Mod Picker: The Fearsome Juggernaut

[dpgillam]

Pure and simple: no. Hell no. bloody f^&king hell no.

 

And its not my opinion nor decision

 

The 3 mods I have "unhidden" on Nexus all use assets that require no hosting elsewhere, especially steam. I cant block, "un-opt" or in any other way prevent these pirates from forcing me, against my will, to break the agreements I made in order to use those assets? Granted, this has all "gentleman's agreement" and "verbal" contract so far, rather than lawyerese court-binding documentation, but for anyone with honor and integrity, that is all that is necessary. What these pirates are going to do, apparently either with or without our approval, is turn us all into plagiarists-by-proxy, break almost every single agreement for resource sharing that has allowed modding to exist this long, and draw the attention of the copyright lawyers to all the conversions that get overlooked currently.

 

This is why professional computer design (hardware or soft) are required to have non-computer people grounded in reality as a part of the team - to warn about all the "analog" situations the "binary" thinking computer people cant understand.

[lofgren]

Well I certainly didn't understand any of that! What exactly is a plagiarist-by-proxy anyway?

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren

[sunshinenbrick]

 

Becasue the author is automatically opted in, it means a second 'affiliate page' is created providing 'official' reviews and support for the mod even though the author might not know about it, or want to support the mod outside the place they uploaded it.

 

It fine to make the service, but just don't link it through to the author's page unless they choose to do so themselves.

I'd like to see pics of the Mod Picker UI saying "Official" and "Affiliate Page." Because I agree that would be straight-up dishonest. Especially since the prime attraction of Mod Picker is the unofficial, peer-to-peer support it provides. I would be surprised if Mod Picker would risk their reputation by labeling their reviews "official" and modders they have no connection as "affiliates" when neither appellation really improves their product.

 

Yeah, Web 3.0 has been going on for a long time now. I'm pretty sure most users will recognize the difference between a review/aggregator site and an actual product site. Those that don't, so what? So morons who aren't willing to learn how to install their mods properly will never figure out that Mod Picker's review page is not the mod author's page and you never see their comment saying "You broke my game!" We hate those people anyway! Another layer of insulation from them would be just dandy.

 

And seriously, "don't like to the author's page?" From a page about their mod? You have got to be joking. If you don't want people to link to your mod, don't post it to the Web. That is your only option. Nobody needs your permission to link to your page.

 

 

Like I said, things have changed a fair bit from how the project was introduced. It also comes not too long after a similar scheme was suggested in which the people involved were actually malicious, so I can appreciate the apprehension of other authors even if I wasn't really there at the time.

 

I think the important thing for some authors, not all of course, is that it is clear that the Mod Picker page is not representitive of thier views. This, along with the automatic opt-in (originally no opt-out option either...) is what has brustled a few feathers round here - and I certainly don't blame them. People should all be able to choose to dissacociate themselves with things they don't want to support or be a part of, and people are allowed to request links and content to be taken down that they feel violates a terms of service or licence agreement (whether it their own, the Nexus', or even Bethesda's themselves).

[sunshinenbrick]

Well I certainly didn't understand any of that! What exactly is a plagiarist-by-proxy anyway?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. A highly legitimate concern.

[lofgren]

I think the important thing for some authors, not all of course, is that it is clear that the Mod Picker page is not representitive of thier views. This, along with the automatic opt-in (originally no opt-out option either...)

I still don't even think they should have an opt-out.

 

We should all be able to choose to dissacociate ourselves with things we don't want to support or be a part of,

I completely agree. If you don't want to associate with Mod Picker, don't go there. Nobody is going to force you to use the service.

 

But if you are going to make mods publicly available, then you have given up the right to control who links to them. I know a lot of people want to treat the Internet like it's not a public forum, but it is. By participating in this community, you open yourself up to be talked about, linked to, reviewed, and tagged. There is just no getting around it.

 

and people are allowed to request links and content to be taken down that they feel violates a terms of service or licence agreement (whether it their own, the Nexus', or even Bethesda's themselves).

Agreed. If any link or content on Mod Picker violates Mod Picker's terms of service, you should request that it be taken down.

[JUNKdeLUXE]

Pure and simple: no. Hell no. bloody f^&king hell no.

 

And its not my opinion nor decision

 

The 3 mods I have "unhidden" on Nexus all use assets that require no hosting elsewhere, especially steam. I cant block, "un-opt" or in any other way prevent these pirates from forcing me, against my will, to break the agreements I made in order to use those assets? Granted, this has all "gentleman's agreement" and "verbal" contract so far, rather than lawyerese court-binding documentation, but for anyone with honor and integrity, that is all that is necessary. What these pirates are going to do, apparently either with or without our approval, is turn us all into plagiarists-by-proxy, break almost every single agreement for resource sharing that has allowed modding to exist this long, and draw the attention of the copyright lawyers to all the conversions that get overlooked currently.

 

This is why professional computer design (hardware or soft) are required to have non-computer people grounded in reality as a part of the team - to warn about all the "analog" situations the "binary" thinking computer people cant understand.

Huh?

 

It sounds to me as you're attacking Mod Picker for pirating your mods and offer them on their website... nothing is further from the truth.

[lofgren]

 

Well I certainly didn't understand any of that! What exactly is a plagiarist-by-proxy anyway?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. A highly legitimate concern.

 

 

 

So you can explain it then?

 

I can imagine a situation where somebody says "Here, let's use this in our group project. I wrote it." Then that turns out to be plagiarism and rest of the group is implicated by proxy, but I have no idea how that relates to modding.

[JUNKdeLUXE]

 

We should all be able to choose to dissacociate ourselves with things we don't want to support or be a part of,

I completely agree. If you don't want to associate with Mod Picker, don't go there. Nobody is going to force you to use the service.

 

But if you are going to make mods publicly available, then you have given up the right to control who links to them. I know a lot of people want to treat the Internet like it's not a public forum, but it is. By participating in this community, you open yourself up to be talked about, linked to, reviewed, and tagged. There is just no getting around it.

 

True... it's not like you can opt-out of getting your mod (or anything really) reviewed or talked about on Youtube etc.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

I think the important thing for some authors, not all of course, is that it is clear that the Mod Picker page is not representitive of thier views. This, along with the automatic opt-in (originally no opt-out option either...)

I still don't even think they should have an opt-out.

 

We should all be able to choose to dissacociate ourselves with things we don't want to support or be a part of,

I completely agree. If you don't want to associate with Mod Picker, don't go there. Nobody is going to force you to use the service.

 

But if you are going to make mods publicly available, then you have given up the right to control who links to them. I know a lot of people want to treat the Internet like it's not a public forum, but it is. By participating in this community, you open yourself up to be talked about, linked to, reviewed, and tagged. There is just no getting around it.

 

and people are allowed to request links and content to be taken down that they feel violates a terms of service or licence agreement (whether it their own, the Nexus', or even Bethesda's themselves).

Agreed. If any link or content on Mod Picker violates Mod Picker's terms of service, you should request that it be taken down.

 

 

Mod Picker comes with a client that compiles information about an author's mod and then uses that information to power how Mod Picker works.

 

The association is already being made and without an opt-out then how is that allowing the author a choice?

 

People are already doing just as you suggest.

 

 

 

 

Well I certainly didn't understand any of that! What exactly is a plagiarist-by-proxy anyway?

 

Makes perfect sense to me. A highly legitimate concern.

 

 

 

So you can explain it then?

 

I can imagine a situation where somebody says "Here, let's use this in our group project. I wrote it." Then that turns out to be plagiarism and rest of the group is implicated by proxy, but I have no idea how that relates to modding.

 

 

The point is that not all mods on the Nexus are not made from derivatives. So by content being uploaded through a client will likely be violating numerous licence agreements.

 

 

 

 

We should all be able to choose to dissacociate ourselves with things we don't want to support or be a part of,

I completely agree. If you don't want to associate with Mod Picker, don't go there. Nobody is going to force you to use the service.

 

But if you are going to make mods publicly available, then you have given up the right to control who links to them. I know a lot of people want to treat the Internet like it's not a public forum, but it is. By participating in this community, you open yourself up to be talked about, linked to, reviewed, and tagged. There is just no getting around it.

 

True... it's not like you can opt-out of getting your mod (or anything really) reviewed or talked about on Youtube etc.

 

 

Youtube is like a digital magazine or TV show. If they want to offically represent or affiliate with a product or whatever then royalties have to be paid and licences obtained.

 

Companies take stuff down on the Internet all the time. The stuff that gets left up is usually deliberate because it actually promotes the product in a positive way somehow - even if critically. Other than that yes, it is a public space within the guidelines of whoever it is that is hosting the content, and they TOO remove things that violate codes of conduct and such quite often as well.

[lofgren]

Mod Picker comes with a client that compiles information about an author's mod and then uses that information to power how Mod Picker works.

 

The association is already being made and without an opt-out then how is that allowing the author a choice?

Why should the author get a choice? What association are you referring to? Are you saying that Mod Picker is claiming to be officially connected, or affiliated with the mods that get reviewed on its site? How and where are they doing this?

 

The point is that not all mods on the Nexus are not made from derivatives. So by content being uploaded through a client will likely be violating numerous licence agreements.

First of all, as I understand the temporary solution that allowed modders to upload an ESP to Mod Picker in order to scan for inconsistencies has already been scrapped. So this part of the conversation is essentially moot.

 

Second, I'm not sure that uploading a file to a service without the intent to redistribute actually violates a TOS. It's possible that some modders might specify that you are not allowed to upload their esp anywhere for any reason, but frankly I wouldn't mind seeing a TOS restriction like that challenged in court anyway.

 

Youtube is like a digital magazine or TV show.

 

This shows a monumental ignorance of what YouTube is. Having seen this response from you, I now understand why you are so concerned. If you can't tell the difference between YouTube and a TV show then you are simply hopelessly confused about how the Internet works.

 

If they want to offically represent or affiliate with a product or whatever then royalties have to be paid and licences obtained.

This is absolutely true. But also irrelevant because you have yet to establish that Mod Picker does any of these things. You can go on YouTube right now and see hours upon hours of videos reviewing products that the companies are totally helpless to have taken down.

 

Companies take stuff down on the Internet all the time. The stuff that gets left up is usually deliberate because it actually promotes the product in a positive way somehow - even if critically. Other than that yes, it is a public space within the guidelines of whoever it is that is hosting the content, and they TOO remove things that violate codes of conduct and such quite often as well.

Yes, they get things taken down that violate their copyright or their TOS. Are you asserting that Mod Picker does one of these things? SHOW YOUR GODDAMN WORK. I've only asked the same question of every single one of your assertions and so far not one solid answer. You must realize how sleazy it is to passive-aggressively imply that Mod Picker is in violation of the law without actually backing that statement up.

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren