Mod Picker: The Fearsome Juggernaut

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Also this has absolutely nothing to do with plagiarism. For the record.

[matortheeternal]

Mod Page:

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/5WkQXiB.png

 

 

 

 

Nothing about being official or affiliates anywhere. All content is presented as being the word of a user, not as some objective fact endorsed by Mod Picker or the Mod Author.

 

Mod Analysis:

 

 

Archive/asset file analysis will be achieved through a standalone application the user will run on the archive. This will map assets inside the archive in addition assets inside of BSAs inside of the archive. This allows us to tell users when mods have file/asset conflicts, sort of like Mod Organizer currently does, and also opens the door for interesting statistical analysis such as what files are often overridden, and an understanding of what naming conventions there are in the community (if any). The key purpose however is detecting asset conflicts.

 

http://www.github.co...od-asset-mapper <-- this is the GitHub repository for the asset mapper.

 

The only file uploaded for the asset conflicts is a JSON file which is a list of the asset paths in the archive. E.g.
http://puu.sh/oso5A.json

 

Here's what the entirely temporary GUI for the asset mapper looks like:

http://puu.sh/osoUo.png

 

Plugin analysis is also something we could perform on the user side (and plan to). Before we realized the advantages of performing this analysis client side some our development had been geared towards being able to do it server side. The way that would work is the user would upload any plugin files associated with the mod. These files will then be analyzed by our server, producing a dump. The files would never be made publicly available or distributed. NOTE: When the legality of a user uploading a plugin file was shown to be questionable, we scrapped this. Plugin dumps will now be produced client side as well.

 

http://www.github.co...ternal/mod-dump <-- this is the GitHub repository for mod-dump, which produces the dumps of information

 

Mod dump will produce the following information on plugins:

• Filename
• File size
• File hash (CRC32)
• Masters
• Number of records
• Number of override records
• Description
• Override records
  • Signature
  • FormID
• Errors
  • ITMs - Identical to Master records
  • ITPOs - Identical to Previous Override records
  • UDRs - Undelete and Disable References
  • UESs - Unexpected Subrecords
  • URRs - Unresolved References
  • UERs - Unexpected References
• Record groups
  • Group signature
  • New records
  • Override records

 

We posted about this in our first reddit progress report here:

https://www.reddit.c...gress_report_1/

 

Here is an image of what the dumped information looks like in the command line:

http://puu.sh/msLhb.png

 

Here's a recent dump:

http://puu.sh/osoJH.json

Here is an archive of 128 dumps produced from Skyrim plugins: (a bit out of date, the dump format has changed a bit)

http://puu.sh/mp5u2.zip

 

 

Plugin analysis does not produce any quantifiable or structural information on plugins beyond basic composition (record distribution). This will allow for plugin categorization, and will function sort of like LOOT's masterlist (which allows users to submit things about cleaning plugins). The advantage over the LOOT masterlist is we actually get the exact errors in the plugin files, so we are never incorrect in that regard. This is purely factual information on the plugin that is analyzed. In terms of versions - it is up to site maintainers to upload updated plugin dumps for new mod versions, but generally speaking a plugin file is associated with a specific mod version, so whenever a new mod version is added a new plugin (or plugins) for that version will also be added.

 

Having plugin "records" in our database allows us to help a user build a load order ON the site itself and quantify the ways in which plugins override each other (like how LOOT does).

 

 

Derivative works does not include descriptions of the work. A dump which produces statistics on the composition of a plugin file is no more a derivative work than a description of the Mona Lisa is a derivative work of the painting itself.

 

 

-Mator

[lofgren]

Thank you matortheeternal. To me this looks fine and I suspect most users will understand the purpose of such a site. But then I tend to believe that "users should not be seen, and are not, people who cannot do things," things like participate in a crowd source aggregator-review site (like they do on thousands of areas of their life already).

[sunshinenbrick]

 

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.

 

 

Again you seem to have omitted the parts of the discussion where I have mentioned that things have changed and the reason for people reacting the way they have is because it wasn't presented this way to begin with. Perhaps that is a result of poor planning or simply not realising the issues behind it.

 

A lot of what I have been explaining is the reason why people may feel apprehensive or unconvinced, especially by a platform or model that hasn't actually been tested yet. This accounts for speculation of both sides of the table and admittedly retracts a great deal from some of the points I have been trying to make.

 

In a way the damage has been done, and it is a case of trying to fix what common ground there is left.

 

Why shouldn't the author have a choice if the service is claiming authority over the mod. Which even if it isn't doing explicitly, it is still doing it implicitly.

 

Sorry, 'show' was not the correct word. Station or, rather media platform, was what I was trying to imply. If a TV network has products and views on its shows and infomercials or whatever they can't just go do that willy nilly as they see fit. Well I suppose they could but then they have to risk the possible consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Also this has absolutely nothing to do with plagiarism. For the record.

 

 

It is taking other people's work and then claiming as though you had done it yourself, or rather that they gave you permission to do so. Which is obviously the very apex of what we are thumbing around.

[sunshinenbrick]

Mod Page:

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/5WkQXiB.png

 

 

 

 

Nothing about being official or affiliates anywhere. All content is presented as being the word of a user, not as some objective fact endorsed by Mod Picker or the Mod Author.

 

Mod Analysis:

 

 

Archive/asset file analysis will be achieved through a standalone application the user will run on the archive. This will map assets inside the archive in addition assets inside of BSAs inside of the archive. This allows us to tell users when mods have file/asset conflicts, sort of like Mod Organizer currently does, and also opens the door for interesting statistical analysis such as what files are often overridden, and an understanding of what naming conventions there are in the community (if any). The key purpose however is detecting asset conflicts.

 

http://www.github.co...od-asset-mapper <-- this is the GitHub repository for the asset mapper.

 

The only file uploaded for the asset conflicts is a JSON file which is a list of the asset paths in the archive. E.g.

http://puu.sh/oso5A.json

 

Here's what the entirely temporary GUI for the asset mapper looks like:

http://puu.sh/osoUo.png

 

Plugin analysis is also something we could perform on the user side (and plan to). Before we realized the advantages of performing this analysis client side some our development had been geared towards being able to do it server side. The way that would work is the user would upload any plugin files associated with the mod. These files will then be analyzed by our server, producing a dump. The files would never be made publicly available or distributed. NOTE: When the legality of a user uploading a plugin file was shown to be questionable, we scrapped this. Plugin dumps will now be produced client side as well.

 

http://www.github.co...ternal/mod-dump <-- this is the GitHub repository for mod-dump, which produces the dumps of information

 

Mod dump will produce the following information on plugins:

• Filename
• File size
• File hash (CRC32)
• Masters
• Number of records
• Number of override records
• Description
• Override records
  • Signature
  • FormID
• Errors
  • ITMs - Identical to Master records
  • ITPOs - Identical to Previous Override records
  • UDRs - Undelete and Disable References
  • UESs - Unexpected Subrecords
  • URRs - Unresolved References
  • UERs - Unexpected References
• Record groups
  • Group signature
  • New records
  • Override records

 

We posted about this in our first reddit progress report here:

https://www.reddit.c...gress_report_1/

 

Here is an image of what the dumped information looks like in the command line:

http://puu.sh/msLhb.png

 

Here's a recent dump:

http://puu.sh/osoJH.json

Here is an archive of 128 dumps produced from Skyrim plugins: (a bit out of date, the dump format has changed a bit)

http://puu.sh/mp5u2.zip

 

 

Plugin analysis does not produce any quantifiable or structural information on plugins beyond basic composition (record distribution). This will allow for plugin categorization, and will function sort of like LOOT's masterlist (which allows users to submit things about cleaning plugins). The advantage over the LOOT masterlist is we actually get the exact errors in the plugin files, so we are never incorrect in that regard. This is purely factual information on the plugin that is analyzed. In terms of versions - it is up to site maintainers to upload updated plugin dumps for new mod versions, but generally speaking a plugin file is associated with a specific mod version, so whenever a new mod version is added a new plugin (or plugins) for that version will also be added.

