Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Knights of the Force
123
Knights of the Force
2008-08-12, 8:15 PM #41
Originally posted by Tracer:
According to the JK readme LEC basically owns any JK levels...IIRC there was a section in the JO manual about mods, it might say who owns what.


Not talking about the resources.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2008-08-12, 8:23 PM #42
Originally posted by Greenboy:
you can't like, own mods, man


I can, because I'm not a penniless hippy!
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-08-12, 8:46 PM #43
I have it installed and play it every once in a while.

The main thing is that it adds the KotF menu, in which you can switch to any character and use their skins, weapons, and powers, then choose any map, and you can spawn a ridiculous amount of NPCs and set up the sides that they fight on.

The reason I downloaded it was because of the star wars missions. However, with the release most of the missions are unplayable and will be released in "part 2." The Jango Fett mission is really well done, though.

On the forums, Tim stated that he has everyone's permission and that everyone spreads lies about his mod because they're jealous of his 'success'. The readme has a long list of credits, and in fact another large list of credits is displayed on several of the opening screens while the game starts up.
It took a while for you to find me; I was hiding in the lime tree.
2008-08-12, 8:54 PM #44
Originally posted by Tracer:
According to the JK readme LEC basically owns any JK levels...IIRC there was a section in the JO manual about mods, it might say who owns what.


It would have to be quite a draconian EULA to demand copyright ownership of any and all content used by the game engine. JK was something of a special case, in that the engine itself refused to load any JKL files that did not have a LucasArts copyright notice. The same cannot be said of textures, models, sounds or any other assets which are original works. Even in cases where the asset uses a setting or likeness from another copyrighted work, it would be fairly trivial to argue that it is fair use because it is obviously transformative, non-commercial, and actually promotes the marketability of the derivative works produced by the original copyright holder, and it is artistically an original work containing no copyrighted content.

Furthermore, the EULA, documentation and tools constitute permission from the original creators of the copyrighted work (written and implied) to produce derivative works within the limitations of the EULA. Even in cases where modifications would not constitute fair use - such as a recolor of an existing skin - the creator still owns the copyright on any assets or materials that do not contain copyrighted materials.

Copyrighted materials constitute a significant majority of this TC. It is not transformative. It is commercial (the author is accepting profit in the form of donations, none of which is being made available to the copyright owners). The author is deliberately and maliciously impeding the marketability of the original copyrighted works by concealing the sources and the identities of the copyright owners. This is not fair use. Under US law (and most other nations') only the producer of the original copyrighted work has the right to produce derivative works.
2008-08-12, 9:06 PM #45
Oh, please, throw some more five dollar words in there to lend more credibility to your fallacious argument! That is absolute poppycock. He is not charging for the TC and he arguably attributes credit to the "copyright" owners of any material he uses (I say arguably as I am only going by what has been stated above) which is all they are entitled to.

So while the guy may be an ***, I have no opinion on that, to say he has stolen [freely downloadable] material or infringed on copyrights of said [freely downloadable] material is internet nerdom at its finest.

But, please, feel free to further display your [admittedly] superior intellect and [condescending and rude] manner of post.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-12, 9:06 PM #46
Wookie is Mr. Antagonist.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2008-08-12, 9:37 PM #47
Quote:
This thread got real pissy real fast.


-hands up- totally was not my intention, I had just never heard about this thing til today.

Honestly, I wish someone would do this for JK. I'd assume it would probably be easier too. .(
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-08-12, 9:53 PM #48
Originally posted by Wookie06:
That is absolute poppycock.

No it isn't. Fair use cases involve weighing different factors which I outlined in my post. Before you speak more of fallacies you might want to drop the ad hominem about "internet nerdom [sic]", red herring singling out one argument, and the strawman and use your "wouldn't say I have no clue" to reread my post. Forthwith.

Also, I think it's worth reminding you about something: you were the person who brought up copyright in the first place, when you suggested that making something available free-of-charge is equivalent to surrendering your copyright claim to that works. Which is wrong. But not nearly as wrong or retarded as when you then claimed that LucasArts owns the copyright just because it runs in their engine. So, thanks for proving my initial argument that you have no clue about copyright law, I guess?
2008-08-13, 11:18 AM #49
But have you ever seen anyone sue anyone else for stealing the level/mod they made ingame?.

I do wonder the legallity around it, it seems a grey area.
2008-08-13, 11:29 AM #50
I believe the EULA says something like all mods created for the game are property of LEC.
nope.
2008-08-13, 11:48 AM #51
I don't know, but it isn't without precedent on Massassi when a user would submit a work that contained someone else's works without permission, and was subsequently removed when the original author complained.
2008-08-13, 1:20 PM #52
Quote:
But not nearly as wrong or retarded as when you then claimed that LucasArts owns the copyright just because it runs in their engine.
Doesn't the engine actually belong to Raven? And, er, technically, to ID Software?

Furthermore, whether the EULA says anything about copyright is moot, because in either case, this guy does NOT have the copyright.

Anyway, here's the language from the Jedi Academy EULA.

Quote:
Rules Governing New Levels: "New Levels" are data that modify, add to, or
substitute for data in the Software, thus modifying, adding to, or replacing levels
provided by LucasArts in the Software, and may also include saved games, and
scenarios created using the skirmish features of the Software. New Levels may be
permitted by LucasArts, in its sole discretion, on the following conditions. You agree
that the following conditions apply to your creation of any New Levels:
(1) New Levels will work only with the retail version of the Software, and may not
work with any demo or Original Equipment Manufacturer (generally known as "OEM")
versions of the Software.
(2) New Levels may not modify any COM, EXE, DLL or other executable files.
(3) New Levels must not contain any illegal, scandalous, illicit, defamatory,
libelous, or objectionable material (as may be determined by LucasArts in its sole
discretion), or any material that infringes any trademarks, copyrights, protected works,
publicity, proprietary, or other rights of any third party or of LucasArts.
(4) New Levels may not include any LucasArts sound effects or music files or
portions thereof.
(5) New Levels must identify in every description file, on-line description,
read-me, and in comments in the New Level code (if new code is added): (a) the name,
address, and e-mail address of the level’s creators, and (b) the following disclaimer:
"THIS LEVEL IS NOT MADE, DISTRIBUTED, OR SUPPORTED BY LUCASARTS, A DIVISION
OF LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD. ELEMENTS TM & (C) LUCASARTS, A
DIVISION OF LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD."
(6) New Levels may not be sold, bartered, or distributed with any other product
for which any charge is made (other than incidental charges for time spent on-line), but
rather must be distributed free of charge at all times.
(7) By distributing or permitting the distribution of any New Levels, all creators or
owners of any trademark, copyright, or other right, title or interest therein grant to
LucasArts an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable right to distribute or
exploit the New Level by any means or media (whether now known or hereafter
invented), and to create and distribute by any means or media (whether now known or
hereafter invented) derivative works thereof, and to charge for the distribution of such
New Level or such derivative work, with no obligation to account to any creators or
owners of the New Level in any manner.
(8) LucasArts may revoke your right or permission to use, distribute or make New
Levels at any time and in its sole discretion.


You see in clause 7 that LEC doesn't actually snatch the copyright; but does take all the copyrights.
2008-08-13, 4:11 PM #53
Can you guys shutup?

Does the mod add singleplayer missions or just singleplayer maps? I would love to play some of the missions but it seems its just maps where you can spawn things. Which is correct?
America, home of the free gift with purchase.
2008-08-13, 4:18 PM #54
Clarifying clause 7: Only LucasArts has the right, not anyone.
2008-08-13, 4:25 PM #55
Can you guys shutup?
America, home of the free gift with purchase.
2008-08-13, 4:45 PM #56
Originally posted by Jon`C:
No it isn't. Fair use cases involve weighing different factors which I outlined in my post. Before you speak more of fallacies you might want to drop the ad homonym about "internet nerdom [sic]", red herring singling out one argument, and the straw man and use your "wouldn't say I have no clue" to reread my post. Forthwith.


You know I'm not as smart as you so, seriously, tone down the five dollar words. I'm on a fixed income.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
Also, I think it's worth reminding you about something: you were the person who brought up copyright in the first place, when you suggested that making something available free-of-charge is equivalent to surrendering your copyright claim to that works. Which is wrong. But not nearly as wrong or retarded as when you then claimed that LucasArts owns the copyright just because it runs in their engine. So, thanks for proving my initial argument that you have no clue about copyright law, I guess?


I may have brought up the concept of copyright inadvertently. You being more knowledgeable on the subject seem to be intent on debating the copyright aspect of this discussion. My points are simple (of course, I'm only capable of simple points). When a mod author releases content it is in the public domain. Anyone else can then distribute that content as they see fit so long as they aren't charging for anything other than the distribution cost and that proper credit is given to the author. Even if a violation of copyright occurs, I believe it would be highly unlikely to recover damages since the violation of the copyright in no way deprives the author of anything other than having his name in a readme file. In this particular case I believe the "author" of this collection might have made a good faith effort to credit those whose works he used, I don't know.

I think if the author of this collection managed to take multiple customized content and seamlessly integrate it and then release it free of charge that could be a good thing. I would hope that he credit all those whose work he used. If he did that I don't see why people, other than those inhabiting internet nerd-dom (did I get it right that time?), would have any serious problem.

On a side note, if you want to continue calling me retarded and stuff that's fine. I've come to respect your intelligence but I'll only give as good as I get when it comes to civility. And I also went ahead and fixed some of your spelling errors when I spell checked my post so I didn't bother with the "sic" (although I think it actually messed up the spelling anyway). :P

Now I'll shut up, drizzt2k2.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-13, 5:12 PM #57
Originally posted by Jon`C:
JK was something of a special case, in that the engine itself refused to load any JKL files that did not have a LucasArts copyright notice.

Even then you could argue that the level doesn't belong to LEC. If LEC slipped that into the EULA, and the only people that knew about it (since no one reads EULAs) were LEC and Alexei (who wrote JED), the level author isn't even aware of the copyright notice in the JKL since the author never deals with the JKL.

Or maybe not. It does seem a little obtrusive for them to require that. It's like saying "if you walk through this door, everything you're carrying is mine."
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-08-13, 5:32 PM #58
"Five dollar words," as seen on the Ann Coulter phrase of the day calendar.

What spelling errors did you correct, Wookie[sic]? Because I have a spell-checker in my browser and I don't remember seeing any red underlines. :confused:

Originally posted by Emon:
Or maybe not. It does seem a little obtrusive for them to require that. It's like saying "if you walk through this door, everything you're carrying is mine."
As JM pointed out, LEC only takes the copyrights but they do not claim ownership of the copyright. I think the wording of the EULA is pretty bad (since they count any asset as a "level"). In this particular case, since LEC only has a license to use the copyright and does not own the copyright itself, it would be the sole responsibility of the original content creator to take legal action.

And you could.

Originally posted by The_Reafis:
But have you ever seen anyone sue anyone else for stealing the level/mod they made ingame?
If the server were based in the United States, anybody who had content in the mod would be able to file a DMCA takedown notice.
2008-08-13, 6:35 PM #59
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I may have brought up the concept of copyright inadvertently. You being more knowledgeable on the subject seem to be intent on debating the copyright aspect of this discussion. My points are simple (of course, I'm only capable of simple points). When a mod author releases content it is in the public domain. Anyone else can then distribute that content as they see fit so long as they aren't charging for anything other than the distribution cost and that proper credit is given to the author.


Except unless the content was released by the author with a license stating that the content was in the public domain, it is not public domain. You hold the copyright for content you make, until you specifically release those rights completely. LEC's license merely states that they have full use of your content, not that they own your content.

Quote:
Even if a violation of copyright occurs, I believe it would be highly unlikely to recover damages since the violation of the copyright in no way deprives the author of anything other than having his name in a readme file. In this particular case I believe the "author" of this collection might have made a good faith effort to credit those whose works he used, I don't know.


Except the author holds full copyright for the work, so he could sue. LEC only shares in the permissions of using the work.

Quote:
I think if the author of this collection managed to take multiple customized content and seamlessly integrate it and then release it free of charge that could be a good thing. I would hope that he credit all those whose work he used. If he did that I don't see why people, other than those inhabiting internet nerd-dom (did I get it right that time?), would have any serious problem.


Or:

1. Those that don't want to associate with a guy that has been known to try and steal works.
2. Don't wish their content to be mixed in with a bunch of other possibly-low quality works.
3. Wish to use their works in their projects, not someone elses.

Quote:
On a side note, if you want to continue calling me retarded and stuff that's fine. I've come to respect your intelligence but I'll only give as good as I get when it comes to civility. And I also went ahead and fixed some of your spelling errors when I spell checked my post so I didn't bother with the "sic" (although I think it actually messed up the spelling anyway). :P

Now I'll shut up, drizzt2k2.


I hope so, because you're failing over and over.
2008-08-13, 6:49 PM #60
ad homonym?
2008-08-13, 7:07 PM #61
Originally posted by drizzt2k2:

Does the mod add singleplayer missions or just singleplayer maps? I would love to play some of the missions but it seems its just maps where you can spawn things. Which is correct?


KotF is being released in two parts. The first part has some new effects, the menu systems, and 3 missions. The three missions are pretty good, albeit simple, are playable from two sides, and are pretty difficult. Part 2, which should come out this month (i think, don't remember) will have the same features but contains 31 missions, playable from both sides.

With the menus you essentially create your own adventure by choosing your character and any amount of JO/JA/new NPCs, your weapons, the map, which side you fight for, etc. You can also play the JA storyline with any of the characters and switching at any time. It's interesting as Jabba the Hutt :)

It's pretty fun. I've recreated the assault on the Tantiv IV playing as every character I can think of, and people post their save games on the forum, so you can play just about every jedi battle that there has ever been already. It's a rather large download though, but you can always uninstall it if you don't like it.
It took a while for you to find me; I was hiding in the lime tree.
2008-08-13, 7:14 PM #62
Originally posted by drizzt2k2:
Can you guys shutup?


nej
2008-08-13, 8:02 PM #63
Originally posted by Jon`C:
ad homonym?


Yeah, that was what the board checker corrected it to, or at least what the top suggestion was. I went ahead and just clicked change on a couple of the "errors" from your post. Just teasing. And I spell Wookie06 correctly. I spell wookiee when I refer to a fictitious hairy race in a children's science fiction fantasy series.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-13, 8:12 PM #64
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Or:

1. Those that don't want to associate with a guy that has been known to try and steal works.
2. Don't wish their content to be mixed in with a bunch of other possibly-low quality works.
3. Wish to use their works in their projects, not someone elses.


1. That is "internet nerd-dom". I'm not talking about the individuals who created the content but the trolls that jump on the bandwagon. I've already said for all I know he is an ***, kind of sounds like one, but I have no opinion on the matter. This is simply a project I was aware of and in no real way followed any of this trivial controversy.

2. If an individual author did not want his content included I think it would be reasonable to ask for it not to be. Again, I was referring to internet nerd-dom. Those who simply opine on the side with no real personal stake in the matter like most in this thread.

3. Once they've released the content I believe another person using it, crediting the author, and assuming it is for the same game all seems like fair use to me. Sorry about the really bad grammar in that sentence. I'm too tired to re-word it but you should get the drift.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-13, 8:53 PM #65
1. You made absolutely no sense, my original point still applies.
2. Technically they already did. That's how copyright works. Unless the author grants you the right to use it in your own collab project, then you do not have that right. But just keep tossing that "internet nerd-dom" around as if it matters.
3. No one cares if you think that's fair use, because legally speaking it is not.
2008-08-13, 11:27 PM #66
Copyright is restrictive, not permissive. (you need to ask for permission, not for forgiveness)
2008-08-14, 6:05 AM #67
Originally posted by drizzt2k2:
Can you guys shutup?

Does the mod add singleplayer missions or just singleplayer maps? I would love to play some of the missions but it seems its just maps where you can spawn things. Which is correct?

Second I think.
nope.
2008-08-14, 6:36 AM #68
Originally posted by Wookie06:
1. That is "internet nerd-dom". I'm not talking about the individuals who created the content but the trolls that jump on the bandwagon. I've already said for all I know he is an ***, kind of sounds like one, but I have no opinion on the matter. This is simply a project I was aware of and in no real way followed any of this trivial controversy.


Brilliant. Yes, we're all zombie trolls who worship original authors. Wrong. It's a matter of respect for another individual's hard work. Technically anyone has as much right to the files as another, but communities expect the same respect for things as they would in a real-life situation.

Originally posted by Wookie06:
2. If an individual author did not want his content included I think it would be reasonable to ask for it not to be. Again, I was referring to internet nerd-dom. Those who simply opine on the side with no real personal stake in the matter like most in this thread.


