On console mods, theft and Bethesda.net

[ROTLANGREVOLVER]

In response to post #39723480. #39723955, #39732355 are all replies on the same post.

dungeonmaster7 wrote: Nexus moderation...lolololololololol.

My friend was banned on a false accusation then made another account to explain the false accusation to which the moderators banned him for making another account.
Because logic.
I have seen amazing mod authors banned from here for the most trivial and ridiculous of things. I'm surprised any decent mod authors even upload to nexus anymore.

A moderator gets his feathers ruffled and butt-hurt and you are gone.
I'm probably gone for writing this?!

Ethreon wrote: Let's see the arguments
- "moderation lololol" - this is just s#*! slinging, where you don't even realize all that s#*! lands on yourself. Guess you like it.

"My friend was banned on a false accusation" - show us the link to his ban and proof that it was a fake accusation. Unless you do, you're full of more s#*!. Guess you really like it.

"then made another account to explain the false accusation to which the moderators banned him for making another account.
Because logic." - because rules. read them, there are very few and most reduce to "don't be a dick".

"A moderator gets his feathers ruffled and butt-hurt and you are gone" - more s#*! slinging. You REALLY like being covered in it, eh?

The Vampire Dante wrote:
You want to discuss that, then do so with me.

I'll need their username, and if you can find it a link to to their ban notice.
If you cannot supply the ban notice link, then I'll look it up myself.

For reference though - if they felt wronged, they should have supplied any evidence of their innocence within a submitted unban appeal. This information would have been supplied to them, and should have been followed.

Creating a second account without permission is also against site regulations and grounds for an instant ban on the new account and forfeit of any further appeal.

Perhaps both of you should read over the site terms of service. It looks like neither of you understand how this site works as far as it's rules and regulations are enforced.

Dungeonmaster7... Want some aloe vera for that burn? :0

[HermanMODSTER]

In response to post #39723480. #39723955, #39732355, #39750460 are all replies on the same post.

dungeonmaster7 wrote: Nexus moderation...lolololololololol.

My friend was banned on a false accusation then made another account to explain the false accusation to which the moderators banned him for making another account.
Because logic.
I have seen amazing mod authors banned from here for the most trivial and ridiculous of things. I'm surprised any decent mod authors even upload to nexus anymore.

A moderator gets his feathers ruffled and butt-hurt and you are gone.
I'm probably gone for writing this?!

Ethreon wrote: Let's see the arguments
- "moderation lololol" - this is just s#*! slinging, where you don't even realize all that s#*! lands on yourself. Guess you like it.

"My friend was banned on a false accusation" - show us the link to his ban and proof that it was a fake accusation. Unless you do, you're full of more s#*!. Guess you really like it.

"then made another account to explain the false accusation to which the moderators banned him for making another account.
Because logic." - because rules. read them, there are very few and most reduce to "don't be a dick".

"A moderator gets his feathers ruffled and butt-hurt and you are gone" - more s#*! slinging. You REALLY like being covered in it, eh?

The Vampire Dante wrote:
You want to discuss that, then do so with me.

I'll need their username, and if you can find it a link to to their ban notice.
If you cannot supply the ban notice link, then I'll look it up myself.

For reference though - if they felt wronged, they should have supplied any evidence of their innocence within a submitted unban appeal. This information would have been supplied to them, and should have been followed.

Creating a second account without permission is also against site regulations and grounds for an instant ban on the new account and forfeit of any further appeal.

Perhaps both of you should read over the site terms of service. It looks like neither of you understand how this site works as far as it's rules and regulations are enforced.

ROTLANGREVOLVER wrote: Dungeonmaster7... Want some aloe vera for that burn? :0

First time always burns. Well served is served hot and dry. Edited June 24, 2016 by HermanMODSTER

[xNiNELiVES]

In response to post #39736700. #39738725, #39740470, #39742615 are all replies on the same post.

xNiNELiVES wrote: Why not close off the community from any new members and begin monitoring who reuploads mods (tracking downloading history maybe)? We could start accepting new members from a referral system (only members part of Nexus for certain period of time and free of infractions could invite).

Sorry if it is a terrible idea. I thought that if nobody can download these mods off of Nexus freely, no bot or troll could reupload them.

HermanMODSTER wrote: Building walls sumons more Giants. And flying Mamoths.

HamerNineSeven wrote: "We are gonna build a wall, and console users are gonna pay for it!"

HermanMODSTER wrote: I mean: On my planet in my reality building walls does that. Maybe it works in all other "universes"

I mean if we're talking border patrol, yes people can get by. Attaining an account digitally? Unless you're a hacker I don't think it's as easy as physically walking across a border.

[MarchinBunny]

 

 

Looking at the definition, the word pretty much means in practice, regardless of the law. So yes, in practice, you cannot get in trouble. But that still does not mean it's legal. I am talking specifically about copyright laws, not what people decide to ignore. It doesn't matter if companies do not decide to go after people for fan art. It is still literally against copyright laws whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

That is exactly what I meant when I said it is "De Facto" legal. You can twist the words around however you want, but if you actually understood the legal principles you wouldn't need to pick apart my words, you would know what they mean already. I know exactly what these two legal principles mean, and how they are applied in real life. I didn't need to look them up on Google to learn about them, I already knew what they were. They are legal principles, not just fun words to throw around for giggles. I'm not going to play word games with you. If you want to pick on little things because it makes you feel smart, then go ahead. I'm not playing along. I'm done with this you and this thread.

 

Again, the issue is, you are talking about a "de facto" when I am not. I am talking strictly, by the law, it is against copyright. All fan art is.

 

I admit, I misunderstood you originally, but I don't even know why you brought it up being a "de facto" to begin with when that was not something I was ever arguing about.

 

Let me ask you a question ...

 

True or False

By the written law, and not using a "de facto" Is it against copyright to make fan art?

 

Simple question. If you answered anything but yes, you are wrong. It is 100% against copyright, it's just not enforced. Correction, not enforced by everyone, there are some companies that actually do.

 

Edit: I mean you basically came here disagreeing with me, by using something I wasn't even talking about. It would be like me saying how much ice cream has this and that, and you coming along and start disagreeing with me, and then tell me yogurt doesn't have any of this and that.

 

Dude we are not on the same page. XD

Edited June 24, 2016 by Brabbit1987

[iXenite]

 

Let me ask you a question ...

 

True or False

By the written law, and not using a "de facto" Is it against copyright to make fan art?

 

Simple question. If you answered anything but yes, you are wrong. It is 100% against copyright, it's just not enforced. Correction, not enforced by everyone, there are some companies that actually have.

 

 

I think you have a reading problem.

 

I have never said it was legal to make FanArt or FanFiction. I never said it was something that no one could enforce (as in, the copyright holder). I said by the sheer FACT that almost no one files copyright strikes on people who create FanArt and FanFiction it is "legal" in a De Facto sense. If the law was as black and white as you're saying it is, and the De Facto standard is meaningless than I and many others would have lawsuits against us for posting content on FanFiction.net. The same would apply to FanArt all over the internet.

 

Note:

The content under the spoiler tag will be in all capital letters and in bold to add extreme emphasis to make it easier for you to read. Enjoy.

 

 

 

THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN IS DE JURE.

 

DE FACTO IS BY FACT.

 

THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE LEGAL STANDARDS. THE FACT IS THAT ALMOST NOBODY ACTUALLY ENFORCES THEIR COPYRIGHT BY SUING FANART AND FANFICTION CREATORS. THEREFORE IT IS LEGAL IN PRACTICE NOT BY LAW. THAT IS THE DE FACTO STANDARD. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.

 

THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY (COPYRIGHT HOLDERS) HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE SAID COPYRIGHT. ANN RICE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO WILL ENFORCE THEIR COPYRIGHT, AND HAS DONE SO.

 

 

To answer plainly: YES, IT IS AGAINST COPYRIGHT LAW TO MAKE FANART AND FANFICTION. It is De Jure. Written law that states this.

 

However, the law isn't as black and white and you make it out to be. That is why standards like De Facto and De Jure exist. I will not explain it further. If you can't (or maybe it's refuse) to understand it, then that is on you.

 

What I posted is also incredibly relevant to what you posted. The De Facto standard in regards to copyright law over fan created content is the current and obvious legal reality that this subject rests in. Not what some paper says it stands in. Law in practice is different than law as it is written. Neither negate the other however.

[MarchinBunny]

 

 

Let me ask you a question ...

 

True or False

By the written law, and not using a "de facto" Is it against copyright to make fan art?

 

Simple question. If you answered anything but yes, you are wrong. It is 100% against copyright, it's just not enforced. Correction, not enforced by everyone, there are some companies that actually have.

 

 

I think you have a reading problem.

 

I have never said it was legal to make FanArt or FanFiction. I never said it was something that no one could enforce (as in, the copyright holder). I said by the sheer FACT that almost no one files copyright strikes on people who create FanArt and FanFiction it is "legal" in a De Facto sense. If the law was as black and white as you're saying it is, and the De Facto standard is meaningless than I and many others would have lawsuits against us for posting content on FanFiction.net. The same would apply to FanArt all over the internet.

 

Note:

The content under the spoiler tag will be in all capital letters and in bold to add extreme emphasis to make it easier for you to read. Enjoy.

 

 

 

THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN IS DE JURE.

 

DE FACTO IS BY FACT.

 

THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE LEGAL STANDARDS. THE FACT IS THAT ALMOST NOBODY ACTUALLY ENFORCES THEIR COPYRIGHT BY SUING FANART AND FANFICTION CREATORS. THEREFORE IT IS LEGAL IN PRACTICE NOT BY LAW. THAT IS THE DE FACTO STANDARD. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.

 

THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY (COPYRIGHT HOLDERS) HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE SAID COPYRIGHT. ANN RICE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO WILL ENFORCE THEIR COPYRIGHT, AND HAS DONE SO.

 

 

To answer plainly: YES, IT IS AGAINST COPYRIGHT LAW TO MAKE FANART AND FANFICTION. It is De Jure. Written law that states this.

 

However, the law isn't as black and white and you make it out to be. That is why standards like De Facto and De Jure exist. I will not explain it further. If you can't (or maybe it's refuse) to understand it, then that is on you.

 

What I posted is also incredibly relevant to what you posted. The De Facto standard in regards to copyright law over fan created content is the current and obvious legal reality that this subject rests in. Not what some paper says it stands in. Law in practice is different than law as it is written. Neither negate the other however.

 

Again, I know what you are talking about, and you are the one with the reading problems because it was something I never was talking about. Let's go back to my first response to you.

 

Liquidacid23, on 20 Jun 2016 - 5:22 PM, said:

 

The whole legal argument is kind of amusing considering this site has thousands of mods uploaded here which break copy-write laws and whatnot by containing or using the likeness of other IPs without permission.

 

DaddyDirection, on 20 Jun 2016 - 5:24 PM, said:

 

That's not really how copyright laws work.

 

Notice how you specifically said, that is not how copyright laws work. You didn't start off with this "De Facto" non sense. You only mentioned it later on to save yourself from being wrong.

 

Now to quote what I said to you ...

 

Technically speaking, if someone makes an iron man mod, that is against copyright. There are many mods here that are technically against copyright. Even fanart is against copyright.

 

The thing is though, companies just generally allow it, because it would do more harm than good to try and enforce it. In fact, for them it's actually beneficial to allow it. Copyright laws are complicated and not always 100% followed to a T. The fact is, most people here have broken copyright laws in some way. Some more than others. There was a big talk about copyright at a past comicon. It's a pretty interesting video to hear since it goes over many things we do that are technically against copyright.

 

As you can see here, I even specified exactly what I was talking about. I even mentioned that companies do allow it. I am being very specific about what I am talking about.

 

Then you responded to me with this.

 

Which makes it De Facto, exactly how it works. Making FanArt or something resemble something does not violate copyrightunless you are asking for payment.

 

This is where I misunderstood you, because I admit, I didn't know what the word De Facto even meant. However, if I had, I would have simply told you, it's not what I am talking about.

 

You then say that making Fan art or something resemble something does not violate copyright. You are incorrect from the perspective of what I am talking about, because I am not talking about it being a de facto ... YOU ARE.

 

 

I never said the "de facto" thing is meaningless. I am simply saying regardless of it, it's still technically against copyright laws. Which it is.

 

"To answer plainly: YES, IT IS AGAINST COPYRIGHT LAW TO MAKE FANART AND FANFICTION. It is De Jure. Written law that states this."

 

GREAT! At least now you get it, because that is what I have been talking about the whole time.

 

Also, no .. I never said these laws are in black and white, and I even stated in one of my previous comments that it is not. Yet here you are telling me .. I don't know how to read?

 

Edit: How about this, let's just end this here. There is no reason to continue as it all occurred due to a misunderstanding, not that we actually disagree with each other. From the looks of it, we are on the same side, I was just stupid and didn't know what that word meant and disregarded it.

 

But I do still think it's your fault since it never was what I was talking about anyway, and you just shouldn't assume everyone knows these words.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Brabbit1987

[DanielSignore]

I've been using mods on pc since fallout new vegas and I've always respected that the mod author can do whatever they want. It really sickens me that other people are taking advantage of others work.

[cflare]

Bad stuff is happening. Edited June 26, 2016 by cflare

[Guest deleted1088387]

that dlc leaker should upload to bethesda.net instead of nexus :)

[Psimander]

Looks like Bethesda is actively supporting mod piracy, if they don't react soon enough and proper to stolen mod property.

 

And it also looks like they want to control the whole mod scene, shut off all unwanted mods and kick other mod sites out of buisness. Yet it seems they want zero responsibility for any mod content hosted on their own site. Absolute control without any responsibility.

 

It's almost as if father has come back to sell his children into slavery, now that they've grown up and can be exploited.

 

What's next? A mod has to be registered through bethesda.net to work? And gets automatically registered. Only that some mods Bethesda doesn't like gets deregistered, while stolen ones still work, if Bethesda doesn't look.