On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[BuffHamster]

As posted here by SixT4

... Being "The LAW^TM" doesn't exempt it from being anything other than being illegal. :B It can still be unreasonable, it can still be extreme, and it can still be wrong. Since it seems this discussion is going the "legal" route, I'll say this- I live in the US, where I have the right to an opinion and the freedom of expression, as well as to speak out against laws that aren't just as peaceful protest; so yes, there IS something to disagree with and I have every right to do so. If the law was right just because it was the law, we wouldn't have any more copyright laws in the US other than the Copyright Act of 1976, because it would've never had to be changed because it would be instantaneously right because it was the law- thus, the DMCA would've never existed; being an extension to the Copyright Act of 1976. Obviously that's circular logic and things aren't that black-and-white. The DMCA is an extension of US copyright law, it isn't the legal definition of copyright in the US. A broken one at that- a few months ago (I think in April?) the US Copyright Office asked the public basically "What's wrong with the DMCA?" Several thousands of explanations and complaints were sent within the first hour, mostly about the takedown process and anti-circumvention measures. :B The DMCA is very controversial- with good reason. It's more of a witch hunt than valid due process; all you need is "good faith-" not a jury by court or even evidence at that. Most people who disobey copyright do it not to be jerks, not to be selfish, but because God forbid you draw a character you like that everyone knows who made it to show your appreciation rather than toss wads of cash at its creator. Copyright criminalizes simple, innocent acts of appreciation, and needs some serious repair for it to actually "promote progress of science and the useful arts" rather forbidding doing just that.

The mental convolutions needed by this explanation to justify piracy make my head hurt, but it is what the "anti-copyright" movement believes. The argument against the DMCA is not new. But, the weight of public opinion has been against "piracy" of this kind for centuries.

 

Patent Law

 

The first instance of Patent Law got it's start in 1474 in Venice. Today's Patent Law still follows the model set forth in Venice hundreds of years ago.

 

Reading through all the legal terms, it simply boils down to; copying someone else's hard work and inventiveness and passing it off as your own has been frowned upon and formally made into a criminal offense world wide for centuries.

 

Copyright Law

 

Using this simple explanation from the Wikipedia on Copyright Law:

The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute.

 

Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

... illustrates that the practice of "piracy of intellectual or media" has been illegal long before the creation of the Internet or mp3s.

 

Put plainly, it is against the Law to copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own. Websites must follow the law or be taken down. Many, if not all, game modification hosts put this into their Terms of Services Contract, that you must agree to, before using their service. Break the Contract and they can legally deny you their service, it also means that they can ban you, for life if they wish.

 

Patent, Copyright, and Contractual Law is heavily weighted against Piracy, but so is the moral argument.

 

Besides the legal argument, there is also a moral argument in favor of the "intellectual property rights" of the Author given in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 that states:

... "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author"

 

Simply put, it is morally wrong to copy and/or distribute an Author's work against their wishes and/or claim it as their own work.

 

A very simple analogy is; if you spent months or years writing a book, then someone steals your book and notes, publishes it and either financially or reputation-ally benefits from this piracy of your hard work, you think this is okay? According to the anarchist element of the "anti-copyright" movement, the moment you finish typing the artistic work, it becomes "public property", freely available to all, ... and this is perfectly okay to do?

 

The answer is No, according to the majority of public opinion passed down through hundreds of years of debate, it is also morally wrong to pirate and distribute someone else's work. Why an author wishes to restrict access to their work is their business, it is not up to the pirate thief or the consumer.

 

Many claim that you can not steal something that is "free". This is a misinformed obfuscation of the term "free" in regards to authored custom content. It is only "free" to those who agree to 1) the terms set forth by the author of the work, and 2) the contractual terms that you previously agreed to of the hosting site.

 

The author has presented his work in good faith to those who download and use it and will follow the terms set forth. It isn't "free" as you have to agree to the author's terms. In this case, 0.00$ does not mean "free" as there are certain implied moral and legal obligations that you have to agree to in order to download and use said custom content.