 

Having plugin "records" in our database allows us to help a user build a load order ON the site itself and quantify the ways in which plugins override each other (like how LOOT does).

 

 

Derivative works does not include descriptions of the work. A dump which produces statistics on the composition of a plugin file is no more a derivative work than a description of the Mona Lisa is a derivative work of the painting itself.

 

 

-Mator

 

You are moderating the site though right? So therfore you will be officiating the voice of those work which people will be discussing. As an optional opt-in model? No problem whatsoever. But as an automatic opt-in then it is presumptious and infringing.

 

Mining work and products for statistics and data so as to create algorithms in order to change its purpose and scope, and creating new 'products' (bug fixes etc...) is a form of trading encroachment as well as a derivative. Not only that, but it could even turn into a case of libel if things were not handled correctly.

 

I'm not saying it can't be useful far from it, I can see the potantial, but the assertions being used in it's implementation are questionable if not under-handed.

 

The Mona Lisa example is fine as long as it is only 'sold' as such. But if it somehow was being linked back to the original, or even being advertised and better designed, then people have every right to call it for what it is.

[lofgren]

Again you seem to have omitted the parts of the discussion where I have mentioned that things have changed and the reason for people reacting the way they have is because it wasn't presented this way to begin with. Perhaps that is a result of poor planning or simply not realising the issues behind it.

Fine. Please cite for me one substantive criticism of Mod Picker based on the current design and intent. Because right now I can't tell what you are saying would be hypothetically wrong with the initial proposal vs. what you are saying is currently wrong.

 

A lot of what I have been explaining is the reason why people may feel apprehensive or unconvinced, especially by a platform or model that hasn't actually been tested yet.

The model has been pretty well tested at this point. Let's look at some comparisons:

 

• http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/
  • A site where college students can review and rate their professors. I won't say "nobody" believes that this is the professor's official website, because we all know there are those few special someones who won't get it, but for the most part users seem perfectly aware of Rate My Professor's relationship to the actual professors.
• http://download.cnet.com/
  • CNet hosts user reviews and aggregates ratings for thousands of pieces of software. Again, yeah, a few fools probably think that CNet is the creator of all of these pieces of software, but the typical user understands the role of these types of sites in modern consumption
• http://candlefind.com/candle-reviews/
  • Candlefind hosts user reviews of candle companies and aggregates ratings of their products.

These websites exist already and get used by millions of people on a daily basis. Well, maybe not the candle one. At this point saying that the model is "untested" is exaggeration at best.

 

Why shouldn't the author have a choice if the service is claiming authority over the mod. Which even if it isn't doing explicitly, it is still doing it implicitly.

This sentence is emblematic of my frustration.

 

Absolutely no one should claim authority over a mod except the author or those to whom they have granted explicit permission.

 

I see no evidence that Mod Picker is doing this. You assert that they are doing so "implicitly." HOW? What about this service implies authority over the mod? Why do you believe that users will have difficulty with this particular iteration of this type of service when they seem to be able to make use of the examples linked above? What's so goddamn confusing to users about mods, even though the understand the role of such sites in almost every other area of their lives?

 

Station or, rather media platform, was what I was trying to imply. If a TV network has products and views on its shows and infomercials or whatever they can't just go do that willy nilly as they see fit. Well I suppose they could but then they have to risk the possible consequences.

Still not like YouTube. Those new YouTube produced shows, sure, but that is a tiny fraction of what YouTube is. Again, YouTube videos routinely feature reviews of products and basic information about them, in fact often that information is more in depth than what Mod Picker proposes to collect.

 

It is taking other people's work and then claiming as though you had done it yourself, or rather that they gave you permission to do so. Which is obviously the very apex of what we are thumbing around.

No it's not. Nobody is doing that. You and others repeatedly assert that Mod Picker "implicitly" claims that it has some kind of authority or affiliation with the mods that get reviewed on its site. You really need to demonstrate this because it is getting sleazier and sleazier by the second.

[lofgren]

But as an automatic opt-in then it is presumptious and infringing.

I don't buy this for a second. Link to the law please.

 

Mining work and products for statistics and data so as to create algorithms in order to change its purpose and scope, and creating new 'products' (bug fixes etc...) is a form of trading encroachment as well as a derivative. Not only that, but it could even turn into a case of libel if things were not handled correctly.

Given the extent of corporate protectionism in the US I accept this might be true but I still need to see some evidence that 1. This is an accurate description of the law and 2. That Mod Picker plans to release bug fixes for mods. I'd also like an explanation of how a dispute over intellectual property could turn into a case of libel "if things were not handled correctly."

 

I'm not saying it can't be useful far from it, I can see the potantial,

Usefulness is irrelevant. We are talking about legality.

 

but the assertions being used in it's implementation are questionable if not under-handed.

 

Talk about libel!

 

The Mona Lisa example is fine as long as it is only 'sold' as such. But if it somehow was being linked back to the original, or even being advertised and better designed, then people have every right to call it for what it is.

Just so we're clear, if Mod Picker collects data about your mods, that's OK, unless they also provide a link to the mods somewhere on its website, in which case the are claiming implicit authority over it?

 

That's, um, pretty ridiculous?

 

Also, doesn't every single criticism of Mod Picker also apply to LOOT and BOSS? When are we going to start legal action against them?

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren

[sunshinenbrick]

 

Again you seem to have omitted the parts of the discussion where I have mentioned that things have changed and the reason for people reacting the way they have is because it wasn't presented this way to begin with. Perhaps that is a result of poor planning or simply not realising the issues behind it.

Fine. Please cite for me one substantive criticism of Mod Picker based on the current design and intent. Because right now I can't tell what you are saying would be hypothetically wrong with the initial proposal vs. what you are saying is currently wrong.

 

A lot of what I have been explaining is the reason why people may feel apprehensive or unconvinced, especially by a platform or model that hasn't actually been tested yet.

The model has been pretty well tested at this point. Let's look at some comparisons:

 

• http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/
  • A site where college students can review and rate their professors. I won't say "nobody" believes that this is the professor's official website, because we all know there are those few special someones who won't get it, but for the most part users seem perfectly aware of Rate My Professor's relationship to the actual professors.
• http://download.cnet.com/
  • CNet hosts user reviews and aggregates ratings for thousands of pieces of software. Again, yeah, a few fools probably think that CNet is the creator of all of these pieces of software, but the typical user understands the role of these types of sites in modern consumption
• http://candlefind.com/candle-reviews/
  • Candlefind hosts user reviews of candle companies and aggregates ratings of their products.

These websites exist already and get used by millions of people on a daily basis. Well, maybe not the candle one. At this point saying that the model is "untested" is exaggeration at best.

 

Why shouldn't the author have a choice if the service is claiming authority over the mod. Which even if it isn't doing explicitly, it is still doing it implicitly.

This sentence is emblematic of my frustration.

 

Absolutely no one should claim authority over a mod except the author or those to whom they have granted explicit permission.

 

I see no evidence that Mod Picker is doing this. You assert that they are doing so "implicitly." HOW? What about this service implies authority over the mod? Why do you believe that users will have difficulty with this particular iteration of this type of service when they seem to be able to make use of the examples linked above? What's so goddamn confusing to users about mods, even though the understand the role of such sites in almost every other area of their lives?

 

Station or, rather media platform, was what I was trying to imply. If a TV network has products and views on its shows and infomercials or whatever they can't just go do that willy nilly as they see fit. Well I suppose they could but then they have to risk the possible consequences.

Still not like YouTube. Those new YouTube produced shows, sure, but that is a tiny fraction of what YouTube is. Again, YouTube videos routinely feature reviews of products and basic information about them, in fact often that information is more in depth than what Mod Picker proposes to collect.

 

It is taking other people's work and then claiming as though you had done it yourself, or rather that they gave you permission to do so. Which is obviously the very apex of what we are thumbing around.

No it's not. Nobody is doing that. You and others repeatedly assert that Mod Picker "implicitly" claims that it has some kind of authority or affiliation with the mods that get reviewed on its site. You really need to demonstrate this because it is getting sleazier and sleazier by the second.