Now this I typically agree with. However, I have heard rumors (and only rumors) that multiple authors asked for their content to be removed and were denied.

Originally posted by Wookie06:
3. Once they've released the content I believe another person using it, crediting the author, and assuming it is for the same game all seems like fair use to me. Sorry about the really bad grammar in that sentence. I'm too tired to re-word it but you should get the drift.


I'm typically in agreeance here too. I think out of courtesy folks should ask the original author and then respect their wishes, but if the author can't be contacted credit should go to them for their work regardless. I'm a firm believer that community content should live on.
-There are easier things in life than finding a good woman, like nailing Jello to a tree, for instance

Tazz
2008-08-14, 7:21 AM #69
I'm a firm believer that just because you can't contact somebody does not give you the right to use their works.

That's like saying "Oh I couldn't get ahold of Three Doors Down to use their music in my game, so as long as I credit them that makes it okay". It's ridiculous and you will get sued off your *** for it.

The only ways that this guy can legally use any of this content are:

1. He asked for rights from the author.
2. The author released their work with a license that allows anyone to use/modify.
3. The author gave up their rights to the public domain.

Seeing as how #2 and #3 are released without any sort of license save for the one LEC requires (which grants only LEC rights to use the content), and that the guy never received permission from every author for #1, he cannot use any work he hasn't been given permission to use.

That's it. Period. It doesn't matter what your feelings are on the matter, because that's the law.
2008-08-14, 7:44 AM #70
My opinion is:
You should ask for permission.

Stealing it and then being an *** is so not the way to go. I'm sure plenty of the other authors would have been okay with it if the guy was doing it in good tastes. For instance if he were to have said "I've been collecting other peoples works so I could put this together" instead of "Im MasterTim bow down to me"
[01:52] <~Nikumubeki> Because it's MBEGGAR BEGS LIKE A BEGONI.
2008-08-14, 9:29 AM #71
I'm not sure I agree, CM. I think the best policy is that if you release a skin for a game, you're pretty much making it part of the game's sphere. I think the most moral thing to do is list the mod and where to download it, explaining that it's "intended to be played with.."

However, it may be difficult to incorporate other models and skins into your mod's framework, and if you can't get ahold of the author, what's the difference between linking the file and including it in your mod download with credit? I personally think of it as redistribution, in that case.

That said, I think the best way to clear this up is simply requiring every file have a readme with rights permissions, like we do with JK. You may NOT use this in your mod, etc.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2008-08-14, 9:33 AM #72
Originally posted by JediKirby:
I'm not sure I agree, CM. I think the best policy is that if you release a skin for a game, you're pretty much making it part of the game's sphere. I think the most moral thing to do is list the mod and where to download it, explaining that it's "intended to be played with.."


You can't not agree, do you not understand copyright law? I keep having to repeat myself and it's annoying. It doesn't matter what your feelings are on the matter, if you agree or don't agree about the policy, it's law. You either agree or you risk being sued.
2008-08-14, 10:27 AM #73
Originally posted by mb:

Stealing it and then being an *** is so not the way to go. I'm sure plenty of the other authors would have been okay with it if the guy was doing it in good tastes. For instance if he were to have said "I've been collecting other peoples works so I could put this together" instead of "Im MasterTim bow down to me"


It's destructive to the editing community. That's the reason why alot of talented editors and modelers left the JA editing scene; the fanbase is often sh*t that doesn't appreciate hard work and treat the editing people as servants instead of actual persons. It's incredibly disheartening to have work you have done shuffled in some giant collection as merely an asset without notice.

There's a difference between a project showcasing people's works and one that just crams everything together in one homogeneous blob. Many Single Player JA projects use the models of characters publicly released, but they appreciate the asset and the modeler gets some fame.

Hell, take a look at Moviebattles mod I posted the link of (hint: it's the same mod featured in the Retrospective videos, [url]www.moviebattles.com)[/url]. It also recreates the scenes and battles from the movies as well. Not to mention, the mod team is actually competent at producing a mod experience (and they have a relationship Open Jedi Project). They use models, textures and so forth from modelers and mappers as well while creating alot of resources for themselves. The difference from KotF is that they try to establish connections with people who produced work that the mod uses. The people who play the mod knows what belongs to whom, and the mod takes down content if authors don't want it to be used.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2008-08-14, 10:34 AM #74
Oh i know. Im just saying theres a difference between saying "m going to compile all this stuff to show what people have done" and just taking everything and making it "Your" project and barely acknowledging anyone else.
[01:52] <~Nikumubeki> Because it's MBEGGAR BEGS LIKE A BEGONI.
2008-08-14, 10:38 AM #75
Quote:
"Oh I couldn't get ahold of Three Doors Down to use their music in my game, so as long as I credit them that makes it okay". It's ridiculous and you will get sued off your *** for it.


It isn't really like that at all, because it's easy to get in touch with a band. If you want to license their song you have to call whomever owns the rights to the publishing and the masters (which is going to be the band/record label).

I think if you release something for free you're going to have a hard time taking somebody to court, especially if they're not profiting off of it (also, what modder would sue?).
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2008-08-14, 10:45 AM #76
Originally posted by Tracer:
It isn't really like that at all, because it's easy to get in touch with a band. If you want to license their song you have to call whomever owns the rights to the publishing and the masters (which is going to be the band/record label).


Pick it apart. The point still stands.

Quote:
I think if you release something for free you're going to have a hard time taking somebody to court, especially if they're not profiting off of it (also, what modder would sue?).
No, you wouldn't have a hard time taking somebody to court. If you write a book and release it for free, then someone else takes that book, puts their name on it and credits you in foreword, do you honestly think that's legal? It's not. It's not even morally justifiable. Also, saying that it's okay because no one will bother to prosecute is a fallacy.
2008-08-14, 11:27 AM #77
I think you're getting copyright infringement (illegal) confused with plagarism (not illegal). KotF (if he indeed didn't get permission for his stuff), like your book example, is a work that has been plagarised and will only get your fired from your newspaper job or kicked out of college. Copyright infringement occurs when somebody makes illegal copies of a work without permission, and you can't really make a legal case for that when you've released your work for free on the internet.

Quote:
Also, saying that it's okay because no one will bother to prosecute is a fallacy.


I never said it was okay, I pointed that out because it's a bit strange to be throwing around words like lawyer this and copyright that when nobody is ever going to pursue legal action because somebody swiped their mod.
COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
2008-08-14, 11:42 AM #78
Originally posted by Tracer:
I think you're getting copyright infringement (illegal) confused with plagarism (not illegal). KotF (if he indeed didn't get permission for his stuff), like your book example, is a work that has been plagarised and will only get your fired from your newspaper job or kicked out of college. Copyright infringement occurs when somebody makes illegal copies of a work without permission, and you can't really make a legal case for that when you've released your work for free on the internet.


No, I did not get the two confused, and unless he gives others the rights to redistribute, use, etc etc, you can't do anything with it. Releasing something for free does NOT release your rights to your work. Also, you can be sued for plagiarism.

The Creative Commons licenses are for this exact purpose, if an author DOES wish to release their works in such a way that others may redistribute with credit.

Since almost all mods/materials released do not have such a license, you can't do ANYTHING except download it as it is offered.

Take this, for instance: Radiohead (I believe it was them) released their album for free on the internet. Does this mean that since they released it for free that they absolved themselves of all the copyrights on their work? Absolutely not. You simply have the right to download and enjoy the material, nothing more. You can't redistribute it, you can't edit it, you can't use it in your own works, nothing.


Quote:
I never said it was okay, I pointed that out because it's a bit strange to be throwing around words like lawyer this and copyright that when nobody is ever going to pursue legal action because somebody swiped their mod.
That's what people said back during Napster also. I don't think it's strange at all, because doing something simply because you can get away with it doesn't mean you should do it.
2008-08-14, 12:09 PM #79
Man, I should have sued all those ****ers who stole bits and pieces of my mods for Oblivion! I'd be rich! :3
Was cheated out of lions by happydud
Was cheated out of marriage by sugarless
2008-08-14, 1:20 PM #80
Originally posted by Jep:
Man, I should have sued all those ****ers who stole bits and pieces of my mods for Oblivion! I'd be rich! :3


And for those in JK too.

Oh wait! :v:
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
123

↑ Up to the top!