice lines so the characters would spout homophobic nonsense I would be violating the authors' vision for their characters. I would be taking their creation and perverting it. And I could do all of that without redistributing any of their original files.And that simple scenario, I fully contend, is the crux for why the rule exists.
The price of freedom is that some people might try to use it, yes. I agree, that would be a total perversion of original authors intent. It would be good if we had a solution that prevented this.
I would question how valid your example is however in the general case - for most extreme perversions of original intent there is most likely already a rule preventing that - homophobic content isn't allowed in mods on nexus is it? Author of Z could mislead people as to what his mod changes in X - but that's also against the rules isn't it? A more neutral example, would probably be a mod changing looks of a character. Mod author might claim that the looks he designed are their vision and refuse any mod that alters it. Should he have the right to enforce that opinion?
We can also not theorize, let's look at BlackSwanFallacy post above. Do you believe, that Northern Springs mod author should have the right to decline the existence of the patch in question? Is the world a better place when this was his exclusive decision? It does improportionally affect people who are less savvy in modding - after all, most experienced mod users are perfectly capable of creating such a patch themselves, just a matter of spending the time to do that.
This rule treats mod users as children, and gives undue authority to mod authors. It is obvious that a mod Z changing mod X is going to change mod X, anyone using both would definitely be aware of that. If a user wanted to experience the vision of Xs author and only that they would not install Z. Since we're in the business of modding the game, it shouldn't come as a suprise that people might want to modify things. If they didn't they probably wouldn't mod in the first place.
-
According to rule in question, and Reneers inerpretation of copyright law - yes. For SKSE and ENB permission would probably be implied by the nature of the tools.
I'm arguing that "patching" mods, that do not redistribute any copyrightable content from it's parent mods (which would be prohibited by other file submission rule and the law anyway) have no grounds to be forbidden, and making it so is harmful to the modding community
-
To work at all Mod Z requires information contained in Mod X in order to function.
Functioning independently (or, indeed, at all) is also not a concern for copyright law. What is protected is the codified expression of creative work, here in the form of a mod file. Not it's usage. See copyright for source code if you need a closer example
I'm not going to continue to play this game with you - if you feel that my explanation isn't up to your standards, go find yourself a lawyer and pay them to explain it to you.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Vice versa.
-
By creating Mod Z, which requires Mod X (underlying work), Mod Z builds upon (incorporates) all of Mod X and whatever changes / additions Mod Z does constitutes the "new version".
Incorporating existing work, or including elements of it is a pretty well defined concept - find a subset of X (that you could call copyrightable) that's included in Z. If such subset doesn't exist Z doesn't incorporate any element of X.
As defined in the abstract example Z does not in fact incorporate any elements of X. I don't understand how can you disagree with that statement.
As for Berne Convention - you are right that mod X is of course protected, I never disputed that. However mod Z does not translate, adapt, arrange or alter mod X. Mod X remains unchanged. It changes the effect mod X has on a game when installed together with mod Z, but that's not what's protected. For copyright to apply you do need to assert that Z is derivative work. I assert that Z is fully original work.
-
I'm going to have to ask you what definition of derivative work you use, and why is it better than the three I quoted. I can't see "can't function without" as relevant for purposes of copyright law, only "whether it includes copyrightable elements from the original".
-
@Arthmoor - I agree with everything you wrote except one thing: I don't see mod Z as described as derivative work.
A definition from French law for start, since it's very explicit:
It is defined in article L 113-2, paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Code as "new works into which pre-existing work [is incorporated], without the collaboration of its author"With "into which pre-existing work is incorporated" being operative here.
US law is not that explicit in it's wording, and since it's US a lot of it is based on case law, however there are multiple places where we can see that's also what they mean. Take https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law
A derivative work is a new, original product that includes aspects of a preexisting, already copyrighted work. Also known as a "new version,"Or first sentence in wikipedia article on derivative works:
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work).Now, if you go back to my example, mod Z doesn't contain any elements from mod X (not to mention major copyrightable ones). Only connection it has to it is through information that X is it's master.
End user experience, should he install both mod X and mod Z when playing through mod X content very much would be a derivative of the experience he'd have when playing with just X, I grant that. But the user compiled that derivative work himself for his own purposes by putting them both in his load order. What is being distributed is two completely separate pieces of copyrightable work.