 

 

I'll direct you read the original MA thread again as I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting other people out of context, especially as you seem to be insistent on not appreciating my own points of view.

 

You have to take into consideration where data is being hosted and also the contracts, agreements that people have entered into. Usually caveats to some other benefit, but still. Many mod authors would possbily be able to weigh up those advantages and disadvantages and likely go for it if everything felt right. But it doesn't to many and people are not being convinced so are turning away. Problem is people are being told they cannot turn away, and this feels like a ransom.

 

Youtube is a new medium, I know, so it is more like a bunch of networks. At the end of the line though is Google (or rather Alphabet) who assume certain control and responsibility for the content they store and show.

 

Collecting data and publishing it is actually covered by civil law, as well as private, in many countries.

 

Regarding libel, I'm glad to finally see you can appreciate how sensitive an subject it is. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with intellectual property. They are quite different areas of law.

 

Oh and by the way I just signed your email account up to loads of crowd-sourcing projects... You'll have to contact them so as to opt-out!

[DavidJCobb]

YouTube reviews aren't an official representation of a work, and are fair use even when monetized. The only way anyone would fail to understand that is if they had no understanding of what fair use is.

 

[EDIT] See Folsom v. Marsh for the basics as they pertain to this discussion. [/EDIT]

 

Moderating a site is not tantamount to declaring its user-submitted content official. The only subtext behind moderation is that moderated content does not meet the particular standards (be they of quality or behavior) of the site.

Edited April 25, 2016 by DavidJCobb

[lofgren]

I'll direct you read the original MA thread again as I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting other people out of context, especially as you seem to be insistent on not appreciating my own points of view.

You can provide an example of your own concerns.

 

It sounds like all of your concerns related to files being uploaded to another site have been addressed and now your only concern is that Mod Picker may be breaking the law by collecting data about user's mods. I would like to see this law. That is all I am asking. Since we all agree that Mod Picker will be aggregating this data the only question is whether or not it is actually illegal. This is not a matter of "point of view" or opinion. This is a fact you have repeatedly asserted: that Mod Picker is violating the law. Prove it or shut up.

 

You have to take into consideration where data is being hosted and also the contracts, agreements that people have entered into. Usually caveats to some other benefit, but still. Many mod authors would possbily be able to weigh up those advantages and disadvantages and likely go for it if everything felt right. But it doesn't to many and people are not being convinced so are turning away. Problem is people are being told they cannot turn away, and this feels like a ransom.

1. What are people being told they cannot turn away? The site doesn't offer anything for modder authors, so what is there for them to turn away? The site links to their PUBLICLY AVAILABLE mod at the download sites of their choosing, but there is quite simply nothing for them to opt in or out OF.

 

2. How is this "like a ransom" Please stop speaking in similes if you are not going to explain what you mean by them. Similes are a way to create associations in people's minds without having to actually back up your assertions. You say that Mod Picker is "like a ransom" and I am expected to say "Ransoms are bad! I don't like mod picker!" But HOW is Mod Picker like a ransom? WHAT is being held hostage? WHAT is being extorted? Complete the circle.

 

Youtube is a new medium, I know, so it is more like a bunch of networks. At the end of the line though is Google (or rather Alphabet) who assume certain control and responsibility for the content they store and show.

How do you get from "they have some responsibility" to "users can't even mention the name of a product in reviews or the might suffer consequences."

 

The company's responsibility in court has not been fully determined they most certainly DO NOT have the responsibility to police every video for disparaging comments about products. Product reviews are not subject to copyright law!

 

Collecting data and publishing it is actually covered by civil law, as well as private, in many countries.

Please cite even one law in one country that prevents the aggregation of data about mods.

 

Regarding libel, I'm glad to finally see you can appreciate how sensitive an area it is.

I take libel very seriously. You're the one who has been claiming the Mod Picker VIOLATES THE LAW for several pages now, and yet you have yet to provide actual evidence!

Edited April 25, 2016 by lofgren