 

For those advocating for Piracy of Property and claiming that it should be allowed, and irregardless of what "arguments" or mental gymnastics you use to justify said Piracy, you really need to go back and re-read the the Terms & Services contract agreement that you made with Robin Scott, Bethesda.net, and Zenimax.

 

Edited June 19, 2016 by BuffHamster

[WiIIPWN4KFC]

In response to post #39485330. #39488480, #39488735, #39490310, #39491875, #39495320, #39496320, #39497760, #39499120, #39503090, #39507295, #39520235 are all replies on the same post.

MrJoseCuervo wrote: I urge modders to keep their console brothers in mind when they make mods. Make sure your mods are in good working order and safe for them to use. We don't want any consoles getting damaged due to poor modding.

alanlwilcox wrote: How can a PC modder EVER make a mod safe for console gaming? There are no tools for a console game as said in an earlier post. Consoles are a new world that only Bethesda may know enough about to mod for them. I would think that consoles would be at great risk and will blame these modders for problems caused by pirated mods.

A_name wrote: There are 0 tools for a modder to troubleshoot on a console. And frankly asking a modder to buy 2 consoles just to test his mods is ridiculous anyway.

Maybe we should encourage the thieves or pirates to do the testing?
I am pretty damn sure a handful of modders would be glad to outsource this to them.
If they ask first of course.

chinagreenelvis wrote: AFAIK there shouldn't be any difference. Console mod problems will come from the the same source as PC mod problems: load order. It's not like you can write a mod that will physically destroy a console.

CrazyIvan12 wrote: ...and the troll/asshole, emboldened by this statement, set out to create a mod designed to do just that.

But in all seriousness, the biggest problem would be troubleshooting. People (including me) don't use consoles ever, and as a result, they have no way to bug test. I personally think, if the modder is the "won't upload to bethsda.net" type, if they can work something out with a console user to troubleshoot the mod, that they should think about uploading to bethesda

arn13 wrote: It's already quite difficult enough making sure your mod even works on the PC. My "Populated Wasteland" mod worked perfectly fine for me, but a lot of users reported problems on their end and I simply had no idea what could be causing it. If I'm not experiencing the same problems, how else can I troubleshoot it?

Now imagine if I had to do that for consoles too. That's just too much of a headache to even bother with.

UlanX wrote: I play this on PC, my husband on PS4 so I personally don't have an issue with mods for consoles. I understand very well why some people prefer consoles and there are games I prefer to play (or can only play on console). I don't go in for the whole "PC Master Race" nonsense. If I want to play a Final Fantasy game on Playstation, I damn well will. I won't suddenly be overcome with shame because "oh my god, a console!". That said I love my PC to bits and play several single player and MMO's with it. These divisions are artificial and created out of a need to be part of an "in-group".

That said, I can see how modding for consoles may be a bit more time consuming, beyond the need as some have pointed out, to own both the console and a PC to create the mods. I can currently make a mod on PC and test it straight away without having to faff around transferring it to console, testing it, switching back to PC to troubleshoot etc

jguerr73 wrote: yes you can

WiIIPWN4KFC wrote: @chinagreenelvis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di6Te-plqlY

So yeah, you're kind of wrong about not being able to destroy consoles with mods.

rypofalem wrote: You guys are missing MrJoseCuervo's sarcasm. He is halfheartedly suggesting that modders put malicious code into their mod that does nothing for PC users but does something undesirable for consoles.

This way, if the mod was stolen and put on the console site, everyone who used the illegal copy would have something bad happen. (be it a simple game crash or perhaps something more serious like bricking the console)

This, of course, is a terrible idea because(among other reasons) it punishes even innocent people who don't realize it's a pirated copy.

boomerizer wrote: @rypofalem; you're absolutely right within that last sentence.

"This, of course, is a terrible idea because(among other reasons) it punishes even innocent people who don't realize it's a pirated copy. "

I've been using mods for years, and still don't know more than a couple modders by name. In fact the only one I can name off the top of my head is Azar due to all the hair mods I've used for Skyrim-- and downloaded on the xbox now. Although I'll be honest; I can't even verify that Azar was the uploader of the console version. What I can verify, is that I don't care one way or the other-- Azar was in the title which was credit enough for me.

TritonRM wrote: http://i.imgur.com/svNKG7i.jpg You sure that bricking video wasn't fake?

@TritonRM SHHHHH!!!! You're spoiling the fun!

[boogertwilliams]

I haven't even enabled the Bethesda.net mod menu. I prefer to keep going 100% Nexus Edited June 19, 2016 by booger_t_williams

[ZurinArctus85]

I read the whole thing, and admittedly I do not agree with all of it. To me it sounds like Dark0ne is exhausted, sleepless, and needs a vacation in Hawaii for a little.

 

Dude, I don't need a degree in psychology to tell that you're under more stress than a suspension bridge in a hurricane. I know how that feels, trust me. Take a break from the Nexus. Take a break from gaming, from modding. Take a week in Hawaii. Let the other moderators handle things for a while, they are good people and know what they are doing.

 

It may seem like the Nexus and the authors here need you, and they do, but right now I just think you are over thinking everything. Take a step back and look at the larger picture. Step into the eye of the hurricane, the calm of the storm. Look at everything before stepping into action. Observe and plan.

 

Console modding is great, but in my opinion is is a mistake. Having the same thing available on more than one platform with little to no control over who can release is a fuggin terrible idea. Bethesda needs to establish a sort of recognition system like we have here. 1000 u/q downloads and BAM mod author.

 

I believe this is similar to the paid modding disaster. Consoles were never ever designed to be modded. They were never intended to have their processing load slowly increased. They were designed to operate at a specific load and to be as consistent as possible. Mods were always designed to be free. Why anyone would pay for something like any of this is beyond me.

 

All in all, a novel attempt at expanding the modding community, but not everything was meant to be and this will end in disaster and lawsuits.

[MarchinBunny]

 

Simply put, it is morally wrong to copy and/or distribute an Author's work against their wishes and/or claim it as their own work.

 

A very simple analogy is; if you spent months or years writing a book, then someone steals your book and notes, publishes it and either financially or reputation-ally benefits from this piracy of your hard work, you think this is okay? According to the anarchist element of the "anti-copyright" movement, the moment you finish typing the artistic work, it becomes "public property", freely available to all, ... and this is perfectly okay to do?

 

The answer is No, according to the majority of public opinion passed down through hundreds of years of debate, it is also morally wrong to pirate and distribute someone else's work. Why an author wishes to restrict access to their work is their business, it is not up to the pirate thief or the consumer.

 

Many claim that you can not steal something that is "free". This is a misinformed obfuscation of the term "free" in regards to authored custom content. It is only "free" to those who agree to 1) the terms set forth by the author of the work, and 2) the contractual terms that you previously agreed to of the hosting site.

 

The author has presented his work in good faith to those who download and use it and will follow the terms set forth. It isn't "free" as you have to agree to the author's terms. In this case, 0.00$ does not mean "free" as there are certain implied moral and legal obligations that you have to agree to in order to download and use said custom content.

 

For those advocating for Piracy of Property and claiming that it should be allowed, and irregardless of what "arguments" or mental gymnastics you use to justify said Piracy, you really need to go back and re-read the the Terms & Services contract agreement that you made with Robin Scott, Bethesda.net, and Zenimax.

 

Hmm, I don't think you really understood his post very well. You went into a lot of details on things I don't think he was really speaking about. The fact of the matter is, copyright laws, have been pretty controversial ever since new types of medias have been born. There is no shame in needing to update these laws to be more specific, which needs to happen.

 

As for your moral argument, sorry, but I don't view moral arguments as being valid simply because morality is very subjective.

