Mod Picker: The Fearsome Juggernaut

[lofgren]

This is a public thread, and I am choosing to post in it as a mod author.

 

I am hiding all my work in protest of this. I do not want to do this as it only hurts the users, but I cannot stand for the disregard of our rights as authors to freely and graciously share our work with the public to enjoy.

 

Mod Picker and it's staff are directly responsible for putting myself and other authors in this position. Please direct all your concerns to them.

 

Regards,

 

-RB

Which right is that again?

 

Anyway, I as a mod author will not be hiding my mods. I look forward to Mod Picker's contribution to the community. To me it seems like a clear missing piece and I hope that it becomes the central hub for finding and reviewing mods, because that will make my life easier as a mod user as well as all of my fellow mod users.

[lofgren]

 

 

 

Also I really don't care if this makes modders buttmad because "muh intellectual property" or whatever, since Bethesda's games all say that you have no IP rights to mods in the first place in their EULA.

You are wrong - this position has been debunked and discredited countless times over the years.

 

Yeah I don't care what some Nexus drama queen says, I'm going by the EULA, which is, y'know, actually enforcable.

 

You should try reading said EULA first then before trying to cite it as a source. You clearly don't even know what it says.

 

Well I have read it and I'm actually curious about how this position has been "debunked." The EULA says:

 

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials. If You commit any breach of this Agreement, Your right to use the Editor under this Agreement shall automatically terminate, without notice.

That seems pretty explicit to me.

[csbx]

I've tried to monitor this thread looking for detractors of MP to spell out actual ways in which mod authors are hurt by this, but thus far I only see very odd demonstrations of paranoia, fear and a lack of understanding of what it means to make a mod (or musical piece, painting, etc.) public to the world (in short, it entails the inevitability that other people will talk about that work in places you don't have full control over).

 

I myself don't think I need MP (nor will I likely use it when my mod is released), though can see how useful it would be for many.

[Arthmoor]

Well I have read it and I'm actually curious about how this position has been "debunked." The EULA says:

 

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials. If You commit any breach of this Agreement, Your right to use the Editor under this Agreement shall automatically terminate, without notice.

That seems pretty explicit to me.

 

At least you're even reading the right one :tongue:

 

Anyway, if you read that carefully, it grants Bethesda a license to use your work. It DOES NOT grant them OWNERSHIP of your work. I realize that's not always a clear distinction, but it's legally important, because it means the copyright on the work remains with the author. Not with them.

 

Even then, their position as stated here has never been properly tested in a court case. So they may not even legally have as much as they are asserting they have.

 

What it boils down to is basically "we can use your work if we want, you can't sue us if you object".

 

At no point does this cause you to forfeit enforcing your rights against other parties. Bethesda has reinforced that they believe mod authors own their work through actions they have taken on our behalf. Valve has confirmed this by providing authors ready access to a DMCA takedown form to expedite removal of stolen content. Both companies have extensive legal teams and would not have put themselves in the position of validating author copyright if we did not actually have it.

[lofgren]

 

Well I have read it and I'm actually curious about how this position has been "debunked." The EULA says:

 

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials. If You commit any breach of this Agreement, Your right to use the Editor under this Agreement shall automatically terminate, without notice.

That seems pretty explicit to me.

 

At least you're even reading the right one :tongue:

 

Anyway, if you read that carefully, it grants Bethesda a license to use your work. It DOES NOT grant them OWNERSHIP of your work. I realize that's not always a clear distinction, but it's legally important, because it means the copyright on the work remains with the author. Not with them.

 

Even then, their position as stated here has never been properly tested in a court case. So they may not even legally have as much as they are asserting they have.

 

What it boils down to is basically "we can use your work if we want, you can't sue us if you object".

 

At no point does this cause you to forfeit enforcing your rights against other parties. Bethesda has reinforced that they believe mod authors own their work through actions they have taken on our behalf. Valve has confirmed this by providing authors ready access to a DMCA takedown form to expedite removal of stolen content. Both companies have extensive legal teams and would not have put themselves in the position of validating author copyright if we did not actually have it.

 

 

OK, I get it. Thank you for a clear and concise answer. It's the first one I have gotten in this entire thread.

[DoctaSax]

I'm still wondering which modders' rights are supposed to be violated by a site that would list, review & link back to them. It's not as if that doesn't happen already.

I get that modders prefer that people read the OP etc, but that's not a question of rights, and if we had a way of enforcing that, it would've made our lives substantially easier. :)

[sunshinenbrick]

 

The same users who cannot be 'bothered' to read tutorials and wikis??

No, the millions of users who are perfectly competent. And that's a fine comment coming from somebody who claims that Mod Picker disrespects users.

