View Full Version : Are all mods illegal??? Seriously!!!
Wulfmann
09-08-06, 06:35 PM
I am not try to start a fight but with so much negativity over Seawolves I did something I have never done with any game.
I read the user agreement.
You may want to read it.:hmm:
It actually states you/we agree not to modify the game for any reason.
No, I am not kidding check out a few lines. This is from SH3 user agreement and there is much more and it comes from many directions that basically says UBI owns whatever you do.
From the agreement you clicked yes to::o
It is not permitted:
- To make copies of the Multimedia Product,
- To operate the Multimedia Product commercially,
- To use it contrary to morality or the laws in force,
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To transmit the Multimedia Product via a telephone network or any other electronic means, except during multi-player games on authorised networks,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.
Noticed they misspelled “Authorize” Is that a loophole?
I doubt they would do so but it may be the illegal mods are RUB, NYGM and Greywolves. Technically.:nope:
But, as I said in other post they like the community doing mods because, as we now can clearly see, they can use them as if they made them. They can legally claim ownership to what ever anyone does for SH3
I must laugh at all of us because had we read this long ago we would have realized our job was to turn around bend over and be had. Our choice was to like it or not but we got it in the end. A depth charge up tube five, so to speak!:huh:
But, don't stop there read the whole thing.
I had no idea they so completely had us all along!
I copied the whole agreement if anyone wants it posted here say so.
Wulfmann
Has anyone tried to get a comment form UBISOFT on this ongoing issue?
Redwine
09-08-06, 06:51 PM
Normally no body can enforce you to dcline your legal rights, in example, if you are fired and you must to recive an indemization, and you are pressed to decline some rights, even if you sing a paper decline some of your rights, you can claim for them later.
This principe is called "Undeclinability of legal rights", your legal rights are yours even after you decline them by signature on paper.
It was made to finish extorsive pressure over undefense people.
I not sure if into all zones, but almost it is as i described in Job Law in my country.
Then based on same principle, no "Agreement" mouse click can make you to loss your legal rights over your payed game.
If you do not make maney with the mods, you into the law.
Sure law is diferent at any country, i dont know how it is at France the country of UBI, but normally if you dont make money you have no legal problems.
Of course if you develope a free Paciphic Mod for USA subs, you may be introubles because SH IV is on the job, but if you release mods as NYGM, GW, UWAC, IUB, RUB, and you not make any money profit with them.
:up:
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 07:30 PM
I've seen in the SHIV Q/A portion one of the Devs that worked on SHIII stating that he appriciated the work that the mod communtiy has done to better his game. Also, no modder is taking credit completely with the entire game being their own. Most would admit and have admitted that they couldn't have done it without Silent Hunter III being the foundation for them to make their mod. Also, I wouldn't think that UBIsoft would want to go around prosecuting their own loyal customers that obviously aren't trying to profit off their original game. This would kill their sales in the future as no one would buy another game from them that they couldn't modify to better suit their own taste. I think UBIsoft has no problems with it as long as no one is making money off their original creation and they must realize that the modifications done by the community here have only helped to further their sales. It's like we (the communtiy) give them free publicity and that in itself is worth it to a game developer to allow a few breaches of agreements that most people completely ignore anyways considering there is all this illegal uploading going on. The whole world is guilty of this pretty much. Even copying and pasting a picture to your desktop from a website could be considered pirating.
Wulfmanns argument makes sense and is correct to a point.
But you also need to look at Ubi themselves..they have actually stated that they appreciate the work the modders have done to there game..so that argument of legally modding is pointless and moot as Ubi has no issues with the game being modded.
The big argument is the fact that anything made that does not use Ubi's original game files is in fact owned by the maker.So any model that is made from scratch and not kitbashed using Ubis files is owned by that model maker NOT Ubi or anyone else...Ubi does not own the file types that make up the game(ie.. .TGA,.CFG etc. etc..)They own the wording and content inside the original files the game shipped with.But a person making a from scratch model in say 3D Studio Maxl and converting it to the filetype the game uses does not make the model owned by Ubi as Ubi does not own the filetype extension or the content inside that file.For example the .TGA file type is owned by TrueVision Inc. who invented the .TGA type in the 1980's.
So yes anything you mod using Ubis original game files can be claimed to be owned by Ubi.No arguing that.
But if the mod is 100% your own work and does not use any of the original files the game uses it is protected under the Intelectuall Copyright Laws then Ubi does not own it and no one can use it legally.Just because it is converted to a filetype the game reads the content in that file is still your Intellectual Property and is protected.Only because Ubi does not own the filetype.
Not so long ago the "ACTUAL" SH3 devs were asking for ship modders to contact them..so if all mods are illegal why would the openly ask for mods, modded vehicles or any kind of modded content
Those parts of the the end user agreement exist because corporations are sociopathic when it cxomes to control of their so clled "intellectual property". Even if it improves the success of the product they don't like people knwoing their secrets.
My brother recently toild me about Kotor2. Apparently it was rushed by Lucas Arts to selling. This forced Obsidian entertainment to cut alot of content. However Obsidian wanted to make a free downloadable patch for owners of the game which would reintroduce the cut content. It would have been at the cost of Obsidian not Lucas Arts. However Lucas Arts said no and severed their relationship with Obsidian.
Does that make any sense? Surely that would have made the game more successful but Lucas Arts said no.
The reason these kidns of things are apparently against the rules is that they likely want to create their own expansion packs that you have to buy.
However they really can't tell us what we can or cannot do with our software. They can't say we can't sift through lines of code that are on our computer. We are also allowed to make copies of the disc in order to have a backup for our own purposes.
Alot of what they put in those agreements isn't really based on law. it's mostly alot of big words that they have to intimidate people. For instance that part that says To use it contrary to morality. Well their only ability to control the product is via the law. What does morality even mean? Does it mean I can't kill anyone with the game disc? Force my hamster to eat the game manual and cause it's death because of the chemicals in the paper?
For me the whole idea of intellectual property is sketchy and totally against the interests of society. This absolute control of ideas and code once it is in the public domain is a futile idea. What are they going to do anyway? Sue the people that keep people buying their game thereby alienating the small community?
People wonder why I'm a pinko.;)
SubSerpent
09-08-06, 07:41 PM
Also, this game has been out for quite some time now and UBI knows about this site and has no problem with it obviously. They probably praise Neals site considering it's free publicity for them for games like SHIII. It always lets them know that they have an audience who is willing to buy their products. :yep:
Wulfmann
09-08-06, 08:17 PM
What I read is UBI decides whatever it wants.
If it profits from freely offered mods, (and we all know this game has been more successful from the free mods and will actually sell more as time goes on from them,) they can waive their right to object.
But, if anything bothers them, like the previous old Pacific Mod pack, well they can squash it (like they did, remember).
What this also does is basically say UBI can let X-1 have permission and the community must bend over.
I have always felt X-1 could examine the mods and do the same stuff if they chose to (certainly most disagreed with me here) but if I read this correctly any mod (as in UBI file modified) belongs to UBI and therefore X-1 has the legal right to use them because UBI allowed them and UBI owns them.
That said. What about the ground up new ships like the beautiful Hood or Roma?
(It seems Seydlitz would be considered a modified ship.)
Does the fact these were made and placed in SH3 mean UBI has a right to them?
This seems like a no to me but is the wording such they could actually claim them?
I am obviously not speaking (again) about what is right as we can all agree it would not be right.
But, do they have the legal right or does there own clause “contrary to morality” fit these totally new works as it would seem.
When I look at the Hood and Roma; taking them without compensation (a fair price) would be considered a sin and a crime against Modaminty!
There must be a legal line. Just how far does this user agreement go to them holding all the cards?
Wulfmann
Jay Carlson
09-08-06, 10:54 PM
Actually, that I know of, the issue of mod ownership and the right to the underlying code of those mods has not been decided through case law. Of course, not all countries or states have the same reliance on case law, but until a developer or mod writer takes this question through the courts all these arguments are not worth the bytes they use on our computers.
From a business perspective, a game developer might find it beneficial to encourage mods which prolong the life of a game title and potentially increase sales. The alternative is to be consigned to the discount bin in a year. If mods keep your game fresh, a developer would likely welcome the community involvement in mod development.
Some one who were to step in and gather code otherwise available for free, with the consent of the developer, would of course risk angering the community that has embraced the game and may not profit as expected from their efforts. Such is life in the business world.
terrapin
09-08-06, 11:07 PM
:up: Good summary !
Actually, that I know of, the issue of mod ownership and the right to the underlying code of those mods has not been decided through case law. Of course, not all countries or states have the same reliance on case law, but until a developer or mod writer takes this question through the courts all these arguments are not worth the bytes they use on our computers.
From a business perspective, a game developer might find it beneficial to encourage mods which prolong the life of a game title and potentially increase sales. The alternative is to be consigned to the discount bin in a year. If mods keep your game fresh, a developer would likely welcome the community involvement in mod development.
Some one who were to step in and gather code otherwise available for free, with the consent of the developer, would of course risk angering the community that has embraced the game and may not profit as expected from their efforts. Such is life in the business world.
JScones
09-08-06, 11:48 PM
Exactly Jay, the Holy Grail of this whole topic is the citation of a precedential court case. Until then, it's untested and the whole debate is open to anyone and everyone's interpretation.
At the end of the day it's up to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis whether copyright has been infringed, and they do so based on much more than just a licence agreement.
I am aware of more conventional software copyright infringement cases in Australia where the courts have ruled both for and against plaintiffs based simply on how the files in question formed part of the overall package (ie integral to the running of the software or not) and this is despite any agreements or claims the developers may have made. At least the two cases I am aware of provide nice guidance when it comes to determining what files can or can not be used by others despite a developer's claim to copyright, but I'd be loathed to apply the findings of those cases to this scenario. I can though, apply them to the use of SH3Cmdr, just as a highlight.
Basically Ubisoft can assert their interpretation of their rights as they choose, but they won't be the one finding anyone guilty, regardless of what they write. But I think modders will find that as long as they release ONLY their modified files for FREE and do not negatively impact on the current or future earnings of Ubisoft, Ubisoft will be happy. Hell, they're getting greater exposure hence potential increased income from sales for no effort in return! But create a new "Subs in the Pacific" mod and expect to get into trouble pretty fast. That's quite black and white as it impacts on Ubisoft's future earnings.
Re who owns what files, there's lots of valid points mentioned by CWorth and a few others that courts would take into account and indeed do take into account when considering copyright infringement cases. But unless I saw a precedential case specific to this scenario, I wouldn't know which way a court would ultimately decide whether my cloned X class which I released for free as a new SH3 inclusion was mine or Ubisoft's, considering what they need to take into account to make a decision. I can guess, but as Jay says, what weight would it carry?
Sailor Steve
09-09-06, 10:54 AM
Noticed they misspelled “Authorize” Is that a loophole?
Actually "authorised" is the standard British spelling. Only Americans use the 'z' (or should I say 'zed'?).
So no, it's not a loophole.
The Noob
09-09-06, 11:24 AM
People, can't you just STFU about this, before UBISOFT gets any Ideas...:shifty:
Just ignore this muck like Seawolves. If someone is Stupid enought to Buy it, Point an Laught.
If someone is Stupid enought to Buy it, Point an Laught.
If you werent part of this community and you´d see the Seawolves expansion in your local PC store, would you think: Cool! I must have that!! I bet you would
For not knowing something, doesnt make someone stupid. :up:
That´s why I want to keep this topic rolling, so everyone in SubSim know what the add-on is all about. It sickens me to think of all the people that have already bought it. :-?
Well having read Wulfmann's reasonable reply to my thread (and Steve was right authorise is commonwealth spelling :p) I think this is a good thread. I also see why he used my initial and not my name, I understand no offense intended. :up: As long as the tone is kept civil ... why can't we hash this thing out.
What was said about UBI turning a blind eye to say officially illegal mods as good business sense is actually logical. I wish there was a way, calmly and without hysteria (which I was also part of I'll admit) explain to them how uncredited mods taken without permission to use in an authoris(z)ed payware package leaves a bad taste in the hardcore community.
Now while it is true most of the sales come from casual players, but it is the hardcore community that drove the essentials of what we have in sims with mod potential. Things like dynamic campaigns, manual TDC and all that stuff come from us. So maybe it is up to us to in a polite way stand for some morality and common sense in modding? :hmm:
The Noob
09-09-06, 01:00 PM
Okay, you're right. I just couldn't think of the Fact that anyone who Plays this game isn't at Subsim.com already...:lol:
Wulfmann
09-09-06, 01:28 PM
After dozens of threads on this that were at best sand box fights I am impressed by a more civil and intellectual series of constructive responses of the topic.
First, I believe we can all agree despite what the read me said and/or infers Ubi has made a number of statements that encourage making mods even requesting them.
That leads me to believe this is a standard read me cover all bases to be used when we can apply it user agreement.
However the fact they have instigated it in the agreement gives them at least some advantage.
What I mean is unless someone can prove and is willing to do so in a court of law UBI can exercise its right to claim any file it owns that has been modified still belongs to them and not the modifier.
