Reneer Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) No. I'm saying Bethesda's CC terms (quoted earlier) are either incorrect or absurdly misleading. In our country and current EULA nonsense notwithstanding, it is illegal for anyone to tell you what you can do with your own property. This basic fact of life will become more apparent now that the Senator from Sony, Orrin Hatch, who has had a major hand in this imposed fascism from the start (e.g. DMCA etc) is finally retiring.When you buy a game you are buying a license to use it, not ownership of the game. It's that simple. You never own the software at all. Bethesda's CC language explicitly states mod authors own both their work and its underlying IP. This is perfectly legal, what is not legal is telling mod authors they own their work, but only contingent on the giver's own terms under a EULA. It is indeed slavery: Bethesda are saying it's ok for you to work voluntarily to mod their games, as long as they are the only ones who control the financial payment for your work.Slavery? Really? That's utterly ridiculous and you know it. No mod author is a slave to Bethesda or anyone else - we choose to make mods of our own free will, knowing that we are bound by the agreement that we all signed when we installed the CK. Edited February 27, 2018 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMastersSon Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) When you buy a game you are buying a license to use it, not ownership of the game. It's that simple. You never own the software at all.Correct, and that's the only reason EULA terms are occasionally upheld in civil courts. But for every one upheld a dozen or more have been ruled violations of various fundamental property, fair use etc rights. I was going to expand a prior thought and you responded before I could, but hopefully this answers your point: Bethesda's CC language explicitly states mod authors own both their work and its underlying IP. This is perfectly legal. It would also be perfectly legal for them to tell mod authors the actual truth, which is that everything from the script compilers to the file formats required for mods is licensed technology and/or not owned by mod authors, and therefore the correct requirement is that mod authors license their work (mods) from the developer etc. What can't and won't withstand legal challenge in our country is giving mod authors legal ownership, but only contingent on Bethesda's own EULA terms. It is indeed slavery: Bethesda are saying it's ok for you to work voluntarily to mod their games, as long as they are the only ones who control the financial payment for your work. Edited February 28, 2018 by TheMastersSon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 What can't and won't withstand legal challenge in our country is giving mod authors legal ownership, but only contingent on Bethesda's own EULA terms. It is indeed slavery: Bethesda are saying it's ok for you to work voluntarily to mod their games, as long as they are the only ones who control the financial payment for your work.Oh, so you're a lawyer now? And, again, the slavery thing is ridiculous and I honestly can't believe you thought putting it to writing was somehow a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMastersSon Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 If that's your response, concession noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 If that's your response, concession noted.Wow. A lawyer and a prognosticator too! What's your hourly rate? I'd love to hire you to predict the next Bitcoin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMastersSon Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Can't answer the message, must attack the messenger. Same 'ol same 'ol around here. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) Can't answer the message, must attack the messenger. Same 'ol same 'ol around here. Yawn.I've been the one providing court cases, EULA examples, and other pieces of evidence to support my position. All you've provided is your opinion. Yawn. Edited February 27, 2018 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMastersSon Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) From the beginning my challenge has been to name a single example of qualified ownership of private property in our country, outside of EULAs, and all you or anyone have provided so far are links to EULA examples. And my point, again, is that the only enforceable EULA terms are those that pass muster with both our civil laws and our constitutional rights as Americans. The rest (and with every new EULA, that ratio continues growing) amounts legally and simply to wishlists from software and entertainment media publishers. EULAs are not civil law and they have no direct relevance to it. If it sounds like pedantic whining, I suppose it is when taken as a single issue. But if you've been reading the related sites (EFF etc), our federal government is currently pushing for actual civil laws that would, e.g. and I'm not kidding, make it a federal felony crime to intentionally prevent or circumvent the digital reception of ISP-provided traffic, including commercial advertising (ad blockers etc). Think exact and precise opposite of net neutrality and you won't be far off these proposed laws. This is what our own paid federal employees have decayed to: active enemies of our free speech and other basic rights for internet traffic. Etc. Especially right now imo, it's critical that we don't confuse the demands and wishes of private business with our established fair use, free speech, contract, private property and other rights. Something between the vast majority and nearly all the federal laws passed since and including the DMCA have ignored the basic realities of digital communication, and only another 10 or 20 years will prove that claim imo. Edited February 27, 2018 by TheMastersSon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Where are you seeing anything that says modders own the work created for CC? I must have missed that memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeTheDragon Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 You must replace "CC" with "CK" in almost every of your posts. The "CK" terms are what you must agree to in order to be allowed to create mods being derivatives from Bethesda's original creations. The "CC" is where mod authors, or content creators in general, as it's not only modders even, are contracted to and paid for doing quasi-DLC creation work for Bethesda. Of course what comes out of said contract work legally belongs to the contractor, not the author. It's part of the contract the property rights are also sold/bought/transferred. (Note, they aren't "taken" or "assumed", but actually voluntarily "sold", just to prevent further confusion with the terms.) The latter's nothing to do, or in common, with modding and the terms in place for modding work though. The CC and CK terms do not mix or interfere. Creation Club and modding are two isolated different worlds and cannot/must not be mixed or compared. ...What's this whole discussion to do with Retired Mod Authors or Leaving Nexus though, by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts