Do You Think the Delayed Creation Kit Will Have a Long Term Negative Effect on Modding?

[Reneer]

I disagree. I am fully aware the FO4 game is not an editor. I am also aware the verbiage for an editor is in fact in the EULA for the game itself. I have not implied the game is an editor, nor does the EULA imply the game is an editor. The section for the editor in the game's EULA is a separate clause and is clearly identified as such. It is not treated as a subsection of the game portion of the license. This is obvious.

We can't conveniently ignore or remove an entire applicable clause simply because it conflicts with our notions or an after-the-fact TOS. Bethesda can remove it (and they probably will when the CK is released with its own EULA). All we can do is mull this lunacy over and try to figure out what they are up to; and make ourselves crazy in the process.

The simple fact of the matter is that the FO4 EULA says "customized game materials are owned by Bethesda" while the Bethesda.Net EULA says that "game mods are owned by the mod developer". Fallout 4 game mods will be distributed through Bethesda.Net, thus they are under the EULA / TOS of Bethesda.Net and no other EULA / TOS applies until we have the EULA / TOS of the Creation Kit.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Reneer

[PoliteRaider]

 

I am fully aware the FO4 game is not an editor.

 

This does not appear consistent with the logical progression of the arguments that you have made.

 

You have continually cited a statement of "the Editor EULA takes priority" and without any further comment, reference or explanation used this to state that "the FO4 EULA takes priority".

 

Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding your argument, but as far as I can see either your logic is unsound based upon a false equivocation or you have unspecified assumptions in your logic chain that you have yet to share with us.

[WursWaldo]

I have never asserted FO4 is a game editor, only that the FO4 EULA has provison for an editor. Please quote where I said precisely that FO4 is an editor. I have maintained continuity throughout this discussion, going as far as to identify that the FO4 mods currently available were not made with an official Bethesda editor. I can't state that an editor doesn't exist and then claim FO4 is an editor. That's just silly.

 

And I still think Reneer is wrong. I agree to disagree.

[Reneer]

I have never asserted FO4 is a game editor, only that the FO4 EULA has provison for an editor. Please quote where I said precisely that FO4 is an editor. I have maintained continuity throughout this discussion, going as far as to identify that the FO4 mods currently available were not made with an official Bethesda editor. I can't state that an editor doesn't exist and then claim FO4 is an editor. That's just silly.

 

And I still think Reneer is wrong. I agree to disagree.

You said this:

So the FO4 EULA states that Bethesda owns the content. The Bethesda.net EULA states modders own the content, unless the Editor EULA says they don't (what is underlined above). And you don't own it because that is exactly what the FO4 EULA states. They aren't contradicting one another. "You own it, unless you don't."

Which is essentially saying that the FO4 EULA is an Editor Tool EULA, because it overrides the Bethesda.Net EULA. Unless you meant something else there? Edited March 29, 2016 by Reneer

[PoliteRaider]

I have never asserted FO4 is a game editor, only that the FO4 EULA has provison for an editor. Please quote where I said precisely that FO4 is an editor. I have maintained continuity throughout this discussion, going as far as to identify that the FO4 mods currently available were not made with an official Bethesda editor. I can't state that an editor doesn't exist and then claim FO4 is an editor. That's just silly.

 

And I still think Reneer is wrong. I agree to disagree.

 

I apologize but I've been as explicit and thorough in explanation as I know how, Reneer has also identified the quotation above that made me confused about the progression of your argument. At this stage we're not really managing any meaningful communication. I really don't understand the point you're making and so far as I can see you're not understanding mine. It's not really an important enough issue to try to work through whatever miscommunication has happened. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your post and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

 

At the end of the day, I'm not a lawyer anyway and it's probably a good idea to talk to a lawyer specializing in intellectual property if you have serious concerns about your legal situation with modding Bethesda games based on this EULA. Their understanding would be better than mine.

[WursWaldo]

The FO4 EULA contains licencing for two or more pieces of software. LICENSE CONDITIONS (for the game), THE SOFTWARE UTILITIES, IF ANY (for an installer and/or editor or similar tools). They are seperate, but covered in the same license. It is obvious. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see it. I never said the FO4 game is an editor. I said the editor’s license is in the FO4 EULA.

 

“If the Software makes available, as a separate downloadable installer, a level editor or other similar type tools” There it is in black and white.

Edited March 29, 2016 by WursWaldo

[Reneer]

The FO4 EULA contains licencing for two or more pieces of software. LICENSE CONDITIONS (for the game), THE SOFTWARE UTILITIES, IF ANY (for an installer and/or editor or similar tools). They are seperate, but covered in the same license. It is obvious. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see it. I never said the FO4 game is an editor. I said the editor’s license is in the FO4 EULA.

 

“If the Software makes available, as a separate downloadable installer, a level editor or other similar type tools” There it is in black and white.

I don't believe that "The Software Utilities" means the CK. It seems more that the "Software Utilities" is a level editor or similar tools. And no matter how you slice it, the CK is not just a level editor.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Reneer

[azxcvbnm321]

Do you understand why Bethesda has to claim ownership of all mods? It's to prevent themselves from being sued if they decide to make a similar DLC or make a DLC that in anyway was already touched upon by previous mods. Because there are thousands and thousands of mods, pretty much every single idea and function has already been explored. Without the EULA provision, Bethesda would never be able to issue any DLCs without the possibility of being sued. Take the Automatron DLC for example. Without the EULA, the maker of Robot Home Defense could claim that Bethesda stole his idea or was too similar to his. There were survival mods out making your character require food and sleep before Bethesda released theirs. Again Bethesda could be sued by someone trying to make a fast buck. Just about every single idea, especially good ideas, has been covered already by mods. If Bethesda doesn't claim ownership of all mods, then they face thousands and thousands of lawsuits and basically have to stop working on Fallout 4. That's why it's necessary and a good idea for Bethesda to have a provision that claims ownership.

 

On the practical level, Bethesda has never claimed ownership of any mod or all mods. They've left it to mod makers and have stated that mod makers own their content. So there is no abuse by Bethesda.

[Reneer]

Do you understand why Bethesda has to claim ownership of all mods? It's to prevent themselves from being sued if they decide to make a similar DLC or make a DLC that in anyway was already touched upon by previous mods. Because there are thousands and thousands of mods, pretty much every single idea and function has already been explored. Without the EULA provision, Bethesda would never be able to issue any DLCs without the possibility of being sued. Take the Automatron DLC for example. Without the EULA, the maker of Robot Home Defense could claim that Bethesda stole his idea or was too similar to his. There were survival mods out making your character require food and sleep before Bethesda released theirs. Again Bethesda could be sued by someone trying to make a fast buck. Just about every single idea, especially good ideas, has been covered already by mods. If Bethesda doesn't claim ownership of all mods, then they face thousands and thousands of lawsuits and basically have to stop working on Fallout 4. That's why it's necessary and a good idea for Bethesda to have a provision that claims ownership.

 

On the practical level, Bethesda has never claimed ownership of any mod or all mods. They've left it to mod makers and have stated that mod makers own their content. So there is no abuse by Bethesda.

Obviously you missed the part where the Bethesda.net EULA specifically states that mod developers own their mods. If your theory was even remotely true, they would have never included that in the EULA in the first place.

 

 

Each Game Mod is owned by the developer of the Game Mod, subject to the licenses granted by the developer to ZeniMax as set forth in the Editor EULA.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Reneer

[azxcvbnm321]

(a) All Customized Game Materials created by you are exclusively owned by LICENSOR and/or its licensors (as the case may be) and you hereby transfer, assign and convey to LICENSOR all right, title and interest in and to the Customized Game Materials and LICENSOR and its permitted licensors may use any Customized Game Materials made publicly available to you for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to for purposes of advertising and promoting the Software;

 

 

 

Like I said, in practice, Bethesda states that all mods are owned by the mod developer. Bethesda isn't trying to steal mods, they are just trying to make sure that they don't get sued for having similar ideas and releasing them in the future. That's why you have contradictory statements.

Edited March 29, 2016 by azxcvbnm321