This control seems to allow them to ax any mod they consider detrimental to future releases like a Pacific Mod but aside from that I can not remember them making any complaint about any mod.
Then, of course, the fact they have a user’s agreement that retains the ownership of modified files allows them to authorize use by X-1.
If I read this right X-1 could have gone bananas on using whatever they wanted but (in the new Med release) only made a few additions that may have actually been unintentional.
I know they have hired or acquired mods from people here that asked it be unannounced.
Is it possible a few honest mistakes were made?
Is it possible, don’t get mad now, we’re doing really good, but if the read me has merit can you see UBI allowing X-1 to use SH3 files it owns and if that means the modified versions then couldn’t X-1 legally use any and all files including Greywolves and or NYGM?
As morally wrong as this would be and I know they have no such plans the fact might be they could have been really mean if they wanted.
Or, am I mistaken????
I am not asking for right and wrong opinions or WWJD as we all know these free mods made the game much better and using them without permission is plain wrong.
Let us keep that as a basic premise that any unauthorized commercial use of any free mod would wrong.
However, what is the legal opinion?
Forget WWJD and ask what would Johnny Cochran do!
Wulfmann
Well Johnny would ask for a glove fitting first. :p
Seriously, first off we need to look into what may have been borrowed, stolen, etc. Serg made a rather long list, which included some "maybes" and "need further investigation." The one ship included as a placeholder may have indeed been a mistake, especially if as you say CP is one or two guys (I think). This really needs to be cleared up.
Second, look at what mods have been made and what in the sim is open to being modded. Maybe look at other sims too, best example is the grand old MSFS which has a similar EULA but has spawned some amazing addons including some which extend the sim in new ways not even thought of, and may are payware too.
As far as I know there never has been a legal precedent set when it comes to legal standings for mods made for games.
There is no black and white laws that can be looked up and researched that will say what can and cannot be used or done with mods.
This is all pretty new ground in legal terms for use of software and mods made for said software.The only way I can see this ever being settled is to directly go to a copyright attorney and get his opinion on the matter.Because until actual laws are in place and carved in stone then this kind of debate will always continue and no one will really know what truly is right or wrong in the legal sense.There will always be that fine hazy line.
As far as I know there never has been a legal precedent set when it comes to legal standings for mods made for games.
There is no black and white laws that can be looked up and researched that will say what can and cannot be used or done with mods.
This is all pretty new ground in legal terms for use of software and mods made for said software.The only way I can see this ever being settled is to directly go to a copyright attorney and get his opinion on the matter.Because until actual laws are in place and carved in stone then this kind of debate will always continue and no one will really know what truly is right or wrong in the legal sense.There will always be that fine hazy line.
That is likely to stay hazy for one reason. The average gamer isn't going to be able to afford nor want to shill out the cash to take a case such as this to any court. This is the fact that corporations rely on when it comes to dealing with these small time modders. Many corporations have in the process of making a game ordered modding groups to halt creating a mod for a game which essentially makes something similar to the game they are creating. MGM was doing this when it was making it's Stargate game, sending letters to mods telling them to cease and desist because they were infringing on their intellectual property rights. I think these cases would have been defeated but no one was going to take it to court. That MGM cancelled the game is just funny side note.
THE_MASK
09-09-06, 08:15 PM
Grey wolves should be looked at by UBISOFT as the:yep: unofficial Official update and given support by UBISOFT .
Sir Big Jugs
09-10-06, 04:14 AM
What if all individual modders would look at Seawolves, and find their own mod from there. Then we'd make a downloadable "Free Seawolves", which is exactly like the payware one?:p
NeonSamurai
09-10-06, 11:20 AM
Many corporations have in the process of making a game ordered modding groups to halt creating a mod for a game which essentially makes something similar to the game they are creating. MGM was doing this when it was making it's Stargate game, sending letters to mods telling them to cease and desist because they were infringing on their intellectual property rights. I think these cases would have been defeated but no one was going to take it to court. That MGM cancelled the game is just funny side note.
Well in that case i belive the law is somewhat black letter, since the mods are based off a movie/tv series, and the content of which falls under intelectual property rights. Modding a game where the mod is based off something that is not intelectual property (historical events etc) is far more hazy, and the only chance the company would have legaly to stop it is to either own the game engine being modded, or get the owning company to try put a stop to it. Even still there is little if any black letter law (or pre existing cases) in such cases.
Also the big problem as was said is with most of these liscensing/end user agreements, is they have never realy been put to the legal test. Though the clauses which infringe on basic rights would almost certainly get thrown out.
Hello Group,
I am new to this group, but from what I have read it looks like UBI owns any mod that has been made for the game and it does not matter who did the work.
So as I was reading I got to thinking, since you seem to have the talent gathered to make mods for these sims, why don't you all get together and make a complete new WWII sim and make the game so anyone playing can play either side and command any naval ship. Think of how many people would be interested in a game like that and how much you could make in sales...............
If you do, I would suggest that you keep it all on the Q T.
Just a suggestion,:arrgh!:
Darrell
Sailor Steve
09-23-06, 05:14 PM
Grey wolves should be looked at by UBISOFT as the:yep: unofficial Official update and given support by UBISOFT .
But others feel exactly the same way about NYGM.
And others about U-Boat War Ace.
What to do, what to do...:hmm:
So as I was reading I got to thinking, since you seem to have the talent gathered to make mods for these sims, why don't you all get together and make a complete new WWII sim and make the game so anyone playing can play either side and command any naval ship. Think of how many people would be interested in a game like that and how much you could make in sales...............
Such a project already exists, and is showing much potential. However, its development is proceeding slowly because of a lack of developers with programing skills.:cry:
http://www.dangerdeep.net/
MothBalls
09-23-06, 05:25 PM
I derailed my train of thought. :)
Sailor Steve
09-23-06, 05:27 PM
There you go!:up:
Of course, which versions? As soon as it's out there will be more improvements to one or all.:damn: Still, a great idea.
What to do, what to do...:hmm:
I´d hate to see TGW as a payware addon. The whole mood of the dev team changes when they go from freeware to payware. Good example is Day of Defeat mod for Half-life. First it was freeware and everything was fine, the modders made it because the loved to make it. As soon as Valve 'bought' the modders, they started to make it for money and it shows in the game. Tho, they it was still available for free, but you get my point.
Anyone else gets all woozy in the head from this "law and user" stuff. :dead:
Geez, no wonder I never wanted a second date with the lawyer bint!:hmm:
But on a more serious note, the times are changing! Every game company is aware that modding and the community behind it keeps it alive!
Lets just hope they dont do anything stupid!:shifty:
macstu23
09-23-06, 07:55 PM
This is why we never use personal names. I think the law understands that if we weren't at home modding SH3 then we'd either be hacking into the Pentagons security system or out stealing boats and trying to sink them, so they cut us some slack. ;)
P.S. I heard Sergs real name is Dwayne Dibbly and he lives in Bolton near Manchester.
THE_MASK
09-23-06, 07:55 PM
UBI should be greatful for all the extra sales the modders have given them . Basically vanilla sucks .
Wulfmann
09-23-06, 08:13 PM
UBI gets both ends.
They get more and extended product interest, more sales, ergo more profit because of the superior free mods.
But, they get the cash and before you think any freemods could be packaged and sold you would have to get UBI's permission.
Since that would not likely happen, be glad we who appreciate it have a much better SH3 because they leave it open to mod.
We are here for them to make money.
Reality
Wulfmann
THE_MASK
09-23-06, 09:45 PM
The more money they make on SH3 , the more they can spend on SH4 :rotfl:
No, they will just want to make twice as much on SH4 and of course they may spend more money but it will be on protection software, maybe a nother piece of junk software that won't run on your computer because you have a CD/DVD RW CD Rom.
Those people should place a notice on the front of the box stating that if your computer has the ability to copy or burn CD's or DVD's, do not buy this product at all............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:down:
If you buy a computer game at wal-mart and it does not work you can not return it, you get a store credit card with the amount of the returned item and that is total BULL****.......................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :down: :nope:
Darrell
I´d hate to see TGW as a payware addon. The whole mood of the dev team changes when they go from freeware to payware. Good example is Day of Defeat mod for Half-life. First it was freeware and everything was fine, the modders made it because the loved to make it. As soon as Valve 'bought' the modders, they started to make it for money and it shows in the game. Tho, they it was still available for free, but you get my point. If UBI coming a knocking mate and want it as payware..i'm out of the door...simple
i dont like what EA did to DC dev team, same would happen here.."WE" as modders would have no say in what would be released, how it would be released and when..all creative thought would be none and void.
I would sooner ENJOY the modding experience and release a "FREEWARE" addon than be swallowed up by a big company:down:
Just my opinion.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.