Trying to understand

[MarchinBunny]

 

That would entail demonstrating that the circumstances were different, not merely stating they were different. Axonis clearly showed consistency between the two scenarios; your opinion did not rebut that.

 

The difference in circumstance is that the files were no longer available and lost due to a site going under. I literally already explained this. Just because you ignore the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

[gnarly1]

 

 

That would entail demonstrating that the circumstances were different, not merely stating they were different. Axonis clearly showed consistency between the two scenarios; your opinion did not rebut that.

 

The difference in circumstance is that the files were no longer available and lost due to a site going under. I literally already explained this. Just because you ignore the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

No you justified it as 'excusable' and then you invoked an irrelevant context rather than confront your own double standard when axonis drew a clear and compelling commonality between the two scenarios.

 

You:

[Opinion] So, I think that is excusable since it was about preserving a ton of mods that were lost due to a site going under ... [double standard] and as long as they didn't continue to host files from mod authors who had a problem with them being here ... seems fine to me.

You again:

 

Where as I see not being able to delete mods as just a minor inconvenience for the greater good, you and some others see it as a massive problem.

 

You're all over the place.....

Edited August 4, 2021 by gnarly1

[MarchinBunny]

 

No you justified it as 'excusable' and then you invoked an irrelevant context rather than confront your own double standard when axonis drew a clear and compellingly commonality between the two scenarios.

Context is always relevant to any situation.

 

 

 

You're all over the place.....

Not really. It's just you not understanding the different context between the situations.

 

Edit: Also, a double standard would be more like when the situations are the same but you let one slide and not the other. When there are actual differences in the situation, it's not a double standard. Though, I think where you and I disagree is that you don't view the situations different, where as I do.

[Arthmoor]

In short, for the sake of file preservation, and as long as you allow mod authors to claim and remove their files from such a situation, I think it's fine.

Good thing that's not how actual copyright works. Nexus did not have one shred of authority to do what they did with that archive. Filefront doesn't own the content and are not legally able to license Nexus to use it.

[MarchinBunny]

 

In short, for the sake of file preservation, and as long as you allow mod authors to claim and remove their files from such a situation, I think it's fine.

Good thing that's not how actual copyright works. Nexus did not have one shred of authority to do what they did with that archive. Filefront doesn't own the content and are not legally able to license Nexus to use it.

 

Well, pretty sure if you remove the files when requested by the author in such a case, most wouldn't see it as a problem. In fact, pretty sure most didn't.

[gnarly1]

Well, pretty sure if you remove the files when requested by the author in such a case, most wouldn't see it as a problem. In fact, pretty sure most didn't.

I see your elasticity in matters of ethics and legality is rivalled only by your elasticity in invoking context in order to avoid confronting your demonstrable double standards.

[Arthmoor]

 

 

In short, for the sake of file preservation, and as long as you allow mod authors to claim and remove their files from such a situation, I think it's fine.

Good thing that's not how actual copyright works. Nexus did not have one shred of authority to do what they did with that archive. Filefront doesn't own the content and are not legally able to license Nexus to use it.

 

Well, pretty sure if you remove the files when requested by the author in such a case, most wouldn't see it as a problem. In fact, pretty sure most didn't.

 

The problem with this response is that it demonstrates very clearly that you lack morals in this matter. "Upload first, ask permission later" is a violation of one of the most important rights a content creator has. That's NOT how this works, it's not how any of it works.

 

Supporting a site that decides to upload old mods and hopes that nobody calls them on it makes you as bad as the site because it's people like you they point to and say "see, the community thinks this is ok". It IS NOT ok.

[MarchinBunny]

 

The problem with this response is that it demonstrates very clearly that you lack morals in this matter. "Upload first, ask permission later" is a violation of one of the most important rights a content creator has. That's NOT how this works, it's not how any of it works.

 

 

Supporting a site that decides to upload old mods and hopes that nobody calls them on it makes you as bad as the site because it's people like you they point to and say "see, the community thinks this is ok". It IS NOT ok.

 

I don't really see it as a question of morality, because if anyone doesn't like it they could ask for it to be removed. Unless you can give me some sort of clear example of what actually makes it bad, then I can't really see it the same way you do. In terms of morals, I typically go by whether or not what someone is doing is harmful toward someone else. And to be honest, I don't see any harm coming out of it. All I see is some people who want to put their morality above other people's and treat them like crap because they think only their views matter.

 

If any one has a problem with what Nexus did with their files, then it's their job to take care of it since they are the copyright holder. It's not your job to tell everyone else how they should feel about it.

[MarchinBunny]

 

Well, pretty sure if you remove the files when requested by the author in such a case, most wouldn't see it as a problem. In fact, pretty sure most didn't.

I see your elasticity in matters of ethics and legality is rivalled only by your elasticity in invoking context in order to avoid confronting your demonstrable double standards.

 

Context matters, doesn't matter if you don't understand that. And don't really care how many times I need to repeat it. And as for ethics and legality, first ... your ethics and my ethics are obviously going to differ because we are not the same person. Second, the legality of it is up to each copyright holder to determine on whether or not they care. It's not for you to decide. If they are ok with it, then no problem. If not, they could easily get it removed.

 

You all just want to act like there is a problem there when there really isn't. Sittin on those high horses like you are the arbiters of how things should be and how people should view things. Sorry, but that isn't how that works. I have my own views, and you have your own. Don't try and force yours on me.

[Arthmoor]

I don't really see it as a question of morality, because if anyone doesn't like it they could ask for it to be removed.

It isn't just about morality, but that's one aspect. It's also not legal for it to have been done the way they did it. NONE of the mod authors were consulted, so no legal permission had been given.

 

And to be honest, I don't see any harm coming out of it.

Of course you don't, because you've shown you do not respect the rights of mod authors one bit. So why should an act of piracy bother you at all?

 

There is no way to spin it being right to trample someone's rights and expect them to come crawling over to beg for their content to be removed. That's the same kind of legal horsecrap ModDrop pulled several years ago and even THEY realized the error of their ways.