Sunnie Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yep, as Ghogiel detailed, it has been tested. This is nothing new, there have been many cases similar over the last 25 years about who owns what. As a software consumer, you are purchasing a non exclusive license to use the software (that can be revoked) and the physical medium that its delivered on (if there is any), you are not purchasing the actual software and becoming it's owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaliqen Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yep, as Ghogiel detailed, it has been tested. This is nothing new, there have been many cases similar over the last 25 years about who owns what. As a software consumer, you are purchasing a non exclusive license to use the software (that can be revoked) and the physical medium that its delivered on (if there is any), you are not purchasing the actual software and becoming it's owner. I just don't think this is set in stone yet. Ah well, either way, the courts can say whatever they want about it, I know what I believe. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yep, as Ghogiel detailed, it has been tested. This is nothing new, there have been many cases similar over the last 25 years about who owns what. As a software consumer, you are purchasing a non exclusive license to use the software (that can be revoked) and the physical medium that its delivered on (if there is any), you are not purchasing the actual software and becoming it's owner. I just don't think this is set in stone yet. Ah well, either way, the courts can say whatever they want about it, I know what I believe. :thumbsup:Specifically in regards to you owning the copy and being a licensee, it's so nearly solid, you might as well make some stone tablets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaliqen Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Specifically in regards to you owning the copy and being a licensee, it's so nearly solid, you might as well make some stone tablets. If that's true, it marks a pretty sad trend I'll say. Still, it won't stop me saying someone owns the property they pay for, since that strikes me as what's right regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunnie Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Specifically in regards to you owning the copy and being a licensee, it's so nearly solid, you might as well make some stone tablets. If that's true, it marks a pretty sad trend I'll say. Still, it won't stop me saying someone owns the property they pay for, since that strikes me as what's right regardless. You are free to believe what you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you purchased a license and that your statement will always be wrong and misleading. You should probably limit that to yourself lest it get you and/or someone else in trouble somewhere down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaliqen Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) You are free to believe what you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you purchased a license and that your statement will always be wrong and misleading. You should probably limit that to yourself lest it get you and/or someone else in trouble somewhere down the road. I'll always be clear about what the law says versus what I say. I think it's taking it a little far to think I'd do otherwise. Though, I honestly wish more people would start believing in their own sensibilities. I don't let laws decide my own sense of what's right, but I'd never advise someone to do something that might get them into trouble without giving them all of the info available. I'd also never dissuade anyone from believing that some laws are simply unjust. How an individual responds to injustice is, of course, up to them. Edited December 6, 2011 by xaliqen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Hey if you ask me my opinion: world is mad crazy, we are all being exploited, and everyone is now so apathetic to our ever dissolving rights, and no one will ever do anything about it. Consumerism sucks, especially when you have less and less rights and protections against companies trying to maximise their profits off of YOU. That's another matter entirely :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaliqen Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) Hey if you ask me my opinion: world is mad crazy, we are all being exploited, and everyone is now so apathetic to our ever dissolving rights, and no one will ever do anything about it. Consumerism sucks, especially when you have less and less rights and protections against companies trying to maximise their profits off of YOU. That's another matter entirely :tongue: I agree with you there. I just can't help but feel a bit responsible. If we all did something about it, things might change a bit. Ah well, anyway, this thread is horribly off-track now. So, I'll just say this to maybe get things a bit more on track: it would be awesome if there's a way to get some questlines from Oblivion built up with the resources in Skyrim and the Creation Kit. I don't really know if it's possible without getting into the copyright issues, and I don't know if there are really enough people with enough time and energy to make it happen. But, if it happens and it all works out, it would be an incredible addition to the modding community. In the meanwhile, I enjoy Oblivion and Skryim just fine on their own, and owe many hours of enjoyment to both Bethesda and this modding community. :biggrin: Edited December 6, 2011 by xaliqen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 that would be totally possible to build Ob or MW quests.. world spaces.. assets.. what ever, as long as it is original work. I foresee many such mods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFlesh Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 You guys are WAAAAAAYYY over thinking copyright. 1. The plantiff (mod maker) needs to prove damage. When there is no money involved (as required by the EULA) this is virtually impossible to do for companies and celebrities, let alone some nobody modder. 2. Judges frown on superfluous lawsuits, meaning civil case involving no money or damages but a simple court ordered upholding of the law. They shoot companies and celebrities down all the time over this crap, let alone some nobody modder. 3. A derivative work is considered new if it is 20% different. You could pull a texture from one mod, a model from another mod, scripting from a third, and not write a single line of new code and never violate copyright. Banksy and Space Invader have successfully defended himself numerous times over just such "offenses" 4. You are also free to use copyrighted material that has been abandoned as you wish. E.G. abandonware So feel free to borrow without permission all you want. The only thing that will trip you up is possibly mod hosting sites as they have an interest in being overly protective of peoples work in order to keep them engaged in the community As for porting from Oblivion to Skyrim....there have been so many texture/model redos that I'm pretty confident you could rebuild 95% of Oblivion into Skyrim and never once touch the origional Oblivion assets. My question is this. Is the Tamriel landmass outside of skyrim to scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts