Switch Theme:

GW now appears to be going after game modders  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:
 Monkeysloth wrote:
That's how the law works.


I didn't think 'I agree with 100%' was you stating a legal assessment free of personal opinion, but okay.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
If the terms of service for mods say you cannot then you cannot.


Whose TOS?

A TOS gives the owner the right to cancel service. If it's CA's TOS that comes with the game, that just means you can't play the game anymore.

The relevant TOS here would be Patreon's. Does Patreon disallow collecting donations for software writers who create content for existing applications/OSes? Doubtful.

Of course Steam's TOS might have some blanket clause that allows the developer to contest the existence of a mod. That's all fine and dandy, but all it means is the mod gets pulled from Steam. Host it on any other platform and keep taking donations if you want.

If it's an IP concern then TOS is completely irrelevant; that's just straight to the courts.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
Also Microsoft expressly allows it. Apple doesn't for ios. want to distribute code better pay up as that isn't free.


You're thinking of Apple's app store. I can still write my own code, offer installation via sideload, and take donations if I so choose.

They can invoke their TOS to say that I can't publish to their app store as a result, but that's all they can do- the TOS gives them the right to rescind my access to their product, not any greater legal liability.


" You may not post creations that infringe others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights. Patrons may not use creations posted by creators in any way not authorized by the creator."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Literal breach of the Ts and Cs, innit?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 00:36:54


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Catulle wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Monkeysloth wrote:
That's how the law works.


I didn't think 'I agree with 100%' was you stating a legal assessment free of personal opinion, but okay.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
If the terms of service for mods say you cannot then you cannot.


Whose TOS?

A TOS gives the owner the right to cancel service. If it's CA's TOS that comes with the game, that just means you can't play the game anymore.

The relevant TOS here would be Patreon's. Does Patreon disallow collecting donations for software writers who create content for existing applications/OSes? Doubtful.

Of course Steam's TOS might have some blanket clause that allows the developer to contest the existence of a mod. That's all fine and dandy, but all it means is the mod gets pulled from Steam. Host it on any other platform and keep taking donations if you want.

If it's an IP concern then TOS is completely irrelevant; that's just straight to the courts.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
Also Microsoft expressly allows it. Apple doesn't for ios. want to distribute code better pay up as that isn't free.


You're thinking of Apple's app store. I can still write my own code, offer installation via sideload, and take donations if I so choose.

They can invoke their TOS to say that I can't publish to their app store as a result, but that's all they can do- the TOS gives them the right to rescind my access to their product, not any greater legal liability.


" You may not post creations that infringe others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights. Patrons may not use creations posted by creators in any way not authorized by the creator."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Literal breach of the Ts and Cs, innit?


seems pretty clear to me yeah

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





BrianDavion wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the poor multi-million/billion pound profit company?!

^
"IT'S OK TO STEAL! HE'S RICHER THEN ME"

Yeah, I don't really care if some modder or fan artist is being given some money by people who like their stuff, when a multi-million/billion company is stopping just short of minimum wage for most of it's employees. Equally, I could care less if a multi-millionaire has his house burgled, but I would if Mrs Norris living off her £100 a week pension was. Something tells me the former would get over having a few thousand nicked.

That money probably wasn't going to Games Workshop anyway, especially not the Total War modding.


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 00:45:19


 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





BrianDavion wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the poor multi-million/billion pound profit company?!

^
"IT'S OK TO STEAL! HE'S RICHER THEN ME"

If they're rich enough they're a dragon and you're a hero for it.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Like, feel free to play our your general bs, but I for one will be glad when we finally start to ban the damn pirates from the site, seeing as we seemingly can't ban the nazis, the covid deniers, the racists and the sexists, at least s I me body may do something about the direct harm to 5 he hobby!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Catulle wrote:
" You may not post creations that infringe others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights. Patrons may not use creations posted by creators in any way not authorized by the creator."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Literal breach of the Ts and Cs, innit?


If it's actually infringing their IP, sure.

I can pretty easily write mods for existing games without reproducing their copyrighted code, artistic assets, or trademarks. It's not that hard, particularly when you get into the nitty-gritty engine modifications rather than artistic expansions.

Same way you can make an accessory for a physical product without infringing on the copyright or trademarks of the device. Or, more pertinently, make a piece of software intended to function within an existing operating system, without violating the existing copyrights on the code of that OS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the poor multi-million/billion pound profit company?!

^
"IT'S OK TO STEAL! HE'S RICHER THEN ME"


Okay, I'll bite: What's CA losing? What's being stolen?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 00:57:24


   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Arbitrator wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the poor multi-million/billion pound profit company?!


How dare people improve their products for free off their own backs and time and how dare other people willingly "tip them" for their work..

This is why we cant have nice things.
Quite a few people in this thread either don't seem to understand modding or just have very limited scope of the entire industry.

Nobody is disputing some BS self made T&C or law... But you have to question validity of the law or motivations behind such things... Otherwise we get to absurd stations where the only valid response is "I am just following orders"

If somebody is actively improving my product its insane to scream "I AM THE LAW!!!! YOU SHALL STOP!!!!
Its stupid...

That's not to say the world is perfect and everybody is a good actor.

The only scenario in which I envision a mod being problematic is if it actively harms, the game or its intended function/image.

For example if I had an adventure game aimed at children playing as some sort of fluffy teddy bear going around jumping on platforms and smashing piñatas, I'd be unhappy if somebody made a mod where the teddy bear is a demon and the piñatas are now human corpses... This would potentially damage the brand/ image of the game to customers.

That is not the same as someone coding in fixing all/some of the bugs companies haven't bothered fixing before releasing the game, like pretty much all of the AAA developers.

The overall result is ever lowering standards and quality.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Oh look, another thing for Youtube grifters to generate clickbait hate with, that will in no way affect my purchases, along with 99% of the rest of the community.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Spoiler:
BrianDavion wrote:
Catulle wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Monkeysloth wrote:
That's how the law works.


I didn't think 'I agree with 100%' was you stating a legal assessment free of personal opinion, but okay.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
If the terms of service for mods say you cannot then you cannot.


Whose TOS?

A TOS gives the owner the right to cancel service. If it's CA's TOS that comes with the game, that just means you can't play the game anymore.

The relevant TOS here would be Patreon's. Does Patreon disallow collecting donations for software writers who create content for existing applications/OSes? Doubtful.

Of course Steam's TOS might have some blanket clause that allows the developer to contest the existence of a mod. That's all fine and dandy, but all it means is the mod gets pulled from Steam. Host it on any other platform and keep taking donations if you want.

If it's an IP concern then TOS is completely irrelevant; that's just straight to the courts.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
Also Microsoft expressly allows it. Apple doesn't for ios. want to distribute code better pay up as that isn't free.


You're thinking of Apple's app store. I can still write my own code, offer installation via sideload, and take donations if I so choose.

They can invoke their TOS to say that I can't publish to their app store as a result, but that's all they can do- the TOS gives them the right to rescind my access to their product, not any greater legal liability.


" You may not post creations that infringe others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights. Patrons may not use creations posted by creators in any way not authorized by the creator."



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Literal breach of the Ts and Cs, innit?


seems pretty clear to me yeah


So the only issue is with the semantics of the chosen platform.
But the concept of getting tips for improving a product is all well and good ?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





Catulle wrote:
Like, feel free to play our your general bs, but I for one will be glad when we finally start to ban the damn pirates from the site, seeing as we seemingly can't ban the nazis, the covid deniers, the racists and the sexists, at least s I me body may do something about the direct harm to 5 he hobby!

I'm sure a few people getting Patreon donations for their otherwise free mods/videos/art is going to be the death knell that wipes out Games Workshop overnight.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

IP infrigement is not stealing.

Thats why they are literally two different criminal offenses and work under different sets of laws.

It isn't in any shape or form, in the same moral standing. Stop using loaded terms.

Is totally possible to be against the present set of IP and Copyright and Trademarks laws we have today and still be against the idea of people stealing stuff. Creative ideas =/= Physical property

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 01:09:05


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Arbitrator wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Like, feel free to play our your general bs, but I for one will be glad when we finally start to ban the damn pirates from the site, seeing as we seemingly can't ban the nazis, the covid deniers, the racists and the sexists, at least s I me body may do something about the direct harm to 5 he hobby!

I'm sure a few people getting Patreon donations for their otherwise free mods/videos/art is going to be the death knell that wipes out Games Workshop overnight.



Yeah lets ban everyone. That way you can post amazing responses to your own comments till the end of time wallowing in your purity.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:
Catulle wrote:
" You may not post creations that infringe others’ intellectual property or proprietary rights. Patrons may not use creations posted by creators in any way not authorized by the creator."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Literal breach of the Ts and Cs, innit?


If it's actually infringing their IP, sure.

I can pretty easily write mods for existing games without reproducing their copyrighted code, artistic assets, or trademarks. It's not that hard, particularly when you get into the nitty-gritty engine modifications rather than artistic expansions.

Same way you can make an accessory for a physical product without infringing on the copyright or trademarks of the device. Or, more pertinently, make a piece of software intended to function within an existing operating system, without violating the existing copyrights on the code of that OS.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
Won't somebody please think of the poor multi-million/billion pound profit company?!

^
"IT'S OK TO STEAL! HE'S RICHER THEN ME"


Okay, I'll bite: What's CA losing? What's being stolen?


Sure. Which rights are reserved every single time any of the images TTS has monetised have been published?

If they were doing their own art, that's one thing. Outright copypasta for the Patron bucks, well, that's going to be a test of the system. But at that point, they're saying that the work-for-hire guys that did that art... well, they shouldn't be making a living off it since they can do 18k a month stealing that art (let alone the license holder, they're not paying the actual artist *gak* they're just profiteering).
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Galas wrote:
IP infrigement is not stealing.

Thats why they are literally two different criminal offenses and work under different sets of laws.

It isn't in any shape or form, in the same moral standing. Stop using loaded terms.

Is totally possible to be against the present set of IP and Copyright and Trademarks laws we have today and still be against the idea of people stealing stuff. Creative ideas =/= Physical property


I think there's a difference in protecting an inventor from someone just taking his invention, mass producing it and selling it at an extortionate amount of money and not giving the poor man a dime. And some nerd in a basement spending untold hours to make and perfect a sexy slneshy barbarian skin for his Norscan marauders... (which are trash tier troops).

Some people just cant seem to see nuance..

You have generation defining games which are generation defining due to the community: Skyrim, fallout, GTA etc.
All of those games get untold hours of free promotional content through the communities weather by modding or streaming.

I mean who hasn't watched the random skyrim mods that are absolutely bonkers and hilarious?
None of these titles would be as successful or have as much of loyal fanbase if it wasn't for the communities behind these.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Catulle wrote:
Sure. Which rights are reserved every single time any of the images TTS has monetised have been published?

If they were doing their own art, that's one thing. Outright copypasta for the Patron bucks, well, that's going to be a test of the system. But at that point, they're saying that the work-for-hire guys that did that art... well, they shouldn't be making a living off it since they can do 18k a month stealing that art (let alone the license holder, they're not paying the actual artist *gak* they're just profiteering).


Well, uh, good thing this thread has nothing to do with TTS then, right?

I mean, if you're fishing for a more general view: I don't see any problem with commercial works (or non-commercial with associated donations) leveraging existing IP if it's not infringing upon the ability of the original rightsholder to profit off their work or unambiguously establish ownership of their media. TTS and mods don't divert profit from GW nor do they create any confusion in viewers as to what official GW canon is; therefore they're effectively harmless, same as fan fiction and fan films which even protective rightsholders (Disney) tolerate. The rightsholder certainly can exert IP law against these fan works but I don't think it's the morally justifiable thing to do.

In the case of modders, they're not just fan content- they actively improve the product. While we can speculate back-and-forth over whether projects like TTS bring anyone new into the hobby, there are games that succeed in large part to modders, as evidenced by both Bethesda's games and Bethesda's abortive attempt to directly monetize modding. These are the 21st-century equivalent of the guys who would publish guides on fixing your own TV or improving your CB radio; upgrades created by the community that add to the value of the content at zero detriment to the rightsholder. It is a distinctly anti-consumer view to oppose this content on the grounds of raw legality, particularly when the only monetization in question is a wholly optional after-the-fact donation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 01:52:48


   
Made in us
[DCM]
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:


 Monkeysloth wrote:
Also Microsoft expressly allows it. Apple doesn't for ios. want to distribute code better pay up as that isn't free.


You're thinking of Apple's app store. I can still write my own code, offer installation via sideload, and take donations if I so choose.

They can invoke their TOS to say that I can't publish to their app store as a result, but that's all they can do- the TOS gives them the right to rescind my access to their product, not any greater legal liability.


Apple does not allow side loading, android does. The only way you can is by jail breaking your phone which Apple is very against and is only legal, in the US, because the Library of Congress has the final say over DRM protections and decided jail breaking is legal (and it could change its mind and declare jail breaking illegal in the US if it wanted). If you want to distribute ios code the way apple wants you too you must pay for access to the app store. This whole debate over access to IOS is a large part of the Epic lawsuit against apple as they want to have another way to install things onto iOS (preferably through an Epic store).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 03:11:57


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Monkeysloth wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


 Monkeysloth wrote:
Also Microsoft expressly allows it. Apple doesn't for ios. want to distribute code better pay up as that isn't free.


You're thinking of Apple's app store. I can still write my own code, offer installation via sideload, and take donations if I so choose.

They can invoke their TOS to say that I can't publish to their app store as a result, but that's all they can do- the TOS gives them the right to rescind my access to their product, not any greater legal liability.


Apple does not allow side loading, android does. The only way you can is by jail breaking your phone which Apple is very against and is only legal, in the US, because the Library of Congress has the final say over DRM protections and decided jail breaking is legal (any it could change its mind and declare jail breaking illegal in the US if it wanted). If you want to distribute ios code the way apple wants you too you must pay for access to the app store.


But modders arent giving away games for free...
Consumers still have to buy the base game and any relevant DLC from the proprietary organisation...

In fact in vast majority of cases the mod improves the "vanilla" content in a meaningful enough way where people are willing to give them money from the good ness fo their hearts.

I think a much better case study here would be Minecraft.
There's some weird shady things going on with unofficial Minecraft.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Monkeysloth wrote:
Apple does not allow side loading, android does. The only way you can is by jail breaking your phone which Apple is very against and is only legal, in the US, because the Library of Congress has the final say over DRM protections and decided jail breaking is legal (and it could change its mind and declare jail breaking illegal in the US if it wanted). If you want to distribute ios code the way apple wants you too you must pay for access to the app store. This whole debate over access to IOS is a large part of the Epic lawsuit against apple as they want to have another way to install things onto iOS (preferably through an Epic store).


You mean to say that loading unsigned apps on Apple's OSes is only legal because a federal court denied Apple's overreaching claims, and maintained that all Apple can legally control is access to their own storefront?

...Sure? What's your point?

Apple can put whatever roadblocks in your way that they want, but they can't legally stop you from making software that works on their platform. Good luck to any company that wants to sue modders as somehow infringing on their rights.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 03:19:07


   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Les Etats Unis

Let's stop talking about legal precedent for a second, because I assume very few of us are lawyers.

Normally, arguments about fan creators like these are pretty easy black and white political issues; you either believe that fanfiction (or fan videos, or modding, etc. etc.) should be protected, or it shouldn't. Those two positions tie into two very clear positions on capitalism, and are therefore unlikely to be changed. For what it's worth, I'm usually on the "pro-fan" side. Removing or threatening to remove someone's work because they like what you made and wanted to create more of it is not a very nice thing to do, to say the least.

The issue with this example is that the donations take it into a big grey area. It seems a lot like a ton of ex-fan creators have turned their hobbies into full-time jobs, and it feels a bit scummy to essentially be making money off another person's work. It's hardly piracy, and it from my point of view it shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be illegal in the same way that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to talk about how they think clubbing seals is awesome and should be encouraged. Yes, people say that they're receiving donations instead of treating their work as a job, and that's sort of true, but donations are a funny thing, aren't they? It's hard to say when something counts as a simple "donation," and when it turns into payment. There's a reason, for instance, why it's illegal to "donate" to a judge after he gives one of your friends a light sentence.

Obviously no one is getting bribed in this situation, but it feels like a similar situation. When do people stop accepting money for something they created out of the goodness of their heart, and start expecting money in exchange for more creations? It rubs the me the wrong way, and honestly, I don't think I can morally fault GW for the stance they took here. The point of a fan creation should be that you're pursuing it as a hobby, or maybe a commission. A job simply seems too much.

Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Flipsiders wrote:
and it feels a bit scummy to essentially be making money off another person's work.


I take issue with this because it's a fundamental misrepresentation of the level of input involved.

Someone who takes existing artwork, characters, and ideas, writes their own fiction based on it, and sells it for a profit- consciously leveraging the existing popularity of that work- is making money off another person's work. That's what IP law is meant to prevent.

Someone who takes an existing commercial product and publishes information (or code) on how to improve it, with an ancillary but non-necessary donation service, isn't mooching off anyone else's work. They're providing their own contribution that raises the value of the base product through wholly original contribution. Even if you consider the donation service a for-profit monetary incentive rather than an optional donation, it's still on the basis of original work, rather than repackaging someone else's content.

Modders aren't the digital equivalent of IP thieves re-selling unauthorized use of copyrighted characters. They're more the modern equivalent of the old 'savvy consumers' who would publish technical data on fixing and incrementally improving upon commercial products. That's still a market that's healthy in its own right- there's plenty of aftermarket support for Apple and Microsoft products. But in the arena of digital products, influential corporations have lobbied for greater protection of their products. This is not a pro-consumer trend.

From a moral standpoint the point of IP law is to prevent damage. I've yet to see a justification for invoking IP law against modders that demonstrates actionable damage, rather than the fact that the rightsholders simply have the right.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 03:45:19


   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Les Etats Unis

 catbarf wrote:
From a moral standpoint the point of IP law is to prevent damage.


This statement is correct, but isn't complete. Mitigating damages is an important moral consideration of IP law, but encouraging original work is almost as important. When a person profits just by simply improve upon the creations of strangers, they are disincentivized to create works or products which compete with or surpass those creations. Obviously, this paradigm is equally the fault of companies such as Apple, Microsoft, or (in this case) Games Workshop, which create products with obvious flaws and refuse to reiterate upon them, but the fact that these entities are at fault is no indication that these modders are therefore saintly figures.

Creating a system in which corporations are permitted to create subpar products and independent developers are incentivized to create unoriginal works ultimately damages the consumer twice over. Three times over, in fact, as if a consumer feels obligated to donate to one of these independent developers, they are both propagating this system and also essentially paying money to make sure their product works.

Again, I don't think that GW should have the legal right to remove these mods (whether they do or do not is irrelevant), and donation-based profit is in such a grey area that legislating against it is likely a fool's errand, but I still don't think these practices should be supported in the slightest. Save improvement via modding for dead games from the 2000s, and as a consumer, simply refuse to purchase products which require third-party upgrades to adequately function whenever possible.


Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 catbarf wrote:
Someone who takes an existing commercial product and publishes information (or code) on how to improve it, with an ancillary but non-necessary donation service, isn't mooching off anyone else's work. They're providing their own contribution that raises the value of the base product through wholly original contribution. Even if you consider the donation service a for-profit monetary incentive rather than an optional donation, it's still on the basis of original work, rather than repackaging someone else's content.
Correct, assuming the published information isn't owned by someone else. In this case, the published information is GW's legally protected IP. Just like you can't write code using someone's patented methods with paying them, you can't sell someone else's IP without paying them. Getting donations for your already created code or donations to allow you to make unspecified future code is still payment.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




IP infringement isn't stealing, if it was we wouldn't need IP laws, you could just use the laws against stealing to protect your IP. We have IP laws precisely because it isn't stealing. Seeing people make the stealing argument is always good for a laugh, because they don't realize it actually undermines their own argument - if you have to steal (ha, ha) moral outrage from a different thing, it's probably a great clue that they thing you're trying to argue is so morally problematic...isn't that problematic. Because if it was, you wouldn't have to borrow more emotionally charged language from somewhere else.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Flipsiders wrote:Mitigating damages is an important moral consideration of IP law, but encouraging original work is almost as important.


Says who?

Seriously. IP protections are invoked by the rightsholder to defend ownership of their content against unlicensed use. Those rights are the maintenance of the rightsholder; not society as a whole over some nebulous principle of encouraging original work.

From a purely non-legal standpoint I see no intrinsic value in a mediocre but original work over a better but derivative improvement to an existing one.

alextroy wrote:Correct, assuming the published information isn't owned by someone else. In this case, the published information is GW's legally protected IP. Just like you can't write code using someone's patented methods with paying them, you can't sell someone else's IP without paying them. Getting donations for your already created code or donations to allow you to make unspecified future code is still payment.


Sure. So, is there evidence that the mods in question:
-Reuse existing code
-Recreate existing visual assets
-Use any other form of copyrighted material?

'Published information' is a meaningless term. It's not enough to merely assert that it's code intended to work with a Games Workshop licensed property and therefore anything tangentially related uses their IP- you can sell shoulder pads that fit on GW models, and you can ask for donations over code that its with GW software.

If Apple said you can't make a case for their phone, because making a wholly external case violates their legally protected IP on the design of their phone, would you accept it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 04:25:03


   
Made in us
[DCM]
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 Monkeysloth wrote:
Apple does not allow side loading, android does. The only way you can is by jail breaking your phone which Apple is very against and is only legal, in the US, because the Library of Congress has the final say over DRM protections and decided jail breaking is legal (and it could change its mind and declare jail breaking illegal in the US if it wanted). If you want to distribute ios code the way apple wants you too you must pay for access to the app store. This whole debate over access to IOS is a large part of the Epic lawsuit against apple as they want to have another way to install things onto iOS (preferably through an Epic store).


You mean to say that loading unsigned apps on Apple's OSes is only legal because a federal court denied Apple's overreaching claims, and maintained that all Apple can legally control is access to their own storefront?

...Sure? What's your point?

Apple can put whatever roadblocks in your way that they want, but they can't legally stop you from making software that works on their platform. Good luck to any company that wants to sue modders as somehow infringing on their rights.


No, the courts so far have agreed with Apple. The Library of congress said you can bypass the iOS drm as they have the final say over that. You cannot, however, bypass it on a game console. Nintendo wins like a court case every year over it. So if the LoC decided against jailbreaking iOS (as they have the grant extensions every few years) it would be illegal as seen by Nintendo's victories to bypass the apple app store and install your own code. Sony and Microsoft have also won against people that allow unauthorized code to run on the Playstation and Xbox respectively.

So my point is companies can legally prevent you from running unauthorized code on their platforms.

And other video game companies have sued modders and won on the PC. Blizzard, take 2 and a bunch of others. They're mostly around online cheating software but those are mods and they win. Nintendo has stopped people from putting their IP into other games via mods.

I'm not against mods either. I just realize the reality of EULAs and expensive lawyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:


If Apple said you can't make a case for their phone, because making a wholly external case violates their legally protected IP on the design of their phone, would you accept it?


They did take samsung to court for copying the iphone physical design and won (so yes, apple owns a rectangle with rounded corners for a phone design). And won on appeal too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44248404
in the latest court ruling, most of the damages payment - $533.3m - was awarded for infringing three Apple design patents. The remainder was for violating two patented functions.


You also have to "technically" pay apple for the right to make accessories, including cases, for their phones. They just tend to, from what I understand, prevent bootleg stuff getting through customs as China really doesn't care if people are making phone cases without apple's permission. US Customs does though.

Hell, they recently got US customs to block a competitors earbuds claiming they were too close to the aripod design. https://www.engadget.com/us-customs-one-plus-buds-counterfeit-apple-air-pods-081804090.html

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/05 04:37:11


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Galas wrote:
IP infrigement is not stealing.

Thats why they are literally two different criminal offenses and work under different sets of laws.

It isn't in any shape or form, in the same moral standing. Stop using loaded terms.

Is totally possible to be against the present set of IP and Copyright and Trademarks laws we have today and still be against the idea of people stealing stuff. Creative ideas =/= Physical property


IP Infringement is absolutely Theft. A specific type of theft, where the stolen object is an intangible idea or design which you have stolen by reproducing it. It is a different law because different laws cover different types of theft. Stealing a car is covered by a different law than stealing someones Identity for example.

You can't disagree on IP Infringement being Theft or not, that is undeniable. What you can disagree on is what exactly constitutes IP Infringement, that is where there would be a lot of grey area because as IP is intangible it is difficult to nail down exact definitions.

As to weather a Mod to a Game could be considered IP Infringement if you accept donations, I think that depends on the exact nature of the mod itself. Game mechanics, and something like the actual data in the Mod itself could not be copyright struck by GW since their IP pertains to the artistic renders of the game and not the code of the game, or even game mechanics within the game(Those would be owned by CA, if anybody, but many game mechanics couldn't be claimed even by them).

Say you had a hypothetical mod which expanded the map and added Cathay and Ind to the game. Cathay, Ind, and the larger Warhammer map are obviously GW property and you couldn't make money off of that.

But say we had another hypothetical mod. One which rebalances all the existing factions, changes unit costs, damage values, health, etc... Overhauled the economy perhaps, made the economy more complex using more than just Gold to create and maintain units. This would not be something GW could claim IP Infringement on, the changes are to the games coding and game mechanics, not to any of GWs IP. CA could probably make claims against the modder using their base game code, but that would depend on the nitty gritty details of how the mod is structured. If it just plugs into the existing game, then they wouldn't have much.

Just like Ford can't sue someone for selling aftermarket parts for their vehicles, depending on the type of mod to a computer game you may not have a leg to stand on.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Totally and completely wrong. It absolutely is not theft, theft requires the deprivation of someone else's (tangible/personal/movable) property, not just your benefiting from it. If you could walk down the street, look at someone's car, snap your fingers, and create a perfect duplicate of it, it wouldn't be theft to drive away in the new car you poofed into existence, because doing so doesn't deprive the car's owner of the use of their own car. IP infringement is not theft because there's no deprivation of the owner's property, merely exploitation (in the economic sense) of it.

At a stretch, you might be able to argue it was a kind of conversion. But conversion doesn't have any moral heft to it, hence why people break out the stealing and theft language.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 04:55:30


 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





West Lafayette, IN

So essentially this and every other person recently who got popped or chose to self-pop revolved around making money off of said work, not the work itself? I'm understanding this correctly, yes? So make a couple cat videos, link a patreon to it with maybe a passing mention of your "free" modding and avoid being paid directly for said content, before or after the fact. Occam's Razor and all that...

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




No, GW told at least one animator that they had to take down their videos whether they were monetized or not.

Plus, GW would probably claim it owned the IP rights to the concept of a cat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 05:36:12


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Honestly this thread should just be locked by a Mod.

Video game modders breaking TOS is
A. nothing new
B. worthless to argue about in a forum that's focused on wargaming.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: