'Seawolves' contains Mods by...

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

...
I will say this about all the modders. The ones that have voiced concern, talented people and well respected, are still a small percentage and some of the other heavy hitters have yet to utter a word.
Does this not cause any interest, speculation?
...
Wulfmann

Who hasn't spoken up?

As I modder I think X1 can stuff it.



Some of us are just busy. You might notice I haven't had any updates for IC in a week. I've been, well, busy with other issues.

[jlbcke]

This is a tempest in a teapot. All these mods were published on the web without copyright restriction thus making them legally available for anyone to use as they choose including for profit.

If someone wants to protect their software from someone else using it for profit they need to invoke formal legal intellectual property protection before publishing it.

Morally, X1 should have acknowledged that these mods were not developed in-hourse (as someone reported they did). X1 should have been forthright in stating that this was a collection of previously published mods in the public domain.

SHIII users in general should be careful when talking about X1's morality. Why? SHIII is itself a game glorifying destroying ships, and murdering by drowning, and burning. That no people are depicted makes no difference: we all know the ships did not sail themselves.

I apologize to the SHIII community for sounding like a prude. I love the game and applaud its production. But the game itself does present questions that have plagued entertainment since before Aristotle wrote the Poetics i.e., entertainment is often about depicting violence.

Is it reasonable to chastise X1 morally when SHIII is itself morally questionable? I just raise the question.
[/url][/code][/b]

Originally Posted by jlbcke

If someone wants to protect their software from someone else using it for profit they need to invoke formal legal intellectual property protection before publishing it.

From a legal POV this is plain wrong.

[Stymnus]

Originally Posted by jlbcke

This is a tempest in a teapot. All these mods were published on the web without copyright restriction thus making them legally available for anyone to use as they choose including for profit.

If someone wants to protect their software from someone else using it for profit they need to invoke formal legal intellectual property protection before publishing it.

Morally, X1 should have acknowledged that these mods were not developed in-hourse (as someone reported they did). X1 should have been forthright in stating that this was a collection of previously published mods in the public domain.

Those in copyright law who have been consulted on this have said the modders have a lot of legs (collectively) to stand on here.

I suppose that if someone took all the mods from the various places they are posted, posted them to their OWN web server with no such disclaimer, it would be fine and dandy for X1 or anyone else to take the mods and use them for their own purposes?

X1 is no less wrong for the modders showing a degree of trust in the community. I'd also be willing to bet at least one mod made it into the product that DID have such a disclaimer. Anyone?

SHIII users in general should be careful when talking about X1's morality. Why? SHIII is itself a game glorifying destroying ships, and murdering by drowning, and burning. That no people are depicted makes no difference: we all know the ships did not sail themselves.

I apologize to the SHIII community for sounding like a prude. I love the game and applaud its production. But the game itself does present questions that have plagued entertainment since before Aristotle wrote the Poetics i.e., entertainment is often about depicting violence.

Is it reasonable to chastise X1 morally when SHIII is itself morally questionable? I just raise the question.

It's a far way to go to say that what someone or some company does that is immoral, that is REAL, and affects those people IN this community, pales in comparison to a GAME about events that actually happened more than fifty years ago, don't you think?

To the Germans fighting in the U-boats, they were the good guys defending their homeland. Few were members of the Nazi party, and none I know of were involved in the 'final solution'. I'm sure that if many of them had actually survived the war, they'd have been as horrified as the allies were. Though admittedly, that's all speculation.

There are far more immoral things in the world going on TODAY that would eclipse anything we've discussed in this thread or anything related, but that doesn't make the topic any less worthy of discussion.

Gents, I'm with you. X1 should be ashamed, whether their actions are judged to be legal or no.

[XabbaRus]

Like I said earlier there is the EULA to consider concerning mods.

You mod a game and if it is using some of the original games coding then you are obliged not to sell it.

Take a look at SCX and Sub Command. We were allowed to mod the game fine, but if we tried to sell it in any way we would be in big trouble.

So in that way X1software are breaking several parts of the EULA.

See that is the beauty of companies allowing modding of their games/sims. If people start trying to sell the mods in any shape or form then they will lock down the programs making mods impossible and gamers at the mercy of whether new units or models will be added.

It is a shame this has happened as usually the mod community on this forum are level headed and have created some great stuff. Don't have SHIII but seen the work and it is great.

Also modders will stop modding.

[Wulfmann]

Something that baffles me more than anything is the fact the two threads on the X-1 add on are sticky post at the top of the UBI SH3 Forum. Most of these mods are in fact modifications of UBI copyrighted material and yet they are prominently displaying this unauthorized add on. Am I alone in finding that a bit strange?
Wulfmann

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

Something that baffles me more than anything is the fact the two threads on the X-1 add on are sticky post at the top of the UBI SH3 Forum. Most of these mods are in fact modifications of UBI copyrighted material and yet they are prominently displaying this unauthorized add on. Am I alone in finding that a bit strange?
Wulfmann

I can only suppose they're sticky to demonstrate the stuff is a scam, but there's no direct indication of why those threads are stick. I do find it strange, yes.

:hmm:

[Seeadler]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

Am I alone in finding that a bit strange?

My own experiences told me that official representatives of Ubisoft find very rarely their way in their own forums after a game was released. The sticky threads are set by the moderators wich are users like you and me. Ubisoft employees come only down to the crowd, if they can announce a new patch or something else in that matter

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by pbashaw

Who is this Deathping? He does not represent CombatPlanes or X1. I've done some work for CP on the expansion, primarily in testing. I talked to Leonard this morning and he says the optional mods have been removed, and they now have permission for all others included. They had to remove Serg's Type7 DD (he had ok'ed use in World Mod but took exception to commercial release). Here are the permissions they now have..

Soundmod by Incognito Soundworks with additional work by NDigital
Hi-res subs by Sean Gilleran
U-boat Interior by Ship Hunter
DD Fix by Jungman
Radiolog by Irishred
Resupply by SANSAL
Contact Mod by Fletcher

They added their own version of a skymod as well as new blackout views for periscope and UZO.

Oh.. and Nico's cities were removed, and his escorts deleted and replaced with new ones..

Anyone confirm this? (From Ubi forum sticky)

It would be rather trivial to 'borrow' someone's skymod and tweak the values slightly. That's shady. So is partially dumping Nico's work as a basis for new work. Shady it is.

[MONOLITH]

It's a shame to see all this going on. It's not uncommon with other games though. The popularity of SH3 is what finally brought this ugliness to the Subsim forums. I fought for years against mod theft in the Tom Clancy gaming community.

I can't believe some of the false information being passed around. People getting all worked up, making claims and threats, on total heresay and forum chatter.

Please take a moment to read my last post from the other thread....

Originally Posted by MONOLITH

I would think 'just completely disregard what this guy says' is a bit on the rude side Terrapin.

Look at my posts, I'd say I gave you a bit more respect than that.

Make the effort to give me the same.


And yes Pablo, that is what I am saying.

And like I said before, I have already done this with UBI. Not only with myself, but with several other major modders in the Ghost Recon community.

I am an administrator of a website dedicated to Tom Clancy games, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Ravenshield.

All UBISOFT Games.

I have had several mods given attention in PC Gamer magazine. I have been interviewed by many high profile gaming websites and gaming affiliated magazines and organizations.

It's not like I just 'guessed' at all this.

If you make a modification of a copyrighted UBISOFT product, it belongs to UBISOFT.

You can disagree here on an internet forum all day long.

But tell me I'm wrong AFTER you've been to court, or dealt with UBI lawyers as I and my peers have.

Best of Luck to you all.

That was from this thread....
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...0446&start=200



The only person who seems to have a handle on the copyright concept is XabbaRus....

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Like I said earlier there is the EULA to consider concerning mods.
You mod a game and if it is using some of the original games coding then you are obliged not to sell it.

As for this...

Originally Posted by jlbcke

This is a tempest in a teapot. All these mods were published on the web without copyright restriction thus making them legally available for anyone to use as they choose including for profit.

Downloadable for private use, yes. "For Profit" is the part that's not allowed. UNLESS there is an agreement with Ubisoft to do so.


This next quote is the one of real interest....

Originally Posted by Stymnus

Those in copyright law who have been consulted on this have said the modders have a lot of legs (collectively) to stand on here.

I believe it is completely unfair to give the hard working modders of the gaming world false information/hopes.

So, instead of just 'claiming it' let's please see some actual legal documentation, state or federal stautues, anything at all to demonstrate that a modder can sue for use of his mod that UBISOFT retains control of in the first place.

Originally Posted by MONOLITH

It's a shame to see all this going on. It's not uncommon with other games though. The popularity of SH3 is what finally brought this ugliness to the Subsim forums. I fought for years against mod theft in the Tom Clancy gaming community.

I can't believe some of the false information being passed around. People getting all worked up, making claims and threats, on total heresay and forum chatter.

Please take a moment to read my last post from the other thread....

The only person who seems to have a handle on the copyright concept is XabbaRus....

As for this...

Downloadable for private use, yes. "For Profit" is the part that's not allowed. UNLESS there is an agreement with Ubisoft to do so.


This next quote is the one of real interest....

I believe it is completely unfair to give the hard working modders of the gaming world false information/hopes.

So, instead of just 'claiming it' let's please see some actual legal documentation, state or federal stautues, anything at all to demonstrate that a modder can sue for use of his mod that UBISOFT retains control of in the first place.

Not THIS discussion in THIS thread....

[MONOLITH]

Originally Posted by terrapin

Not THIS discussion in THIS thread....

That's how you answer that?

Is that why you ignored it in the other thread, hoping it would 'go away'?

You know, anyone can review the other conversation and see I was actually quite respectful to you.

But it seems that my simply disagreeing with you, along with my credible background experience on the issue, is enough to make you respond rather childishly. That's very telling, IMO.

My post is quite relevent, it's the same conversation.

I could completely remove my quote from the other thread, and it would all be relevent.

[jlbcke]

Terrapin has used this forum to advertise his site. Is that moral?
It's something to consider when thinking about his criticisms of X1.

I don't want to get involved in flame wars. I enjoy his sites but I also think that his using this forum to advertise his own site points out how much easier it is to reach an opinion about someone else's actions than your own.

To Stymus I say that the wrongs committed fifty years ago are as severe now as they were then. People at war always believe that God is on their side. I agree with you that U-Boat sailors thought they were doing the right thing as did their opponents who depth-charged them. That really isn't the issue.

I happen to agree with Homer and Arisotle that depiction of violence is often the essence of art in any form . It's just that many people do not agree and for those people SHIII is a morally questionable product for whom X1's possible impropriety is trivial.
I understand that modders do not feel the same way. It's all a question of POV.

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by MONOLITH

...
This next quote is the one of real interest....

I believe it is completely unfair to give the hard working modders of the gaming world false information/hopes.

So, instead of just 'claiming it' let's please see some actual legal documentation, state or federal stautues, anything at all to demonstrate that a modder can sue for use of his mod that UBISOFT retains control of in the first place.

In the U.S., anyway, suing people seems to be a national pasttime.

Truth of the matter is, legal leg or not, I'll give everyone here fifty bucks if a modder from the community actually shells out the cash for a lawyer and takes this company, which isn't even based in the U.S., to civil court.

It's just not going to happen.

The best anyone can do is spread the word, that X1 is a sleazy organization that's interested in duping you and taking your money. Truth is the weapon we must avail ourselves with.

Unless, of course, someone here is quite wealthy and really wants to invest some cash into some kind of murky legal entanglement.

Yeah, I thought not.

The bottom line is some modders from the community have been and will probably continue to be violated when this 'product' is released by X1 and some simmers, unaware of the truth, pay for a copy. I feel bad for both distinct groups of losers in this scenario, but tossing about legal talk isn't likely to change the situation. Unless Ubi feels the need to take legal action for some reason, I won't expect to find this case in the newspaper anytime soon.

[Razman23]

Originally Posted by deathping---

I can't wait to give my money to x1 for a quality addon like Seawoves, -----------------SNIP----------they sell a million copies.

<Oh crap... another one...>

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL.

I like you, you remind me when I was young and stupid.