Jump to content


Photo

[WIP] Mod Picker


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#31 baronaatista

baronaatista

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 26 April 2016 - 02:29 AM

I for one am very interested in this, though it does sound like a pretty complicated process.  That being said, Merge Plugins is definitely a complicated tool, but it's user-end experience is absolutely fantastic.  

 

I just got done a really complex setup (well, still doing testing, but mostly done) - STEP Extended (most of) + parts of SRLE / Explorers Edition + Dreadflopps' Dovakiin Reborn, Deleveled Loot and Gameplay Rebalance packs + Survival pack by smile44 and Hishutup, and a couple extra's of my own choosing, all sewn together with Dreadflopps' patches.  There are a number of questions that arise when I think of attempting to automate a process such as what I just went through (not sure if something that complex is really the goal of this project);

 

 - would this site handle merging as well?  and if so does that mean it's possible to automate the process of merging? (actually making merges in MP is easy once its setup correctly, but for the uninformed user (ie. me) what's difficult is determining what can/should be merged and can/should not)

 

 - what about stability?  I have this crazy setup, but it's one that is not far off from what just about anyone making a large pack is doing, and the testing I'm doing right now is to check mostly for script lag.  What I'm asking is; Frostfall, Wet&Cold, Enhanced Blood Textures, Deadly Spell Impacts, Real Shelter, Convenient Horses, EFF/AFT, Burn Freeze and Shock effects CAN all be used together relatively easily.  In my experience however, doing so can put a serious hamper on game performance.  Will this site be able to determine script overload?  If so, will it allow users to install overloaded setups anyway?

 

 - there were other questions I had, but it's late and I'm tired.  I'll check back if one comes to mind.  Also, please forgive and feel free to ignore me if I'm asking stupid questions, serious layman here.

 

*EDIT - on the subject of merging... now this probably won't be a typical experience but because Dreadflopp is amazing, he's broken up his patches into little bits so that people can basically pick and choose what they want, at least in a basic framework.  This means though that when merging the patches, you could have from like 10 - 80 patches that need to be merged.  I had to go through my list and deactivate any mod that wasn't necessary to be active in order to actually make the merge and then re-activate, re-sort, etc.  Again I'm just wondering about the ability to handle such a situation.

 

*EDIT - ah, stability; will there be any kind of interface for reporting system specs & performance information to go along with user-created mod lists?  (ie. these are my system specs, this is my Mod Picker list & info, and here is some performance info... then, the ability to grab said users list)


Edited by baronaatista, 26 April 2016 - 02:48 AM.

  • 0

#32 Mator

Mator

    Jarl

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts

Posted 01 May 2016 - 12:20 PM

Hi baronaatista,

You'll be able to make a description for your mod list with markdown (including embedding images).  That means you can link to your specs/guides/tutorials/even write a guide/tutorial for users who want to use your mod list.  I personally foresee that some users will make really in-depth guides to go with their Mod Lists (sort of like mini STEP guides) which will then attract users to use their mod list.

 

The process is certainly complicated on the development side of things, but the user experience will be really easy and intuitive - even moreso than Merge Plugins.


Edited by Mator, 01 May 2016 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0

#33 Uhuru

Uhuru

    Mod Organizer Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 11 May 2016 - 01:09 PM

Hi baronaatista,

You'll be able to make a description for your mod list with markdown (including embedding images).  That means you can link to your specs/guides/tutorials/even write a guide/tutorial for users who want to use your mod list.  I personally foresee that some users will make really in-depth guides to go with their Mod Lists (sort of like mini STEP guides) which will then attract users to use their mod list.
 
The process is certainly complicated on the development side of things, but the user experience will be really easy and intuitive - even moreso than Merge Plugins.

Great Idea, worst exucution ever, maybe 2nd or 3rd worst, as Bethesda.net and Skyrim Workexists as well
Which is why this has been tried before, and it's blatently obvious, none of that prior experience, and why they failed, was ever considered.
The aims are great, yet this is repeating all the same problems, that Nexus, LOOT and STEP have had to deal with, and all combined within one brand new site.
Mator thought Dark One could have no objection to, batch mod downloads, which was what scuppered the Auto-STEP attempt.
 
I joked about the Bethesda.net being worse, but this follows the BS, ignore the modders approach

  • Develop in secret, making every mistake in the book, and adding some new ones for good measure
  • Announce the project as a complete package, shortly before it's ready to go
  • Announce a microscopic closed Beta (300 users, 250 pre allocated, so 50 users at most, if it's even started)
  • Thinking manual Load Orders can work, we already tried tht, with BOSS
  • Express surprise when it's met with considerable hostility, and scepticism.
  • Give Mod authors a veto, when their Author rights are not violated, in any way shape or form, yet still manage to make them think, it does exactly that.
  • Expect list makers to spend many hours maintaining their lists, knowing a butt hurt prima donna, with no legal or moral right, can destroy that work, because "Reasons".

Well it certainly is giving Bethesda.net a challenge for the most ill thought out plan for modding ever, created.

I don't understand the secrecy aspect, they didn't actually think BS, would copy a good plan, I mean look at the Workshop.

 

The unmentioned concern, I really have, is what this means for Mator Smash, development has virtually ceased, coinciding when this started, is that now dead?

I hope not, as I see a stable and fully tested Mator Smash, as the solid foundation to build such a site on.

After the foundation is built, add the extra layers, if Mator Smash is ready to be the core, why isn't it released already, creating the founsdations of the many who will use such a public release.

 

Consult all the existing sites that do this type of thing already, as the basic idea is sound enough, using Smash and NXM Protocol is a good idea.

I have already raised the idea of adding the NXM,Download with Manager buttons to LoversLab, that was before I knew about this, with the idea of adding it to MO.

I've not raised the issue with Tannin,  it would need the ability to add sites other than Nexus, so that MO would accept the downloads, as it does with the Nexus.

NXM is a basic Internet Protocol, Firefox will forward a LOversLab dowl-nload to MO, I tested that one, so that's asound principle.

 

Don't think I'm dead set against this, just surprised, that Mator, the Automation Master, should think manual would ever work.

Does this mean Authors could remove mentioning their mods Mator Smasfh, Merge Plugins or xEdit, LOOT etc. anything that stores info on their mods

How is the proposed database any different? They also store data about the mods, not the actual mods.

Obviously not, so why ever suggest they can.



#34 FrostByghte

FrostByghte

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 12 May 2016 - 09:24 AM

Mod Picker is the best idea I have seen yet at trying to fix and prep complex load orders...besides something like strictly following the S.T.E.P. guides and packs.  L00T will not in any way take a users load order and give the user their _INTENDED_ game without a considerable degree of manual tuning.  L00T/bash patch fixing everything is a HUGE misconception in the community.  So when I saw Mod Picker I thought to myself, FINALLY...a way to potentially make mods work the way they should.

 

I think we are forgetting that we are a bunch of geek types sitting at home playing a game.  If the rallying cry against mod picker isn't the poster child of worthless drama, I don't know what else is.  While some might see this as some sort of super secret clandestine attempt at some sort of demi godhood by Mator...I tend to think it's just a project he thought was fun and figured might work out to help the community.  My context here is internet wide, not simply regulated to this thread. However, the topic of Mod Picker and lines being drawn remind me of religious and political discussions. Never a right answer and peppered heavily with perceived worth.


  • 0

#35 Uhuru

Uhuru

    Mod Organizer Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 19 May 2016 - 03:02 PM

I'm not one to rail against this based on spurious rumour, in principle it's a great idea, but not the first to try to do this, STEP also tried a similar approach and had similar issues with the Nexus reliance on ads, others hit this wall, it scuppered all of them.

Some of my concerns are what was done to appease the mod authors, who expressed a knee jerk reaction, without knowing anything about it.

I have specific concerns based on the implimentation as it stands.

The reliance on manually setting the Load Orders, is doomed to failure, their are simply to many mods for the handful of dedicated helpers to keep up. LOOT (BOSS v3+) wouldnt exist if that was doable, if the established BOSS Team couldn't do it, who can.

 

Do you think STEP or even Neovalen, could keep their guides working, with mod authors having a veto on the mod simply being listed, it's hard enough to do that, when authors can remove the mod from Nexus.

It would be impossible to maintain on Mod Picker, if authors can have the mod on Nexus, and control the guides usage of it.

I see no way either Neovalen or STEP can support this, regardless of whether they make the guide here or not.

How can they have one guide here, and another there when mod authors have a veto on a mod list, that they have no right to touch.

Only the lists creator(s) must control that list, no mod authors rights are breached by including their mod, it's a list of instructions and a link to the hosting site.

So it's the cocession to mod authors, because the launch was totally botched, without hosting mods, or direct downloads, I see no need to give them any rights at all.

 

Do Mod creators have any rights to anything Mod Picker intends to do, now that the team has finally understood that Nexus will not allow any sort of direct downloads, the auto install mods part is dead and gone.

I see no way anybody will spend the time to create a detailed set of mod Instructions given such lack of control, the list creator gets their rights abused, to appease those whose rights remain unviolated.

it will fail if this remains in place, i can't see any other outcome, I haven't asked Step or Neovalen, but feel sure they can never support this, under those terms and conditions.

If the most detailed existing guides won't be posted there, whose going to start one? Nobody at all, not without getting full creative control over their own work.

 

So my objections are in the current implementation plan, not the core great idea, which could work, if implimented better, much better.

Getting it to a state where they can get STEP and Neovalen to support it, is the first practical hurdle.

Instead they went to the basic Skyrim Gems. A good resource, but not a mod installation guide.



#36 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,868 posts

Posted 19 May 2016 - 04:13 PM

STEP would remove any mod that its author requested its removal. Such was the case for SRO. Starac did not support the torrents (but couldn't do anything about them). Since STEP used the torrent for this mod and it's author didn't support them, STEP removed SRO from the Guide (which was a major part of our texture replacers). So even in its current implementation, we could technically use Mod Picker. However, we will never do so for other reasons. This doesn't mean we wouldn't endorse it, though, once we have a handle it's ins and outs. Any "STEP Guides" which are posted on Mod Picker will not be official Guides done by our team. Those will only be available via our wiki. There is no other official source for our Guides.



#37 Uhuru

Uhuru

    Mod Organizer Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 04:52 AM

That is not what the Mod Picker team are talking about, they are saying that even though a mod is available on the Nexus, or anywhere else, uploaded and maintained by the author. The Mod Author would have the right to remove it's listing on the Mod Picker site.
Not sure if that means individually maintained lists, or just every list, but in either case, the list maintainer would be forced to remove mods, that were still available on Nexus, because the author has been given this uinjustifiable right.
The example I give now is a worst case scenario, I'm not suggesting it would ever happen, just that the rules, as currently proposed make it possible.
SkSE removed from Mod Picker, yet available on silverlock, so only not available for every Mod Listing using Mod Picker.
 
It is a different issue to authors removing the mod from the entire Internet, which I believe is also wrong, as I think only full open source modding truly protects the authors rights.

Why closed source fails, and why only Full Open Source works (Off Topic diversion)

 
The Mod Picker site, doesn't host any of the author's work, so why do they get to deteremine whether their mod is included or not.
I suspect the true reason is the Mod Picker team hope the uploading of the initial data, will be done by the Mod Authors, out of the self interest a popular site would generate.
This right is a knee jerk reaction, to the uproar generated by the botched launch, a direct cause of not publicly discussing the plans before the reveal, it's typical of Brthesda Softworks methods, tell nobody nothing, make plans without thinking and talking through the problems.

 

Mod authors are not, often prolific mod users.

Look at DDProductions he doesn't use mods, he avoids using the DLC when he can, his only concern is making his mods work in the game. Gopher is a well known exception, but most prolific big name authors, simply don't play, they create,
Because they are a team, of experienced Mod Authors, that doesn't make them experts, at using mods, and creating mod listings and maintaining those lists, is not a simple task, or one most users can do either.

STEP isn't the only experienced source, Skyrim Mod Combiner and other listings are also available, but as this is the STEP forums, they are my example.
The only listing, they consulted, (became part of the team) is Skyrim GEMS, a good collection of great mods you can choose from, but it's not an installable listing. So not really the best source of info, for getting the mods into the game.

Mod Picker was planning on automating downloading, we know that's a non starter, both STEP and MO teams have considered this approach, No hosting site can survive without visitors, Dark One wasn't even consulted, because the Mod Picker yeam didn't think about it.
Our automation plans fell at this hurdle, but we had considered the problem and asked before going public, indeed in the end without auto downloads our plans had no real reason to continue.
 
I never expected STEP or SR to be transferred to Mod Picker completely, but could envisage them taking advantage of the automation techniques it uses to get the installation to a certain state much faster.
However I 'm just using them as examples of how much work goes in to maintaining such lists, when author mod takedowns and mod updating is involved.
I can't see anyone using this, when even their listing can be compromised, because a mod author has been given rights they don't deserve.
Why should the author be able to remove their mod from your list, when the mod is still on the Nexus, but just not listed on Mod Picker.

 

I like the idea of Mod Picker, we tried to impliment some aspects because we all like the idea, STEP with auto install and Mator's Automation skills are the core feature of Mod Picker.

I actually want it to suceed, but can't see how that can happen with the current plan, I'm surprised that for all Mator's automation skills he wants manually managed Load Orders, with all the issues BOSS has maintaining such listings.

 

It doesn't have to use LOOT, but it must be automated to make it manageable, I see no advantage to using manual listings of Load Order to reach some sort of consensus, and reinventing the wheel rarely works.

LOOT's original methods were unfamiliar to those used to the order imposed by BOSS's manual masterlist, most didn't realise the neat alphabetical groups BOSS used, were only used to make the manual list easier to maintain.

LOOT now sorts Groups alphabetically, but does so automatically by algorithm, not manual listing. My understanding is LOOT sorts STEP the same way for all who use it now, while the earlier versions would give different results.

 

NMM is trying a simalar idea, when that manager still can't manage one profile correctly, typical of Nexus all grand vision, while the basics are not even done.

Having used that manager for 3 recent games, Fallout 4, Witcher 3 and XCOM 2, with just one profile, I have lowered my opinion of it.

The addition of Sym Linking is problematic, for even one profile. 3rd Party tools don't use the NMM system so break all the links they affect, and are not maged by NMM as a result

 

NMM as more issues than sharing lists to solve, Mod Picker is a much better idea, but these are some of the problems I see in the current plans.

The core idea is good, but the implimentation as currently planned has some major issues, that make it unfit for the intended purpose.

None of them are unsolvable, but they all need addressing,



#38 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,868 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 09:09 AM

I honestly don't see any authors going for the opt out option, though, since it simply creates more publicity for their mods. The only reason could be for incorrect information that is leading to support issues for them on their mod page. In which case two things will happen. One, the author will log into Mod Picker to correct the issue. Or, two, and this is more likely to happen, the author will opt out. I say the second option will happen more because at that point the author will be at a point of frustration and will likely act irrationally just to stop the misinformation and support issues it's causing.

I know there will be things in place to help prevent misinformation, but this is reality and the internet we're talking about here. Misinformation is going to happen.



#39 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,247 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 12:09 PM

We all need to throw away the notion that mod authors have any the 'true power' of copyright on the content they create for proprietary games (like Skyrim) ... even content they create from the ground up. As it relates to the game for which it was created, the mod author has no claim to stake limited authority, and any claim they may have is tenuous, because it is granted authority over use is effectively co-opted by the game proprietor at the proprietor's exclusive and ultimate discretion.

 

As soon as I publicly release a mod I create for Skyrim, it is effectively not 'mine' ... it effectively also belongs to Bethesda, and Nexus ToS has no authoritative power either ... violating the Nexus ToS just means you lose your Nexus privileges (kind of a big problem, eh?), but Bethesda could not care less. They are the sole proprietor of have meaningful power over use of all mods we create for Skyrim, and I agree with Uhuru in that granting mod authors the privilege of having authority over whether or not their mod is even listed in a Mod Picker list is simply a "respectful gesture" to prevent mod author alienation and hard feelings. I agree that this is a flaw in implementation, but you either risk alienating some great mod authors or weaken your tool by giving them faux authority.

 

STEP removed SRO at the request of starac, because we are nice/respectful (and don't want to undermine Nexus ToS). Pure politics and zero authority involved. Like other community modding services, we want to be amicable to those that make the modding community possible ... the mod authors and the mod hosters. Neither has any rights at all all of the normally-assumed copyrights with regard to the content they create/distribute as it relates to a proprietary game. Likewise, neither would have exclusive rights to content created even for an open source game, unless that game adopted a legal license that transcended to all content created for that game (being open source though would mean that only a requirement for contributor credit would transcend).

 

... all that said, I think Mod Picker could be a very useful tool and would enhance the modding community, which is ultimately held together by politics and at the benevolence/discretion of the proprietor.

 

EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.



#40 Mator

Mator

    Jarl

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:06 PM

Uhuru: Read your PMs.

 

z929669: The only content which Bethesda can claim ownership over in a mod is the ESP file (assuming it was produced with the CK).  Their EULA/IP does not give them the right to take ownership over content a user produces on their computer and packages into a modification for their game.  It is currently completely legal for a mod author to sell models, audio files, scripts, and textures associated with mods so long as the tools used to produce those asset files do not make a legal claim on them.  xEdit is a bit more of a gray area, but technically you could also sell plugin files if they were created with xEdit.

 

Mod Authors have complete copyright control over their mods, and stating otherwise is a misunderstanding of Bethesda's EULA and the legal nature of software.  It's certainly all difficult legal stuff, but I'd assert that referencing an asset from a modification (asset being a script, audio file, texture file, or model file) does not make that asset a "part" of that modification.  Insomuchas Bethesda cannot claim legal authority over the asset files referenced by mods unless the assets were created with one of their tools which they can claim legal authority over (or in a proprietary file format, though that's another discussion entirely).


Edited by Mator, 20 May 2016 - 01:12 PM.

  • 1

#41 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,247 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:27 PM

Actually, from the Creation Kit EULA (and EULA regarding all assets intended to be used by the game ... i.e., ESP/Ms):

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

"New Materials" = antything referenced by the plugin ... the creator effectively does not own the full weight normally attributed to the concept of 'copyright'. Bethesda has copyright effectively shares much of the authority normally bestowed to copyright. If the content is not created with intent to be used by the game, then the content creator has copyright just like anything else. There can be gray areas, but effectively, all publicly-released Skyrim mods are copyrighted to MAs with rather undermining (in my view) authority inherently granted to Bethesda and not the mod authors. This is why MAs got only a small cut of the scraps from the paid mods thing ... incentive, not right.

 

I suppose I could be misinterpreting a fundamental piece of this and other language these gaming companies divulge, but my gut tells me that the corporation has all rights over the individual, who has effectively none but those bestowed by the corp.

 

EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.



#42 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,868 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:29 PM

Uhuru: Read your PMs.

 

z929669: The only content which Bethesda can claim ownership over in a mod is the ESP file (assuming it was produced with the CK).  Their EULA/IP does not give them the right to take ownership over content a user produces on their computer and packages into a modification for their game.  It is currently completely legal for a mod author to sell models, audio files, scripts, and textures associated with mods so long as the tools used to produce those asset files do not make a legal claim on them.  xEdit is a bit more of a gray area, but technically you could also sell plugin files if they were created with xEdit.

 

Mod Authors have complete copyright control over their mods, and stating otherwise is a misunderstanding of Bethesda's EULA and the legal nature of software.  It's certainly all difficult legal stuff, but I'd assert that referencing an asset from a modification (asset being a script, audio file, texture file, or model file) does not make that asset a "part" of that modification.  Insomuchas Bethesda cannot claim legal authority over the asset files referenced by mods unless the assets were created with one of their tools which they can claim legal authority over (or in a proprietary file format, though that's another discussion entirely).

You are correct. The EULA only covers mods created within the CK, but that includes ALL things created and produced using that tool and its formats. Sound files, textures, meshes, etc created outside of the CK are still owned by the original producer; however, in order for them to distribute or sell such assets they would have to be separated completely from any relation to the game including file formats. As soon as they're used in combination with the game, Bethesda EULA steps in....so as long as you don't associate them with the game, you're good to go to do whatever you want with the files.

 

Where you are mistaken is in regards to the content within their file formats. It's their game and they have complete control what you do with it. That includes what files and content you add into it (CK created content or not). That part is crystal clear in the EULA. The ESP (Elder Scrolls Plugin), ESM, and BSA are all their file formats. By putting your content into their file formats you are agreeing to their EULA. So regardless if you're using xEdit or the CK to create your plugin, they still own it. Packing your assets into a BSA, you're agreeing to the EULA and they own it. At most, Bethesda would probably only issue a DCMA against the content, though, instead of taking outright legal action in court.



#43 Mator

Mator

    Jarl

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:57 PM

Actually, from the Creation Kit EULA (and EULA regarding all assets intended to be used by the game ... i.e., ESP/Ms):

 

<EULA quote here, see referenced post>

 

"New Materials" = antything referenced by the plugin ... the creator effectively does not own the full weight normally attributed to the concept of 'copyright'. Bethesda has copyright effectively shares much of the authority normally bestowed to copyright. If the content is not created with intent to be used by the game, then the content creator has copyright just like anything else. There can be gray areas, but effectively, all publicly-released Skyrim mods are copyrighted to MAs with rather undermining (in my view) authority inherently granted to Bethesda and not the mod authors. This is why MAs got only a small cut of the scraps from the paid mods thing ... incentive, not right.

 

I suppose I could be misinterpreting a fundamental piece of this and other language these gaming companies divulge, but my gut tells me that the corporation has all rights over the individual, who has effectively none but those bestowed by the corp.

 

EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.

Yeah I know this exact line of the EULA.  It is often misinterpreted, but we've been over it on r/skyrimmods and on Nexus Mods several times now.  It states that you grant Bethesda these rights, but not that you forfeit your own.

 

The original creator of the content maintains all copyrights over the content they create.  In order for that to not be the case the EULA would have to use the words "forfeit all rights to the New Materials" or something similar, which it does not.  I can look up the past discussions for you if you want, but it's just going to be a couple of google searches most likely (so you should be able to find them yourself).

 

EDIT: A few of the aforementioned discussions:

https://community.be...tart=0&tstart=0

https://forums.nexus...2#entry30155670

https://www.reddit.c..._contracts_and/

https://www.reddit.c...mer_with_a_bit/

 

You are correct. The EULA only covers mods created within the CK, but that includes ALL things created and produced using that tool and its formats. Sound files, textures, meshes, etc created outside of the CK are still owned by the original producer; however, in order for them to distribute or sell such assets they would have to be separated completely from any relation to the game including file formats. As soon as they're used in combination with the game, Bethesda EULA steps in....so as long as you don't associate them with the game, you're good to go to do whatever you want with the files.

 

Where you are mistaken is in regards to the content within their file formats. It's their game and they have complete control what you do with it. That includes what files and content you add into it (CK created content or not). That part is crystal clear in the EULA. The ESP (Elder Scrolls Plugin), ESM, and BSA are all their file formats. By putting your content into their file formats you are agreeing to their EULA. So regardless if you're using xEdit or the CK to create your plugin, they still own it. Packing your assets into a BSA, you're agreeing to the EULA and they own it. At most, Bethesda would probably only issue a DCMA against the content, though, instead of taking outright legal action in court.

I'm pretty sure the CK cannot be used to produce asset files asides from ESPs, but I also haven't really used it much at all so I could be wrong.

 

Also I'm fairly certain that converting a file to a proprietary file format does not give the owner of the file format the right over the content in the file.  But this is all getting pretty deep and I'd have to talk to a lawyer to figure out the actual nature of this.

 

According to wikipedia (which isn't citing a source for this) the ownership is a contentious issue.  I'd want to find legal precedent in regards to this, but the only point I'm trying to make is that it's not clear and straightforward that converting a file to a proprietary format gives the owner of that file format legal ownership over the contents of the file.  And I think even if it was true to some extent there'd be a huge number of restrictions (else we could just create a proprietary audio format and convert songs to it to take ownership over them and then legally sell them)...


Edited by z929669, 23 May 2016 - 10:36 AM.

  • 0

#44 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,247 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 02:08 PM

I think that the point is that mod creators of content used in proprietary games have no few clear rights to anything. The same is true in some respects for the proprietor ... it is all still a huge legal gray area that lacks sufficiently-consistent legal precedent

 

Regardless, one thing is almost certain: Corporations' interests supersede individuals' interests in the eyes of most law. I reason that it would be very hard if not impossible for any mod author to stake a legal IP claim and win, and it would be relatively simple for the game proprietor to do so.

 

I think we should be creating and reusing mods without unreasonable restriction using the honorable "copyleft" philosophy unless you keep a work exclusively to yourself, but human ego is pervasive and persistent, and gray areas are prevalent, so we play politics and interpret EULAs in different ways (just remember, big dogs almost always win).

 

Anyway, it's a shame that you need to allow mod authors the 'right' to have their mods removed from MP lists. It is just a text reference and not a mechanic or an asset. ... but I understand the political reasons for doing so ;)

 

EDIT: For posterity, I edited some of my incorrect statements to better reflect what seems to be the consensus over mod author copyright regarding content created for proprietary games ... MAs do retain copyright, albeit it is somewhat hobbled in my view.



#45 Mator

Mator

    Jarl

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts

Posted 20 May 2016 - 02:25 PM

I think that the point is that mod creators of content used in proprietary games have no clear rights to anything. The same is true in some respects for the proprietor ... it is all still a huge legal gray area that lacks sufficiently-consistent legal precedent

 

Regardless, one thing is almost certain: Corporations' interests supersede individuals' interests in the eyes of most law. I reason that it would be very hard if not impossible for any mod author to stake a legal IP claim and win, and it would be relatively simple for the game proprietor to do so.

 

I think we should be creating and reusing mods without restriction using the honorable "copyleft" philosophy unless you keep a work exclusively to yourself, but human ego is pervasive and persistent, and gray areas are prevalent, so we play politics and interpret EULAs in different ways (just remember, big dogs almost always win).

 

Anyway, it's a shame that you need to allow mod authors the 'right' to have their mods removed from MP lists. It is just a text reference and not a mechanic or an asset. ... but I understand the political reasons for doing so ;)

I think you should refer to the links I edited into my previous post where there has been discussion regarding what rights a mod author has over their content.  I agree with you it's fairly gray in some ways, but one thing that is not gray is that a mod author owns all files they produce for a mod (including the ESP files) and can assert intellectual property/copyright over it.  That supersedes the EULA (and the EULA doesn't even attempt to revoke such rights).

 

I do agree that we should use "Copyleft" philosophies in modding, but I also see that some portion of the current community could be against that.

 

You'll be able to use any mod/plugin in your Mod List on Mod Picker regardless of whether or not we have an entry for it on Mod Picker.  Custom entries will not have the benefits of compatibility, install order, load order, or conflict information, however.


Edited by Mator, 20 May 2016 - 02:28 PM.

  • 1


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users