Are all mods illegal??? Seriously!!!

[Wulfmann]

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:

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.

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!

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

[_Seth_]

Has anyone tried to get a comment form UBISOFT on this ongoing issue?

[Redwine]

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.

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.

[Pants]

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

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.

[Wulfmann]

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

[JScones]

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?

[CWorth]

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.

[P_Funk]

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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]

People, can't you just STFU about this, before UBISOFT gets any Ideas...

Just ignore this muck like Seawolves. If someone is Stupid enought to Buy it, Point an Laught.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by The Noob

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.

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.

[joea]

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. 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]

Okay, you're right. I just couldn't think of the Fact that anyone who Plays this game isn't at Subsim.com already...