-
What copyright? In the example I mentioned mod Z is a completely separate work that just happens to only be able to be used by someone who also uses mod X. Mod X still has to be obtained via legitimate means, existance of mod Z neither discourages it or makes it harder, Z cannot be used as a substitute of X. I genuinely don't know.
Mod Z here, in copyright context, is akin to someone creating a do-it-yourself package that contains instructions in what order shoud tracks on music album X be played along with a completely original track author of Z recorded in his garage to close up the entire composition. Any potential music fan wanting to try that would still need to buy album X of course, since Z doesn't contain any track that's on it. Saying such package would infringe on copyright of rights holder for music album X sounds absurd to me.
-
User-submitted content that is predominantly intended to interact with existing user-submitted content is subject to the approval of all parties involved and may be removed at the request of the author of the original content.
That's a last rule in the "Usage and Accreditation" section of file submission guidelines.
Let's look at abstract example:
There is a preexisting mod X.
A mod author decides that, while he likes it, X would be better if it did one thing differently. He creates mod Z that does that, creating that new piece of functionality. Mod Z requires mod X, doesn't redistribute any assets from mod X.
In my opinion it is an absolute win for the community - everyone who thinks like author of Z can add his mod to their load order, while everyone else can skip it and keep using X without Z.
Under that rule, author of mod X can just say "no", and prevent mod Z from being uploaded.
Why? What is the terrible scenario this rule tries to prevent?
-
How does Vortex do Pathfinder: Kingmaker? Does it use Unity Mod Manager? Does it copy the functionality of Unity Mod Manager? Or does it just deal with mods that don't require it?
-
In response to post #56089931. #56090416 is also a reply to the same post.B is very easy to game with less popular titles, or oens that don't really get mods. There 50 downloads could constitute 50% of downloads for the game this month. That's clearly not fair, so you'd have to add some balance to account for game popularity on the site, and after a bit of algebra you get back to A by itself.femshepping wrote: I think this is a cool idea! And it’s nice that it’s opt in/out so people that don’t like it for whatever reason aren’t forced to be doing it.
You also covered all of the questions I would have had about it, so thanks for the extensive post! Looking forward to seeing the system in action :)abot wrote: I think your metric could be much better factoring also the game e.g.
instead of
total mod unique download,
use
A / B
where
A = total unique download for mod,
B = total unique downloads for all mods and all modders of that game.
,else the 2 or 3 more popular games will get it all.
B is even more robust/hard to cheat than A
[EDIT]sorry, post was not meant as a quote to femshepping, but to main post by Dark0ne -
In response to post #55271123."[coming down from]"? If coming down from trees was the bad choice staying in the ocean would not follow. "[going up to]" maybe, if you insist on adding a comment.fluxxdog wrote: I keep having two takes on it. My personal thoughts, "Meh, some thing I like, some things I don't like." Then my QA mode kicks in, "These elements work well, I might have done this differently but it's acceptable." Overall, I like it. It will take getting used to new elements, but we'll have the same issue at my job when we upgrade our customers interface.
And for the hilarious "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" commenters, where were you when we got rid of 300 baud modems?
No, wait, better yet, "...some said that even [coming down from] the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." Douglas Adams FTW.
File submission guideline question
in Site Support
Posted
That's now 3 separate people telling me to talk to the lawyer instead of discussing my arguments. That's a fair tactic if and only if you already discussed it with one and he agreed with your position. But if you did, you would have probably written that instead, wouldn't you?
And now just to be thorough:
A mod that included Inigo or Lucien with changed lines would be 100% derivative work (if not straight plagiarizm, depending on the scope of the changes made). Mod including new lines and nothing else, the case I've been discussing form the start of this thread, I disagree. I have given somewhere in this thread three quotes from different sources what defines derivative work, and have described how I fail to see patch mods fitting in those definitions. I would appreciate if the opposing side gave a similar level of effort in refuting me.
Also, no, I'm not the author of that mod. Though I did write in the reddit thread that I opened a thread on nexus forums discussing the fairness of the rule that got the mod removed from Nexus, so not that great detective work there.