 

For example, I most certainly believe it's morally wrong to steal, in the sense where an item is being taken or removed and the owner no longer has it. I also think it's morally wrong to take something and claim it as your own.

 

Where I think it begins to become a bit of a grey area is redistributing something that is already distributed for free on the net. I don't think it's right to do, but I also don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be. It's no different than copying a picture and posting it on facebook. If we where to call this immoral, then everyone is guilty of it 100%. We redistribute other peoples works all the time without permission.

 

This is why there are problems with the copyright law, because there are double standards. Technically all fan art is against copyright. Don't even get me started when people sell prints and such of characters owned by other companies. Most people these days think fair use protects them, but that isn't actually true. Fair use is very limited.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Brabbit1987

[WiIIPWN4KFC]

In response to post #39501980.

bben46 wrote:

almost want to take that back, just spotted a sex toy ad involving a bunch of black rods and one with beads.

 

Please report that ad If you don't report then we will never know as ads are targeted and not everyone sees the same ads. The ad window has a report button. Use that or we will have no clue where it came from.

 

If it doesn't have the report button, then it is not from Nexus and the ads on your computer are being hijacked. :pinch:

To be fair, it was very subtle. The objects in the ad didn't look like erections and had it not been for the one with the beads I'd have assumed it was something else. That said, the ads slow my browser to a crawl and keep crashing flash. I'll try to remember to pause adblock every so often when visiting the website, but those ads are truly insufferable.

[ThinkerTinker]

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005, #39554390, #39554680, #39556240 are all replies on the same post.

tvs_frank wrote: I think the simplest solution to this would be to just make your mod rely the SKSE libraries, even something as basic as a texture replacer. There must be a way, right?

qasm0ke wrote: SKSE for Skyrim and F4SE for Fallout 4. This way the developer can focus & care about only for PC. That's the way I think.

I don't have any console so I couldn't test anyway. My Skyrim mods are all require SKSE, so if the so-called 'thief' stole my mod to Bethesda market, he can't play it on non-PC environment.

Darkstorne wrote: That's not a solution though. It's a temporary preventative measure to avoid theft, that prevents ALL console users enjoying a mod because of the arrogance of a very small minority who would resort to theft.

A solution has to come from Bethesda, so that mod authors can feel safe about releasing their content wherever they choose, without fear of theft, because they can trust Bethesda to work as hard as the Nexus staff to do protect their creations.

Consoles on mods could be a wonderful thing. The reason we're all here is because we love modding our Bethesda games on PC, to get a lot more out of them, and I'm really glad console users will be getting a similar experience from now on. Bethesda definitely need to step it up though, and focus on protecting content instead of blatantly focusing on a method of trying to reintroduce paid mods with a 75/25 split in favour of themselves and Valve again...

jonboy wrote: Perhaps some sort of key or other dependency check, one for each platform? Something you tick off in the CK, which embeds this dependency within the file where no one can (easily) change. This version is for PC/XB1/PS4 only or any combination of.

JN273 wrote: And the mod would still work on a console. Even if it requires SKSE or FOSE, you can still download the mod. They're never included in the mod, hence the mod would work because it's just a "fake" requirement.

Tantalus010 wrote: @jonboy - what if the original mod author wants to change it in the future? Even if you have a good answer for that question, a feature like what you're proposing would require a pretty thorough rewrite of how the CK works. By default, the tools implicitly trust the user and grant full read/write access to the esp or esm.

I think requiring script extenders in mods is a good temporary solution until Bethesda gets their s#*! together and fixes Bethesda.net's frankly unprofessional problems.

ThinkerTinker wrote: I definitely think we're on the right track with requiring SKSE or relevant script extender to run a mod. There are shortcomings in using a script extender as such a validation check - but this is how brainstorming and real problem solving works. Someone comes up with a good idea and people see why its a good idea at the root. In my opinion, I think its a good idea because it involves the use of an external tool that can be checked upon.