How are these incompatibilities solved? By the user? Does that not defeat the 'purpose' and take things right back to where they are now?

In order: By the user. Yes. No, it does not defeat the purpose because the purpose of the site has never been to fix mod incompatibilities. Nobody has said that is the purpose. MatorTstatementshas visited this very thread to specifically tell you that is not the purpose. This is entirely your fever dream. Get over it.

The original suggestion (and a few subsequent) was to automate and create algorithms for the process. Compiling the mods into such lists and locking them through 'compatibility patches' is where the legailty of it lies regarding the game/SDK EULA. In a sense creating a platform/client that inserts itself between the gamer and the game.

Again, you have been told that Mod Picker will not be generating compatibility patches. You have been told, repeatedly, that whatever your misconceptions were based on the original press release/advertisement, they are totally unfounded. Please stop referencing your misconceptions based on an earlier announcement as if they are in any way germaine to the conversation.

Before you ask for citation then I shall refer that you to re-read this thread and the ones I have already linked. Your refusal to do so is your choice and I will thus assume it is therefore, simple willful neglect. I cannot help you with that.

BS. It's true, I refuse to read 50+ pages of OFF TOPIC discussion in order to find the one pearl of wisdom you think is hiding there. That's not a citation. You have claimed again and again that there is a "press release" whose contents are influencing this conversation despite having been shown repeatedly to be inaccurate.1. Stop referencing this so-called press release, as you yourself have stated that it was not an accurate description of Mod Picker so who cares what it says anyway.2. OR link to the document so that the rest of us can understand what you are referring to. The only person I have seen making the claim that Mod Picker ever planned to create compatibility patches for users was YOU. You have been explicitly told that this is not factual information, yet you persist in the claim that the Mod Picker team once released an advertisement claiming it. You cannot produce this advertisement, only tell me that it is somewhere in 50+ pages of mod authors ranting and rambling about spurious concerns over Mod Picker. I'm not going to do your digging for you.

It is unfortunate that you appear unable (or maybe unwilling) to grasp some relatively simple concepts around how these things fit together. This may likewise help in giving reason as to why you may approve so vehemently of such a scheme as the one in question.

If the concepts are so simple, then why don't you explain EVEN ONE OF THEM? Instead you keep making assertions without supporting them, continually reference PROVEN FALSE information about Mod Picker, and instantly shift the goalpost whenever you find yourself unable to respond to a question. Your participation in this thread has been sleazy, dishonest, inappropriate, and hateful. It's utterly galling that you think you can get off accusing anybody of being underhanded even while casually flinging contemptuous accusations at the Mod Picker team.

I have grown somewhat exhausted of trying to explain the same things to you over and over again while making very little progress. So perhaps because of this, the fact I have already stated the pointlessness of our discussions, coupled with the quoted comment not being directed at you anyway, I would say to take this reply as a issue of courtesy and that you find another person to dicuss this with.

As long as you are here spreading misinformation I'll be here to ask you to back it up. I would respectfully ask that you simply stop lying about Mod Picker, but it appears that you are utterly committed to your dishonest and irresponsible rhetorical approach to this issue.

Well all the stuff I'd like to quote is (somewhat in/conveniently) in a private forum so I'm afraid you are forced to use your privileges. I did not choose to post it there and would be quite happy for everyone to read it as it would clear things up a lot. How the actual press release and documentation can be considered 'off topic' is quite vexing.

 

My references are specifically directed at you, based on your own statements. It is no surprise you are unable to (or perhaps choose not to) fathom figurative speech.

 

I have said both in this thread and the links I have provided you, that the priority should be to share the knowledge and skills used to mod. There is the possibility that MP can be this tool, but as of yet myself and many other authors (please see previous linked threads) do not feel it does any of these things any more efficiently than the Nexus and countless wikis/tutorials do already. There is always room for improvement and from what I have seen people are open to new ideas, but not solely at their own expense. It could be summarised as a 'give and take' thing.

 

You can deny as much as you like the facts about what was said and how it was presented, and again if you refuse to look at the evidence, it does not make it not exist.

 

I'm kinda flattered that even though you say my points are not valid and 'gibberish', you still deem it necessary to respond to me when I have stated I'd rather move on.

 

Thanks! :smile:

[SplashDamage]

I actually think a new resource might not be a bad idea in respect to "upload a mod list I currently have", and let a "user database" sort it for me, in an order that works for them, giving me a metric on how many votes (listed in positive to negative order) a particular "mod order" works. This to me would be a good "starting" point for many who would like a "set" of mods, that would have a higher probably of working, without having to learn from the ground up how to do something.

 

Coming from a history of programming, way back to the time of the Atari 800 (asm was my fav language) and I still love networking/building/programming/art/raising kids/you name it... to this day. As I've learned over the years, There's a certain amount of responsibility when someone take s a position of "authority" in a community. It just comes with the turf, there's no avoiding it. That responsibility goes beyond just to "oneself" mainly because it's the community that empowers them, believes in them, and encourages them to continue sharing "works" of all kinds. The "sharing" goes both ways. It would a bigger tragedy if "mod authors" riled the community up against something time and time again (who, being the community, would really stand behind them, "mod authors", at the drop of a hat without thought or regard), without first trying to work out the "details" then "hanging up the towel" over something they may/may not agree with or can resolve. Also, since the community is being brought in as a decisive weight against something they don't understand, having "things" public shouldv'e been a priority minute one. Otherwise the community could be used as just a power base, helping decide issues, without their full knowledge or consent.

 

Being a retired System's Analyst (an old term *cough* - shows my age - lol), I have learned to appreciate BOTH those that develop AND those that use software (things just come with the turf). Speaking of the MA (mod author) to MU (mod user) One is the reward, the other the rewarder. BOTH are one in the same, of equal weight and value. BOTH do the same for each other. And should be respected as such. Beth made a "kit" (interfaces to organize data if you will) so MA's could mod their own games, MA's make mods so MU's can mod their games, see the relation? Is Beth SMARTER than the MA's who use their "tools"? Are the MA's contractually obligated to Beth if they use said tools to support everything Beth says and does? Of course not. In fact, MA's are the ones speaking loudest against things Beth, for some reason, decides NOT to do. I wonder how MA's would feel if MU's did the same thing? Maybe take the stance, "we don't owe you anything" perhaps. That's not the best way, IMO, to deal with things that just come with the "turf" (but enough of that). If the MA doesn't like something someone is doing, PLEASE, do NOT take that out, or appear to TAKE that out on the community that has come to depend on them, whether directly/or indirectly. Allow them (the community) to understand the different points of view from both sides and decide for themselves. A shared understanding and respect from both It really is the best and healthiest way forward.

 

Now, I'm neither for or against, just thought I'd toss this in for my 2c worth. Well maybe 5c if you count interest over the years (unless I own someone money, then, I'll just stick to an alias!). Lol! Anyways, back to testing build outs and other things...

 

Edit: Half o' cup of coffee down AND I'm still misspelling words! Lol!

Edited April 26, 2016 by SplashDamage

[wolfgrimdark]

One of those who never posts in the mod author area, just no interest and really a mod user since the few mods I have are dinky little things - more things I did for myself I shared for the hell of it. After reading tons of posts (all over the net) and trying to get a feel for things I am leaning towards not liking it myself. Not because of the rating thing though. Heck that goes on constantly all over the place. People say things all the time about mods and there are already lists for mods that are good, bad, unsafe, etc. on the net.

 

I don't have any strong feelings, at the moment, either way but as I said I am leaning towards the negative for three reasons - the poor way they communicated the project to many mod authors; the potential cash-grab aspect through ads and donations; and the biggest - that you can apparently only opt-out by going through a set of steps and from what I read they will only let you opt-out if *THEY* feel you have given them a good reason. There should be no gray area here at all. If a mod author wants out they should let them get out no questions asked.

 

To me, personally, its mostly a non-issue since I don't care either way. I don't post the couple of mods/presets I do for recognition. I did it mainly because I have been a huge mod user for so long I got tired of just being a user. Because that is what we are - users. We use things versus making them. It is easier to use then create. So when I made some things for my own personal use I decided to share them in case anyone else wanted to use them - to give back to a part of the community that had given so much to me. If sharing them ever became a big hassle I would just remove them and just share with friends.

 

I also have to disagree with this:

 

....

 

BOTH are one in the same, of equal weight and value. ..

 

Frankly no. The ratio of users to authors is very disproportionate. Second most users do very little when it comes to time investment. Vast majority just download and use. Few bother to thank the author for creating it, few endorse (compared to download), and few upload images or help out by contributing in the comments. The author, on the other hand, can spend countless hours, days, weeks, months ... working on a mod for no other reason that getting some thanks in the comment and maybe seeing it get popular. So no they are not of equal weight and value. The mod author puts in way more time, work, effort, and energy into making a mod than a user does downloading it.

 

Being primarily a mod user I try hard to thank mod authors for the work. Sure a few can be temperamental or high-strung but so what? Many artists are like that. They put a lot of effort and work into their mods (talking about real mods not the 5 minute things some people post) and I see no reason why they might not be protective about the time and effort they put into things. I suspect many mod authors would make mods even without users simply because they like to create. I am just glad they share their work with us. After the whole "pay to mod" debacle it became pretty clear how self-entitled many users are. Luckily for everyone of those dweebs there are also plenty of level headed users to offset them.

[TerrorFox1234]

One of those who never posts in the mod author area, just no interest and really a mod user since the few mods I have are dinky little things - more things I did for myself I shared for the hell of it. After reading tons of posts (all over the net) and trying to get a feel for things I am leaning towards not liking it myself. Not because of the rating thing though. Heck that goes on constantly all over the place. People say things all the time about mods and there are already lists for mods that are good, bad, unsafe, etc. on the net.

 

I don't have any strong feelings, at the moment, either way but as I said I am leaning towards the negative for three reasons - the poor way they communicated the project to many mod authors; the potential cash-grab aspect through ads and donations; and the biggest - that you can apparently only opt-out by going through a set of steps and from what I read they will only let you opt-out if *THEY* feel you have given them a good reason. There should be no gray area here at all. If a mod author wants out they should let them get out no questions asked.

 

To me, personally, its mostly a non-issue since I don't care either way. I don't post the couple of mods/presets I do for recognition. I did it mainly because I have been a huge mod user for so long I got tired of just being a user. Because that is what we are - users. We use things versus making them. It is easier to use then create. So when I made some things for my own personal use I decided to share them in case anyone else wanted to use them - to give back to a part of the community that had given so much to me. If sharing them ever became a big hassle I would just remove them and just share with friends.

 

I also have to disagree with this:

 

....

 

BOTH are one in the same, of equal weight and value. ..

 

Frankly no. The ratio of users to authors is very disproportionate. Second most users do very little when it comes to time investment. Vast majority just download and use. Few bother to thank the author for creating it, few endorse (compared to download), and few upload images or help out by contributing in the comments. The author, on the other hand, can spend countless hours, days, weeks, months ... working on a mod for no other reason that getting some thanks in the comment and maybe seeing it get popular. So no they are not of equal weight and value. The mod author puts in way more time, work, effort, and energy into making a mod than a user does downloading it.

 

Being primarily a mod user I try hard to thank mod authors for the work. Sure a few can be temperamental or high-strung but so what? Many artists are like that. They put a lot of effort and work into their mods (talking about real mods not the 5 minute things some people post) and I see no reason why they might not be protective about the time and effort they put into things. I suspect many mod authors would make mods even without users simply because they like to create. I am just glad they share their work with us. After the whole "pay to mod" debacle it became pretty clear how self-entitled many users are. Luckily for everyone of those dweebs there are also plenty of level headed users to offset them.

 

Hi wolfgrimdark,

 

Do you have access to the Mod Author forums? Most of the conversation is happening there and I forgot to update here. This is our latest statement on the matter and over there we have seen a complete turnaround in the atmosphere. I'll copy/paste the post I made there which probably accounts for that shift in atmosphere:

 

Just wanted to repost this again so it doesn't get buried 5-10 pages back:

 

After much deliberation I have received word that we will be revising our beta plan pushing back the beta launch. We have not decided how long at this point but most likely a week or two.

 

We are doing this because we want to make things right. We had a vision and we were too invested in that vision to open our ears and listen to you guys. Sincerest apologies are due.

With Dark0ne's well thought out post critiquing our failures, along with the fact that many of you are still very unhappy with us, we took the time to reevaluate the way we've been approaching this.

Would that we had reached this conclusion sooner but here we are. Better late than never eh?

 

We are doing this because we want to be absolutely sure that, regardless of our disagreements over the last week, we can satisfy the actionable concerns of mod authors as expressed in this thread.

 

So here's the plan:

 

We would like to hold two betas. The first beta will be for mod authors only. We want you guys to have the first say in what needs revising/changing/improving/removing. We will follow this MA Only Beta with a discussion period so we can be absolutely sure we hit all the points.

 

Following that we will hold the closed User Beta.

 

I would also like to note that the mod author's input will hold priority over the user's. We will not just change everything in the User Beta from what was decided in the MA Beta. If the User Beta wants to change something that the Mod Author Beta decided was a bad idea we will be going with what the mod author's decided.

 

Let's stop fighting and start working together on this. We have not held your opinions in high enough regard and we are ready to change that way of thinking.

 

EDIT: Private message me if you would like to participate in the MA Beta, User Beta, or both :smile:

 

---

We are still waiting until we can speak with Dark0ne about the opt-out to make sure we don't screw that up. That should hopefully happen within the next couple days, schedules permitting.

 

So with that copy pasted here I want to make it clear that we are working hard to give MA's a bigger voice in the shape of Mod Picker. We do not want to be a platform that triumphs the user and disregards the authors that work so hard to give us these mods.

 

Let me know if you have any questions about anything :)