Legal status of mods?

[joea]

Fropm this locked thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97553

My last post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfmann


We have to realize one simple point the I hate X-1 and I am willing to destroy sub sims forever to get my way, crowd: There is a difference to “Being right” and “Having the right”. Being right could cost us future open capacity (I do not know this to be true) and diminish what we enjoy because we want to attack those that utilize mods that actually they have every (“Legal, not moral”) right to use.

We can hurt ourselves more than help if we make too much out of something we can do nothing about

Wulfmann


Are you really saying that X1/CP had the legal right to use mods created by others and sell them? I call BS. Stop characterising those who stand for honesty as wanting to destroy sub sims.

Now could it really be legal for someone to take something created by someone else and sell it? Yes or no and why? I want contracts and legal codes and precedents. NO FLAMES.

Thanks.

[joea]

1st and last bump.

[stabiz]

I think Wulfmann is in a meeting with the rest of X1 in the Deathstar.

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by stabiz

I think Wulfmann is in a meeting with the rest of X1 in the Deathstar.

:rotfl::rotfl:

[The Noob]

@joea

Your last post? Goodbye then...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by _Seth_

:rotfl::rotfl:

ROFLMAO :rotfl: :rotfl:

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by stabiz

I think Wulfmann is in a meeting with the rest of X1 in the Deathstar.

Not for long I suppose:



TORPEDO HIT!!!!!

[Wulfmann]

The problem here is many of you refuse to recognize what you don't like because you don't like it. That denial does not help but making me the target of your wrath because X-1 is not here while making you feel cool only shows your ignorance.

It is not BS, it is a legal fact. Like I said it is not about being right it is about having the right. The legal right.

What you fail to realize, face, recognize, admit to etc is Ubisoft owns the copyright to all these files. When one is altered or modified that file still belongs to Ubisoft.
It does not belong to the mod maker of it.
So, when Ubisoft gave X-1 permission to make an add on to SH3 they had legal right to utilize the files copyrighted by Ubisoft.

My stating this legal fact has been taken to mean I endorse them doing so. I am not making any judgment as it seems some common courtesy would have gone a long way to preventing discord but I was never involved with or contacted in any way by X-1.
I provided historical data to Combat Planes and beta tested and reported to them only, I was not compensated a single dime. Those facts are ignored and innuendo in the form of random conjecture are then considered fact.

Any opinions made by me, and that is all they are, are not endorsed or approved by Combat Planes and are made of my own accord. If you think attacking me to vent helps your ego, well than perhaps it is well served. If you think I care, you have me confused with someone that gives a Scheise!

What I meant above was hassling Ubisoft might provide and opposite result as it did with Combat Flight Simulator 3 which we so complained about that they cancelled CFS4 when it was more than half done. They then released consol games like “Heroes of the Pacific”. If you think that is impossible for SH series, well I hope you are right.

While I have no reason other than a fear of possibility, I was merely stating we could push UBI into wanting to avoid being bothered by marginally profitable games if we make more of this than we have.
I am not saying it would be honest people doing it. Honesty, fairness etc have nothing to do with the legality.
I am saying we must realize they have the legal right to do as they wish with their copyrighted material and we have no legal right nor do those that modify Ubisoft copyrighted material.

It is not BS. It is Copyright laws and your denying it changes nothing. It seems many prefer to be in denial than face reality.

Wulfmann

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

The problem here is many of you refuse to recognize what you don't like because you don't like it. That denial does not help but making me the target of your wrath because X-1 is not here while making you feel cool only shows your ignorance.

It is not BS, it is a legal fact. Like I said it is not about being right it is about having the right. The legal right.

What you fail to realize, face, recognize, admit to etc is Ubisoft owns the copyright to all these files. When one is altered or modified that file still belongs to Ubisoft.
It does not belong to the mod maker of it.
So, when Ubisoft gave X-1 permission to make an add on to SH3 they had legal right to utilize the files copyrighted by Ubisoft.

My stating this legal fact has been taken to mean I endorse them doing so. I am not making any judgment as it seems some common courtesy would have gone a long way to preventing discord but I was never involved with or contacted in any way by X-1.
I provided historical data to Combat Planes and beta tested and reported to them only, I was not compensated a single dime. Those facts are ignored and innuendo in the form of random conjecture are then considered fact.

Any opinions made by me, and that is all they are, are not endorsed or approved by Combat Planes and are made of my own accord. If you think attacking me to vent helps your ego, well than perhaps it is well served. If you think I care, you have me confused with someone that gives a Scheise!

What I meant above was hassling Ubisoft might provide and opposite result as it did with Combat Flight Simulator 3 which we so complained about that they cancelled CFS4 when it was more than half done. They then released consol games like “Heroes of the Pacific”. If you think that is impossible for SH series, well I hope you are right.

While I have no reason other than a fear of possibility, I was merely stating we could push UBI into wanting to avoid being bothered by marginally profitable games if we make more of this than we have.
I am not saying it would be honest people doing it. Honesty, fairness etc have nothing to do with the legality.
I am saying we must realize they have the legal right to do as they wish with their copyrighted material and we have no legal right nor do those that modify Ubisoft copyrighted material.

It is not BS. It is Copyright laws and your denying it changes nothing. It seems many prefer to be in denial than face reality.

Wulfmann

If someone writes a book, a copyrighted one, do they own the words in it?

[stabiz]

Of course its not illegal, but thats not the point.

It is highly immoral, and a good old kick in the face for anyone making mods. This is the most arrogant and inconsiderate treatment of customers - yes CUSTOMERS - I have ever seen, so the fact that you are defending X1 is for me not just strange, but also a bit daft.

Try selling X1-software to anybody who knows their story in the future, and see how you`ll fare.

Companies of any size can not afford to alienate themselves from the customer.

This is also a problem for Ubisoft, and my guess is they will have to do something about it at one point.

[joea]

Originally Posted by The Noob

@joeaYour last post? Goodbye then...

Bump not post, your usename is very appropriate. (Joke) Bump means to push up a thread again, I posted, no one answered for a few days so I bumped it once to get a response that's all.


@ Wulfmann, sorry I would like to see laws, paragraph and number. If freeware mods are technically illegal, and X1/CP took illegal mods to put in their approved payware product, isn't that illegal? :hmm:

CFS3 is a bad example. I really don't think, with the possible exception of MSFS, that companies care about the modding community. Also products as bad as CFS3 should not have to be "fixed" by the mod community. What does that have to do with the cancelation of CFS4 anyway? We should not complain when companies release crud games?? You make it sound like the "ungratitude" of the public made them cancel CFS4, rather than disappintment with CFS4 which had broken with the pattern of previous MS sims and was not even compatible with the civie line. Of course as it is all speculation as no one knows the real story.

So basically we should shut up and not complain about immoral activity and sh#t payware.

[Wulfmann]

This only shows how both S and J do not want to face reality and want to attack me with this as an excuse.
Pathetic.

The book bit is preposterous and not applicable here. A better example would be if someone took War and Peace, used most of the same book but changed a few words (The mod maker) and then declares he owns the book and not the published author.
Ubi owns these files and you agree to that when you install the game. The fact they leave it open is partially so we will improve it for our pleasure and later, if they so choose, there treasure.

You keep saying I am defending X-1.
I am not.
I am trying to explain reality to people that are in denial.
Demanding something be done about something nothing will be done has no merit in reality.
The fact something is not right or moral or nice has nothing to do with legality.
J, you ask me to quote what law? This has been investigated many times and not once has any cause been shown that has any legal merit. Not once.
Don’t agree.
Sue.
I dare you or anyone.
But, at that point you will lose and end the SH series.

You will really show them.

Making inaccurate assertions to satisfy your unhappiness with this add on does not do anything but stir the pot and continues a negative aspect.

The opposite of love is not hate. It is indifference.

I was part of a team advising on CFS4 so have a clue but am sure you would know more about something you know nothing.
CFS3 required being totally rebuilt by the mod community, which we did and made it far superior to IL-2. Anyone that got into it had to be willing to spend huge amounts of time tweaking and most just wanted to fly in WWII so IL-2 was much better for them (as well as much better online)
But, I did not have to attack IL-2 because the gaming community preferred it 10 to 1. I was indifferent to it as I was involved in something far superior. I simply did not care and did not bother with it.

You, however, are far from indifferent over Seawolves and are throwing a hissy fit over something none of us can do anything about.
Except choose not to buy it. That does not require a post here and is actually more effective.
Wulfmann

[_Seth_]

[/quote] The book bit is preposterous and not applicable here. A better example would be if someone took War and Peace, used most of the same book but changed a few words (The mod maker) and then declares he owns the book and not the published author.
Ubi owns these files and you agree to that when you install the game. The fact they leave it open is partially so we will improve it for our pleasure and later, if they so choose, there treasure.

[/quote]

A better example would be if someone took (IE) the mod makers work, used most of the same mod but changed a few things (X1) and then declares he owns the mod, and not the mod maker who made it different. (X1 even sold it)

Does X1 own the .exe type files? or the .ogg? or .jpeg, .mp3, .txt, .cfg and so on??
Then my whole computer belongs to X1..

Maybe, just maybe they own the "composition", but when a modder changes that, the file isnt the original one anymore. And if X1 "own" the original one, they sure as h*** doesnt own the other one (the one that the modder made, using letters and words that human evolution has made possible). If i buy a house (or some files), and i decide to build an extension/annex (which would make the house look different, and more valuable), who could stop me? The seller cant say "dont do it, because the house is copyrighted!" He cant even have some of the profit im making on a sale....
And if someone "steals" my extended house, and try to sell it themselves (with the annex and everything), how about that??

I respect your fight, wulfmann, but sometimes people just have too see behind the money and the greed, and think more ethical and morally over their actions..

[CWorth]

"Does X1 own the .exe type files? or the .ogg? or .jpeg, .mp3, .txt, .cfg and so on??
Then my whole computer belongs to X1.."

That right there is the main point.X1 nor Ubi own any of these filetypes.

Also what the modders do falls under the "Fair Use Act" of the copyright laws.Here permission is not needed to modify the work.

The mods made by the members here are for non-profit work the benefits the public.So they fall under the "Fair Use Act" of the copyright laws.

This is part from a book on copyright laws that I have..Its called "The Copyright Handbook" by Attorney Stephen Fishman.

Congress passed a law authorizing the use of copyrighted materials in certain circumstances deemed to be "fair" -- even if the copyright owner doesn't give permission.
Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider the following questions in deciding this issue:

• Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially affects the sales of the copied material.)
• How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the material was a part?
• How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research, scholarship and non-profit uses are most likely to be judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a commercial gain are less likely to be fair use).

As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand, if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.

[John Channing]

Hands up everyone here that has actually read the EULA when they installed SH3.



That's what I thought

JCC