So maybe SKSE isn't the exact long-term solution - maybe we create another external tool explicitly for the use of compatibility checking for a PC version of a mod (or lack thereof, for a console I guess?) But I think we're on the right track - use the benefits and uniqueness of the platform (in this case, PC) in order to hard-code compatibility and ensure against piracy. These are ideas we can build from and that's what makes this community so successful. Putting down ideas, or not trying to be open-minded about suggestions for solutions is sort of toxic and I hate to see this community resort to that language.

MrJoseCuervo wrote: This would also benefit Bethesda because Pirated versions of their games do not support FASE or SKSE.

ToxicInfinity wrote: I don't create mods, so maybe this seems like a stupid question. I think this is a great temporary solution, however, couldn't someone planning on stealing mods teach themselves enough code to simply remove the requirement of F4SE before reuploading it?

If a mod doesn't in any way actually need the F4SE, but instead requires it with a "fake" requirement where it won't work without it but doesn't actually need it, couldn't someone download the mod, remove the requirement, and it then works?

I'm thinking along the lines of content mods, such as gun mods. I haven't noticed if many or even any of the gun mods require F4SE, meaning they don't need it to be created. But say a mod author makes a gun mod and makes it require F4SE in an attempt to stop the stealing. Then, someone could download it, change the mod to work like most gun mods do now and remove the F4SE requirement and re-upload it to Bethesda.net, the protection has failed. Maybe this isn't as easy as I think it is since I have no coding or mod creation experience, but I thought it might be worth considering this issue if it is fairly easy.

@Toxic, you're right in that removing the script extender dependency by a pirate is an option in some cases. There are a couple scenarios I could see that would prevent this being an issue:

1) The more long-term method: create some other kind of external application that these mods tap into outside of a "script extender." This sort of application is beyond my scope of understanding; I'm not an expert with DirectX games or writing software any more complicated than simple C++ Console applications and C# Windows Forms but I think if there's a will, people will find a way to make it happen.

2) A more immediate method: changing the dependency on a script extender requires access to the source code. The files that the game reads (any scripts your mod includes) are compiled files - i.e. they can't just be opened up and modified. Source files are required to edit script dependencies et cetera. So in order for a pirate to change the dependency the pirate would have to have access to the source code, know how to code, and have the tools necessary to recompile the source code after being altered. Setting up that whole configuration is...not just a 30 minute job.

Now, in the case of requiring dependencies or compatibility checks when all your mod does is include some loose files for overwriting a couple game textures with custom made ones of your own, I'm not sure how a script extender could be used in preventing this, but again, I think if the community thinks about it enough a solution will present itself.

[RopeSander]

Thank all of you and yours for all your hard work in and outside of this community... clearly some issues become your problem when it's not your fault, and apparently, often when there should be no issue to begin with.

[mellophonist]

Well done good sir, you've done the modding community proud by speaking out against mod theft! I hope this all blows over and we can get back to enjoying Bethesda games, but if it doesn't get resolved soon I fear the damage may be irreversible. I myself am already on the fence of whether I should boycott all Bethesda products and I am for sure not buying any more Fallout 4 DLC until they fix their broken system.

 

[HadToRegister]

In response to post #39553195. #39554075 is also a reply to the same post.

sandalsocks wrote: My prediction? Bethesda.net will become a subscription service and you will have to pay for the Creation Kit for future games.
I can't believe I used to defend Bethesda. I still love their games, but they are becoming just as corrupt as EA.

MrJoseCuervo wrote: Not much of a prediction. They wanted a financial gain from this the first time around. Bethesda.net is just the vehicle in which to attain that goal. First they tried to use peoples greed to rip the community apart, now they are using this to do it.

I see it as a hostile takeover of our community. Everyone should be concerned. I just hope Dark0ne does right by us as he always seemed to.

I see Bethesda.net more as a move to distribute their own games like Origin and Uplay.