Trying to understand

[showler]

 

Take for instance someone who has just bought Fallout 4 (oh noes, he mentioned a Bethesda game again). They might go online and see that there are unofficial patches and stability mods and graphic upgrades and mods to make modern FPS game elements more like other modern FPS games. So they might go looking for a Collection that fixes and updates the game to 2021 standards without changing the core elements of the game itself. A Collection that gets them playing quickly even though they don't know much about the game yet.

I'm aware, though I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snotty.

 

People who play a modded game without ever having played the vanilla aren't likely to even recognize, let alone appreciate, the differences added by the mods. And when they're all added at once, they won't know which individual mod is responsible for what content in their game.

 

If you mean the "Bethesda game" part, that was directed at someone else who complains about my focus on Bethesda games. Sorry if it came off as snotty.

 

For the rest: Does it matter? If their game is improved, why do they need to know the specifics of how it was improved. If that interests them, they will seek out the information.

[Pasquale1223]

 

IIRC, the reason that Archive.org is able to do what it's doing is because they're officially recognized by the IRS as a non-profit, so they have grounds to claim that it's fair use. Don't quote me on that, because I'm not 100% sure. I just know that there's a loophole that lets them do what they're doing.

I've already posted the links on myths about copyright, they include some about why Fair Use doesn't apply in this situation. Not specific to archive.org, but in general. Last I checked there is no loophole that allows them to violate copyright at will.

 

 

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you, Arthmoor, though you do seem to be one of the few folks in this thread with some actual knowledge of copyright law.

 

I do find myself wondering if these collections may qualify as derivative works - which would violate the author's rights unless permission were obtained. And Nexus isn't providing an opt-in feature that would provide an easy way to prove permission is granted.

 

It isn't quite the basic list of favorite mods that Nexus claims it to be, but more like an anthology. The act of creating a load order, configuration, conflict resolution tools, etc. would require curators to at the very least use mod and/or filenames - which are also the IP of the author.

[Pasquale1223]

 

 

Take for instance someone who has just bought Fallout 4 (oh noes, he mentioned a Bethesda game again). They might go online and see that there are unofficial patches and stability mods and graphic upgrades and mods to make modern FPS game elements more like other modern FPS games. So they might go looking for a Collection that fixes and updates the game to 2021 standards without changing the core elements of the game itself. A Collection that gets them playing quickly even though they don't know much about the game yet.

I'm aware, though I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snotty.

 

People who play a modded game without ever having played the vanilla aren't likely to even recognize, let alone appreciate, the differences added by the mods. And when they're all added at once, they won't know which individual mod is responsible for what content in their game.

 

If you mean the "Bethesda game" part, that was directed at someone else who complains about my focus on Bethesda games. Sorry if it came off as snotty.

 

For the rest: Does it matter? If there game is improved, why do they need to know the specifics of how it was improved. If that interests them, they will seek out the information.

 

 

If they don't know how something was improved, they really aren't qualified to judge whether it was improved. They might have preferred the vanilla experience - or some other mod or configuration that changes the experience in a different way. If they're relying on modpacks instead of perusing individual mods, they'll never see a lot of what's available.

 

And they'll probably never see/acknowledge the work of the MAs who made any of it possible. That's a disservice to the MAs.

 

In an earlier post, you said this: "And, if we're lucky, some of the new people will get the bug and become the next generation of modders."

 

I find it highly unlikely that someone who relies on curated mod packs would go that route.

[showler]

 

If they don't know how something was improved, they really aren't qualified to judge whether it was improved. They might have preferred the vanilla experience - or some other mod or configuration that changes the experience in a different way. If they're relying on modpacks instead of perusing individual mods, they'll never see a lot of what's available.

They'll have seen what general improvements the Collection makes when exploring available Collections.

 

And seeing everything that is available is not necessary to enjoying a modded game.

 

 

And they'll probably never see/acknowledge the work of the MAs who made any of it possible. That's a disservice to the MAs.

Unfortunately, just as a mod author owes nothing to the mod user, the mod user owes nothing to the mod author. Everyone knows the number of people who endorse a mod is very, very low.

 

 

In an earlier post, you said this: "And, if we're lucky, some of the new people will get the bug and become the next generation of modders."

 

 

I find it highly unlikely that someone who relies on curated mod packs would go that route.

Your incredulity is not evidence. Anyone who is brought into the modding scene is a potential benefit. Just as they are a potential pain in the butt.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Take for instance someone who has just bought Fallout 4 (oh noes, he mentioned a Bethesda game again). They might go online and see that there are unofficial patches and stability mods and graphic upgrades and mods to make modern FPS game elements more like other modern FPS games. So they might go looking for a Collection that fixes and updates the game to 2021 standards without changing the core elements of the game itself. A Collection that gets them playing quickly even though they don't know much about the game yet.

I'm aware, though I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snotty.

 

People who play a modded game without ever having played the vanilla aren't likely to even recognize, let alone appreciate, the differences added by the mods. And when they're all added at once, they won't know which individual mod is responsible for what content in their game.

 

If you mean the "Bethesda game" part, that was directed at someone else who complains about my focus on Bethesda games. Sorry if it came off as snotty.

 

For the rest: Does it matter? If their game is improved, why do they need to know the specifics of how it was improved. If that interests them, they will seek out the information.

 

Considering that this site started out purely for Elder Scrolls games, (original name was TESSource after all....) referring to beth games is actually pretty accurate. Those are the games that collections are aimed at. The represent the bulk of users here.

 

 

 

IIRC, the reason that Archive.org is able to do what it's doing is because they're officially recognized by the IRS as a non-profit, so they have grounds to claim that it's fair use. Don't quote me on that, because I'm not 100% sure. I just know that there's a loophole that lets them do what they're doing.

I've already posted the links on myths about copyright, they include some about why Fair Use doesn't apply in this situation. Not specific to archive.org, but in general. Last I checked there is no loophole that allows them to violate copyright at will.

 

 

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you, Arthmoor, though you do seem to be one of the few folks in this thread with some actual knowledge of copyright law.

 

I do find myself wondering if these collections may qualify as derivative works - which would violate the author's rights unless permission were obtained. And Nexus isn't providing an opt-in feature that would provide an easy way to prove permission is granted.

 

It isn't quite the basic list of favorite mods that Nexus claims it to be, but more like an anthology. The act of creating a load order, configuration, conflict resolution tools, etc. would require curators to at the very least use mod and/or filenames - which are also the IP of the author.

 

You gave Nexus permission to distribute your mods merely by dint of uploading it here. There are no caveats on just HOW it is distributed.

[kittybrod]

 

 

 

Take for instance someone who has just bought Fallout 4 (oh noes, he mentioned a Bethesda game again). They might go online and see that there are unofficial patches and stability mods and graphic upgrades and mods to make modern FPS game elements more like other modern FPS games. So they might go looking for a Collection that fixes and updates the game to 2021 standards without changing the core elements of the game itself. A Collection that gets them playing quickly even though they don't know much about the game yet.

I'm aware, though I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snotty.

 

People who play a modded game without ever having played the vanilla aren't likely to even recognize, let alone appreciate, the differences added by the mods. And when they're all added at once, they won't know which individual mod is responsible for what content in their game.

 

If you mean the "Bethesda game" part, that was directed at someone else who complains about my focus on Bethesda games. Sorry if it came off as snotty.

 

For the rest: Does it matter? If there game is improved, why do they need to know the specifics of how it was improved. If that interests them, they will seek out the information.

 

 

If they don't know how something was improved, they really aren't qualified to judge whether it was improved. They might have preferred the vanilla experience - or some other mod or configuration that changes the experience in a different way. If they're relying on modpacks instead of perusing individual mods, they'll never see a lot of what's available.

 

And they'll probably never see/acknowledge the work of the MAs who made any of it possible. That's a disservice to the MAs.

 

In an earlier post, you said this: "And, if we're lucky, some of the new people will get the bug and become the next generation of modders."

 

I find it highly unlikely that someone who relies on curated mod packs would go that route.

 

As someone who started out modding Morrowind, and has played Bethesda games, I often do start out looking for good mods to enhance my experience, because I know where the games usually lack (variety) and what I tend to like (variety). I also will often read reviews to see what other players feel the game lacks, and look at screenshots of that game to see if there might be areas that I feel could be improved. Basically I do research on games before I start playing them, because I Know what I like.

 

Way back when, when I was modding morrowind, there were all sorts of 'this is an essential mod play list' aimed at people who wanted specific things, and wanted the mods to play that way. They had to download each one individually yeah, but there were many people who wanted to know what mods were compatible, what mods just hated each other, and what mods just ignored each other but still could exist in the same playthrough. Did all those people play Morrowind first? maybe, maybe not. At that time, they probably did, because modding games was relatively 'new' and so the first thought of potential players wasn't to immediately hit up a mod list.

 

But, that has changed. Modding is much more the 'norm' and so even newer players are quite aware that mods exist, and probably often go looking for mods that make the game more 'their style', based upon what they heard, what they have seen, and sometimes even what they have played.

 

As for mod users turning into mod authors? It definitely does happen. Even with a curated list (which I don't use because I am very picky over the mods I use, and most 'lists' include mods I don't want to use), as the person plays they will start to realize that there are areas that are 'lacking' and thus will most likely go looking for mods that fill those areas, and if they can't find them? they very well could start looking into figuring out how to mod the game themselves to fill that niche.

 

I am doing that right now. I have some mods that are wonderful, but I feel that they just lack some things, so I am trying to figure out how to mod Fallout 4 so that I can include those things.

 

I personally have no use for the 'collections' feature (and don't use vortex anyway) but I can see how some players would love it, especially as it can be daunting with some games to try to get into modding, to know 'does this mod conflict with that mod, do I need that mod for this other mod, this mod says it needs this, but then down here says no, it doesn't so what do I do', so being able to go find 'top 10 mods that add buildable structures to Fallout 4' and know that those mods will all work together is what some people want. (not me, I prefer having control over things rather than rely on someone else to pick everything I want :P)

[Arthmoor]

 

 

IIRC, the reason that Archive.org is able to do what it's doing is because they're officially recognized by the IRS as a non-profit, so they have grounds to claim that it's fair use. Don't quote me on that, because I'm not 100% sure. I just know that there's a loophole that lets them do what they're doing.

I've already posted the links on myths about copyright, they include some about why Fair Use doesn't apply in this situation. Not specific to archive.org, but in general. Last I checked there is no loophole that allows them to violate copyright at will.

 

 

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you, Arthmoor, though you do seem to be one of the few folks in this thread with some actual knowledge of copyright law.

 

I do find myself wondering if these collections may qualify as derivative works - which would violate the author's rights unless permission were obtained. And Nexus isn't providing an opt-in feature that would provide an easy way to prove permission is granted.

 

It isn't quite the basic list of favorite mods that Nexus claims it to be, but more like an anthology. The act of creating a load order, configuration, conflict resolution tools, etc. would require curators to at the very least use mod and/or filenames - which are also the IP of the author.

 

Assuming what we've been told is actually true, then no, a list of links to mods is just that, a list. It has nothing to do with one's copyright.

 

But therein lies the problem. Needing to trust that what we've been told so far is accurate and won't change later.

 

For instance, if that "list" turns out to come with a conflict resolution patch associated with it, that patch requires permission from the various mod authors because THAT is a derivative work. Distribution of such a thing would violate the mod author's copyright without their express permission.

 

It's another matter entirely if instead the Collection has a list of instructions to pass to Vortex on how to generate that patch on the fly on the user's PC. While this is also technically a copyright violation (the right to modify is exclusive to the holder) it's for all practical purposes not something you could enforce. For BGS games, most of us do this part already in the form of Bashed Patches and/or following The Method. But I don't really expect the Vortex devs would be able to figure that out when they can't even make the system tolerant of a file deletion. :P

[Raptilize]

Personally I don't have any intention of uploading here and I'll probably just keep my amateur file tinkering to myself. I mean what if I accidentally uploaded an asset that I shouldn't have in my mod? Something that someone else had a claim to but I unintentionally mixed into my mod assets. The fact that someone would be able to propagate that on my behalf, potentially compounding my indiscretion, leaving me no ability to rectify it without taking formal action is not very appealing. A casual mistake on my part could end up forcing me to take unwarranted and costly legal action, just to keep myself from being fined for $500,000 or whatever the going rate is for infringement.

I'm not a very smart person and I make mistakes all the time, there is literally no way I'm putting myself in that situation as an amateur modder and file tinkerer. Regardless of what anybody here says, the judge is probably going to say I'm the one responsible for my uploads, not Nexusmods. That would make me the beneficiary of lifelong debt that I can't really afford lol.

For those of you questioning my LOLs, that one was more of a nervous LOL than an all out Hee Haw Hooey. Its been brought up enough I feel the need to explain ....LOL

[Guest deleted34304850]

 

 

 

IIRC, the reason that Archive.org is able to do what it's doing is because they're officially recognized by the IRS as a non-profit, so they have grounds to claim that it's fair use. Don't quote me on that, because I'm not 100% sure. I just know that there's a loophole that lets them do what they're doing.

I've already posted the links on myths about copyright, they include some about why Fair Use doesn't apply in this situation. Not specific to archive.org, but in general. Last I checked there is no loophole that allows them to violate copyright at will.

 

 

I don't mean to direct this specifically at you, Arthmoor, though you do seem to be one of the few folks in this thread with some actual knowledge of copyright law.

 

I do find myself wondering if these collections may qualify as derivative works - which would violate the author's rights unless permission were obtained. And Nexus isn't providing an opt-in feature that would provide an easy way to prove permission is granted.

 

It isn't quite the basic list of favorite mods that Nexus claims it to be, but more like an anthology. The act of creating a load order, configuration, conflict resolution tools, etc. would require curators to at the very least use mod and/or filenames - which are also the IP of the author.

 

Assuming what we've been told is actually true, then no, a list of links to mods is just that, a list. It has nothing to do with one's copyright.

 

But therein lies the problem. Needing to trust that what we've been told so far is accurate and won't change later.

 

For instance, if that "list" turns out to come with a conflict resolution patch associated with it, that patch requires permission from the various mod authors because THAT is a derivative work. Distribution of such a thing would violate the mod author's copyright without their express permission.

 

It's another matter entirely if instead the Collection has a list of instructions to pass to Vortex on how to generate that patch on the fly on the user's PC. While this is also technically a copyright violation (the right to modify is exclusive to the holder) it's for all practical purposes not something you could enforce. For BGS games, most of us do this part already in the form of Bashed Patches and/or following The Method. But I don't really expect the Vortex devs would be able to figure that out when they can't even make the system tolerant of a file deletion. :tongue:

 

i asked in a few posts that if a list is just a list and something on that list is no longer available, why does it break? after all, a list is just a list.

 

it is quite obvious that this very basic explanation that was given is not at all accurate, and this is one of the many reasons i have zero trust in nexusmods any more. i don't think at any point in this whole debacle, the truth has been told even once and when challenged on any part of it, the response has been along the lines of this is our decision, accept it or leave.

[Guest deleted34304850]

Personally I don't have any intention of uploading here and I'll probably just keep my amateur file tinkering to myself. I mean what if I accidentally uploaded an asset that I shouldn't have in my mod? Something that someone else had a claim to but I unintentionally mixed into my mod assets. The fact that someone would be able to propagate that on my behalf, potentially compounding my indiscretion, leaving me no ability to rectify it without taking formal action is not very appealing. A casual mistake on my part could end up forcing me to take unwarranted and costly legal action, just to keep myself from being fined for $500,000 or whatever the going rate is for infringement.

in that situation - whatever you uploaded would be deleted.

 

oh but wait a minute, it is said that if something is deleted, it breaks the back end. hence the whole "we'll archive it instead" approach.

 

that wide open contradiction has been so far unanswered.

 

if a delete of a file breaks the back end, and the solution is to never delete anything - then how can you delete something that breaks the tos without breaking the back end?

just going on what has been explained previously in the very verbose (yet strangely detail free) statement.

 

the explanations given up to this point have been so water tight and so detailed and i am certain that my misunderstandings are my own.