On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[MarchinBunny]

 

In response to post #39557130.

 

 

 

Brabbit1987 wrote:

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.

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.

Nope, I understood his point of view very well, tyvm.

... redistributing something that is already distributed for free on the net.

It appears that you didn't understand what I wrote.

Financially it may cost nothing, but there is also an implied contractual obligation imparted on the user by the author and the host site, that the author's work may not be redistributed freely without the author's explicit consent. This is the main crux of the problem discussed here without the various obfuscations and mental gymnastics people have come up with to justify this practice.

 

Theft of property for any reason is taught as being not only illegal, but morally wrong. This is very clear and is not subjective to the individual. It is most certainly not a "grey" area.

 

Breach of Contract, is also wrong. The user agrees to the terms before being allowed to download and use the author's property. This too, is not a "grey" area.

A product may be free of financial encumbrance to the user, but the product is still "conditionally" given, ie; there are strings attached.

 

Unless you have actually created custom game content and found said content distributed under another name on a different site, you will never completely understand why the authors are so fully and completely against this piracy of their work.

 

(I have submitted no content for FO4, but have seen my work stolen from Simtropolis (me=North Country Dude) and posted to EA's SimCity 4 Exchange site while the perpetrator claimed it as his/her own work. I tried to get EA to take it down, but they ignored me. Thankfully, EA's SimCity Exchange site is no longer around.)

 

I would like to add that many have stated that just because "piracy" is inevitable, the authors should just apathetically accept it. This too, is wrong on many levels and has only served to create even more stringent DRM measures imposed by authors and their publishers.

 

There are, of course, even more graphic examples in history of such apathy, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

While piracy can never be completely eliminated, it can be "thwarted" and measures taken to minimize it's impact. Making the work of property theft as difficult as actually creating the original work will deter all but the most determined criminal, and even in that underworld, nothing is free.

 

 

It is a grey area when it comes to morality whether you like it or not simply because this moral rule that is suppose to exist isn't followed under all circumstances, nor can it even be agreed upon by everyone.

 

Whether it's legal or not, is irrelevant because we already break copyright laws all the time. If you are going to argue for copyright laws here, then technically you should under every circumstance as well where it's being broken.

 

As for creating content, I used to be a mod creator back in the day. Half-Life DM maps. I also have had art stolen. I know exactly how it is, but I am not so blind to just ignore the reality of the situation and say everything is 100% clear, because it isn't. If it was so clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it. It wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be any controversy over it.

[ZurinArctus85]

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005, #39554390, #39554680, #39556240, #39557575, #39559140, #39564305 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.

ThinkerTinker wrote: @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.

TheCheeseCakeGuy wrote: The scrip extender doesn't always work, which would 'cause a s#*! ton of issues.

Tantalus010 wrote: @Toxic and Tinker - It is possible that a pirate could remove the dependency, but I don't see that happening often. They'd have to know both Papyrus and which functions are unique to the script extenders to do it. Papyrus is easy to learn in a few hours if you're smart and have had some prior coding experience, but it still takes a few hours, and then you have to research the script extenders on top of that. There are no flags in the editor that tell you which functions are native and which are part of a script extender (at least, there weren't with Oblivion and OBSE). The pirate won't know just by looking at the script what functions require the SE. If they just remove the script entirely, the game will crash when the esp calls a script that doesn't exist.

Pirated games have all of their dependencies removed, that's why they work without Steam or other game markets. I could replace my Skyrim executable with a crack from some site online and have it work with SKSE and without steam - but I won't because that's stupid. There are a lot of YouTube videos I've seen like this just from googling common SKSE problems. The thing is that no matter how far a developer is (like Bethesda or EA) the community is always a step ahead of them, cracking the game or cheating. Literally DAYS after Overwatch was released people were cheating. My sister does work on older NFS games fixing things EA never bothered to. There are literally thousands of tools available to crack or hack a game and remove its dependencies.

[ZurinArctus85]

In response to post #39561535. #39561945, #39563550, #39563885, #39563970, #39564565, #39565790 are all replies on the same post.

Tabub2001 wrote: Are you sure lashing out at them on your site is the best thing to do right now...?

Tantalus010 wrote: It doesn't matter. Bethesda could shut down the Nexus at any time they please with a single letter. All they have to do is make the decision, and I suspect that decision is coming eventually anyway. They clearly want to monetize mods and allowing the Nexus to exist would entirely cut them off from the PC market unless they convince mod authors to only post their mods to Bethesda.net, and we saw how well that went over with the Steam Workshop. Might as well let them know just how badly they f***ed up.

mmaniacBG wrote: The moment they "shut" Nexus is the moment they lose face to any coscious person who has ever downloaded a mod for any of their games!

They are detached, but they are not stupid. I think this site is safe because of that. I can imagine what would happen, if they did it: mods that intentionally break your game, open insults to Bethesda's employees, mods taken down by the authors as an act of protest, low reviews for their games.

Bethesda would love to have monopoly over the mods for their games, but I think it's safe to assume they care about the future sales of their games more.

Tantalus010 wrote: @mmaniacBG - I half agree with you. I'd certainly add Bethesda to my list of game company boycotts and I imagine many others would as well, but I think you overestimate the impact it would have. Bethesda themselves have stated that we (the modding community) account for only 14% of all Fallout 4 users. According to them, the vast majority plays their games without mods. It would suck to lose us, but with console mods, they stand to make much more money. If paid console mods are a success, I can easily see them at some future time deciding that PC players need to pay for mods, too.

tohdoh wrote: When the power of your sales are driven by the people (modders, etc) it is absolutely the best thing to use that power to let them know what they're doing wrong.

ravernware wrote: I think the Nexus will be fine
1. Bethesda/Zenimax agrees that modders own their content and Bethesda/zenimax only has a distribution license if, and only if, the CK was used in creating the mod. There are a ton of mods that did not use the ck, ergo Bethesda/zenimax has no rights at all over those.
That is a huge point btw.
2. Bethesda/zenimax need the Nexus more than we need Bethesda.net or steam workshop. Fact.

Now.. will Bethesda.net be fine? That is the ultimate question.

pokenar wrote: I'd further like to point out that Bethesda obviously knows they'd be skinned alive for touching this site, otherwise they would have just sent a C&D over the Far Harbor leak instead of only sending an email.

Skinned alive? Hell they'd be skinned alive, raped, shot in the head and tossed in a gutter while their community was wearing said skin.

[Deleted5184932User]

Thank you so much Dark0ne for the post. It helped clarify the confusion that is going on the web right now. I think entitlement is always in the way of development and growth. Hopefully both pc and console users including myself will "grow up" and establish a stronger community with both the nexus and Bethesda. To not take for granted the hard work that such talented people put into their mods. Thank you for an excellent platform, and to all the modders who make decent games great.

[iXenite]

 

 

 

It is a grey area when it comes to morality whether you like it or not simply because this moral rule that is suppose to exist isn't followed under all circumstances, nor can it even be agreed upon by everyone.

Whether it's legal or not, is irrelevant because we already break copyright laws all the time. If you are going to argue for copyright laws here, then technically you should under every circumstance as well where it's being broken.

As for creating content, I used to be a mod creator back in the day. Half-Life DM maps. I also have had art stolen. I know exactly how it is, but I am not so blind to just ignore the reality of the situation and say everything is 100% clear, because it isn't. If it was so clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it. It wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be any controversy over it.

 

 

 

 

So, if I took those Half-Life DM maps you made and distributed them to numerous places and said that I made them, you wouldn't care? What if I just distributed them without your permission, but I didn't credit a soul. I just uploaded them in some places. That wouldn't bother you in the least?

[ThinkerTinker]

In response to post #39491315. #39496050, #39497250, #39531815, #39534800, #39535005, #39554390, #39554680, #39556240, #39557575, #39559140, #39564305, #39566500 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.

ThinkerTinker wrote: @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.

TheCheeseCakeGuy wrote: The scrip extender doesn't always work, which would 'cause a s#*! ton of issues.

Tantalus010 wrote: @Toxic and Tinker - It is possible that a pirate could remove the dependency, but I don't see that happening often. They'd have to know both Papyrus and which functions are unique to the script extenders to do it. Papyrus is easy to learn in a few hours if you're smart and have had some prior coding experience, but it still takes a few hours, and then you have to research the script extenders on top of that. There are no flags in the editor that tell you which functions are native and which are part of a script extender (at least, there weren't with Oblivion and OBSE). The pirate won't know just by looking at the script what functions require the SE. If they just remove the script entirely, the game will crash when the esp calls a script that doesn't exist.

ZurinArctus85 wrote: Pirated games have all of their dependencies removed, that's why they work without Steam or other game markets. I could replace my Skyrim executable with a crack from some site online and have it work with SKSE and without steam - but I won't because that's stupid. There are a lot of YouTube videos I've seen like this just from googling common SKSE problems. The thing is that no matter how far a developer is (like Bethesda or EA) the community is always a step ahead of them, cracking the game or cheating. Literally DAYS after Overwatch was released people were cheating. My sister does work on older NFS games fixing things EA never bothered to. There are literally thousands of tools available to crack or hack a game and remove its dependencies.

You can't just remove a portion of an SKSE dependency that is required for functionality and expect the game to still work, or at least perform the function or feature intended. That's like saying "I could totally just pirate Windows by removing the System32 folder and copying in a crack". (I know that's not technically kosher analogy but it gets the point across) Okay, yes, while that's possible I guess the idea of someone undertaking that is laughable. I mean if a pirate goes out of their way to remove SKSE dependency it would require them essentially rewriting SKSE. I think SKSE might be open source but honestly, if you go through that much trouble to begin with then honestly you've got my blessing to pirate my mod. I mean Jesus.

@Tauntalus - they have to know Papyrus, sure, but again, they also must have the source code. You can't edit a .pex file (the script file that the game reads) directly. You have to edit the .psc file. If an author doesn't include his source .psc files, then no pirate can just go take out that dependency. And you don't need a flag for anything; you just try and call a function added by SKSE and if SKSE isn't loaded, something will blow up (the extent to which depends on the function call). Something as simple as testing if GetSKSEVersion gives a return or an error would be a start.

[Sackroad]

I'd like to start off by saying that I play Fallout 4 on the PS4. I'm a console user. But I've also played Skyrim and FONV on PC and have used mods. And all I'd really like to say is I have the upmost respect for the modmakers out there. They throw their creative talents into their work and produce excellent DLC-quality content. I've seen so many high quality mods and I've enjoyed them. For modmakers to create these and put them out there, for free even, for other people to enjoy.. It truly is a wonderful thing.

 

That's why this situation with bethesda.net has me worried and disappointed. My PC isn't the best for gaming, which is why I got the PS4 to begin with. When I heard that Fallout 4 would eventually get mods on consoles, I got excited. I had thought I would just have to go with whatever extra content Bethesda produced, which isn't bad but after having used mods in other games, is a step down. But then with the mod thefts, and people getting angry at consoles, it seemed like mods on console would dry up before I got the chance to use them.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to cry about that. I understand wholeheartedly why mod creators are upset. This is their hard work being stolen, and often they're being openly taunted on top of that. It's horrible, and it makes me mad. All I ask is that you keep in mind that not all of us console users are like this. Some of us know the hard work that all of you put into your mods. Some of us greatly respect it, and all we want is the chance to enjoy your hard work LEGITIMATELY. Some of us refuse to download a stolen mod. I for one refuse. I won't put my enjoyment ahead of someone else's efforts.

 

So.. try to remember. There are those of us on console who support you mod makers out there. Your efforts aren't in vain. Please give us the chance to show that we will only support LEGIT mods. You may be pleasantly surprised. Thank you for your time.

[MarchinBunny]

 

 

 

It is a grey area when it comes to morality whether you like it or not simply because this moral rule that is suppose to exist isn't followed under all circumstances, nor can it even be agreed upon by everyone.

 

Whether it's legal or not, is irrelevant because we already break copyright laws all the time. If you are going to argue for copyright laws here, then technically you should under every circumstance as well where it's being broken.

 

As for creating content, I used to be a mod creator back in the day. Half-Life DM maps. I also have had art stolen. I know exactly how it is, but I am not so blind to just ignore the reality of the situation and say everything is 100% clear, because it isn't. If it was so clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it. It wouldn't be a problem. There wouldn't be any controversy over it.

 

 

 

 

So, if I took those Half-Life DM maps you made and distributed them to numerous places and said that I made them, you wouldn't care? What if I just distributed them without your permission, but I didn't credit a soul. I just uploaded them in some places. That wouldn't bother you in the least?

 

The moment a person claims it as their own is when I have a problem. Redistributing though, is not much of a concern to me because all it means is that more people get to enjoy it and that was the purpose for making the mods I made. It was fun, and I like when people like what I make.

 

I really don't see any reason to be so restrictive on these things. I would prefer them give credit, but it's not 100% needed. I should mention that I did always put some signature in the maps I made. So if it really came down to it, I could always prove it was my work. Though I thought just about all artists / creators did this.

 

Exactly what negative is there for me when people share my content? Besides more work that may occur because of it, which I don't mind doing, and technically it's not like I had to do it ... I don't see any negatives.

 

Maybe I am just from a time where mods where more of an open thing.

[iXenite]

 

The moment a person claims it as their own is when I have a problem. Redistributing though, is not much of a concern to me because all it means is that more people get to enjoy it and that was the purpose for making the mods I made. It was fun, and I like when people like what I make.

 

I really don't see any reason to be so restrictive on these things. I would prefer them give credit, but it's not 100% needed. I should mention that I did always put some signature in the maps I made. So if it really came down to it, I could always prove it was my work. Though I thought just about all artists / creators did this.

 

Exactly what negative is there for me when people share my content? Besides more work that may occur because of it, which I don't mind doing, and technically it's not like I had to do it ... I don't see any negatives.

 

Maybe I am just from a time where mods where more of an open thing.

 

 

I finally understand where you're coming from. Your view of mods is the Traditional View. The view that says modding if open and free to everyone. In this view there really isn't any theft of mods, unless someone claims ownership over a mod they did not create. The open sharing of mods was key. You are correct in assuming that school of thought is largely gone. The Modern View for modding is that Mod Authors have sole ownership rights over their intellectual property (their mods), and therefore, their mods should not be redistributed by anyone without their express permission. This is clearly the stance of the Nexus, and the stance of even Bethesda itself.

[MarchinBunny]

 

 

The moment a person claims it as their own is when I have a problem. Redistributing though, is not much of a concern to me because all it means is that more people get to enjoy it and that was the purpose for making the mods I made. It was fun, and I like when people like what I make.

 

I really don't see any reason to be so restrictive on these things. I would prefer them give credit, but it's not 100% needed. I should mention that I did always put some signature in the maps I made. So if it really came down to it, I could always prove it was my work. Though I thought just about all artists / creators did this.

 

Exactly what negative is there for me when people share my content? Besides more work that may occur because of it, which I don't mind doing, and technically it's not like I had to do it ... I don't see any negatives.

 

Maybe I am just from a time where mods where more of an open thing.

 

 

I finally understand where you're coming from. Your view of mods is the Traditional View. The view that says modding if open and free to everyone. In this view there really isn't any theft of mods, unless someone claims ownership over a mod they did not create. The open sharing of mods was key. You are correct in assuming that school of thought is largely gone. The Modern View for modding is that Mod Authors have sole ownership rights over their intellectual property (their mods), and therefore, their mods should not be redistributed by anyone without their express permission. This is clearly the stance of the Nexus, and the stance of even Bethesda itself.

 

Ya, times certainly do change, that is for sure. XD

I guess I just need to accept that this is the way things are now. Though I do still think it's just stressing everyone out doing it this way.

 

Thanks for understanding by the way. It can be frustrating when you try to explain something, but everyone think you are trying to advocate stealing or something xD.