Hope For The Best, But Expect The Worst

[maxmanatarms]

 

@BigBizkit

Thank you for the clarification :smile:

 

Also, you may want to check some of the posts in ... erm 1 of the other threads on this subject (I think it's the main one in GMAD.) As there seems to be people posting that requesting to have you mods deleted also nukes your whole Nexus account. AFAIK, that's untrue. (Wild?) Speculation on possible futures is one thing, but stopping outright misinformation is, I hope, still a priority for forum admins and staff.

Thanks, I'll update the clarification post - though this is already addressed in the bullet point list on the news post and the deletion request template as well. We do not delete or ban users for requesting to have their mods deleted. They do lose access to the mod authors forum and they do lose access to mod author only perks, as they require the active state as a verified mod author (see above) - we've updated the template to reflect that as well.

 

Nice of you guys to no ban folks who want to keep thier own created work while your team is going "We keep if you stay".

 

It is literally a dog holding a ball. "No Delete, only upload"

[OH72]

 

Short of every mod author who used licensed programs with purchased brushes/textures etc telling the company's and going "this website Nexus mods. They are profiting off your content without a license" and seeing if they will sue for lost of profits. and some company's can be petty and will bog folks down in lawyers.

Tho that brings a big question up. Did Nexus use a lawyer to confirm what they are doing is legal and follow all policy's when it comes to IP content and etc.

 

Since Nexus isn't using those programs themselves, the point is moot. The uploader licensed the product and by uploading certified that they have the right to distribute content made with that software and to grant distribution rights to third parties. If that was not the case, it's the mod maker who has a problem - they are in a contractual relationship with the program maker.

 

Incidentally, when a team of scientists submits the results of their work as a scientific publication to a journal, they invariably are expected to grant the journal distribution rights in perpetuity, so that the journal's archives aren't compromised. In some cases, they have to sign over full copyright, retaining solely the right to personal copies and to give away copies by direct request. The journals don't commission these articles, they don't pay for the research and they do not even do the in-depth scientific review, they outsource that to other scientists who do it for free, deciding whether the study is fit for publication or not.

 

And yet the big publishing houses like Elsevier, SpringerNature, Wiley etc. make a truckload of money solely by formatting, layouting, basic editorial work, and distributing the content electronically and in print. Where journals or articles aren't open access, the only way to get to the content is by a) a subscription or b)paying an insane amount for the individual article (USD 25-35 for a handful of pages).

 

Are you saying that your work is more important than, say, trying to cure pancreatic cancer?

 

 

Or why, precisely, do you think something that's standard practice in medical research globally is supposedly illegal when it comes to mods?

 

There's been legislation in sundry countries to guarantee that at least taxpayer-funded research is available to the public without additional payments. Do you think such legislation would have happened if a simple legal challenge would have been enough?

 

What, precisely, makes a mod for a game so important that it should get preferential treatment over years of life-saving research?

[Zanderat]

Yes. But modding is a hobby, for fun. You would think the powers to be would be a bit more chill and allow an opt in or opt out. I honestly think that if this option were available from the beginning, most mod authors would have opted in. But alas, now we will never know.

[ovinnik]

Yes. But modding is a hobby, for fun. You would think the powers to be would be a bit more chill and allow an opt in or opt out. I honestly think that if this option were available from the beginning, most mod authors would have opted in. But alas, now we will never know.

It's a hobby for us. For them it's business. That's where the discrepancy stems from.

 

An opt-out would solve exactly nothing, because we still wouldn't be able to properly retire our own content.

[Zanderat]

True. If a mod author deletes a file than the mod collection curator would need to update accordingly. Seems simple.

[showler]

Defeats the purpose of making a Collection to back up your game install for one thing.

[HeyYou]

Defeats the purpose of making a Collection to back up your game install for one thing.

No other site seems to have an issue with it. Wabbajack has been around for a while now, and been dealing with it, and I haven't heard a single complaint about curators needing to update their lists when mods get updated.

[showler]

Funny, I've heard lots of complaints from people who have had computer fails and found that their save file backups are useless because they can't rebuild the same mod list as before.

[HeyYou]

Funny, I've heard lots of complaints from people who have had computer fails and found that their save file backups are useless because they can't rebuild the same mod list as before.

And that has been an issue since mods first became a thing. Those complaints have also been coming from users. I haven't seen a single list curator complaining that every time a mod updates, they need to update their list. (which is what should be happening anyway. the updates, not the complaining.)

[Striker879]

Funny, I've heard lots of complaints from people who have had computer fails and found that their save file backups are useless because they can't rebuild the same mod list as before.

 

Am I the only one on the planet who has actual on-my-hard drive copies of mods I use? The last person who clicks on the Download Manually button?

 

We humans are in danger of losing the ability to use our left click finger if that one extra click is the deal breaker.