Master Gunnery Sergeant
NoRailgunner, if you look at it differently it is perfect clear (at least to me).
cc-by-nc-nd: don't fuck with the files (even if you CAN).
cc-by-nc-sa: feel free to use my hard work, but show respect and tribute me in the readme.
At least that is how i see it and feel free to correct me.
It is up to the addonmaker to take a stop and think twice before attaching his license. In the end it is about the principle and idea behind it. In the same line i think the person that alters someones work that allow it due to the license, should aswell follow that line and use the simular license (that was the idea behind "ATTN: Addon Makers - Rules of content permissions" JdB mentioned).
By the way, i totally agree with JdB without stricking everybody over the same brush (dutch speeking) and that is the idea BIS is aiming for 'within the community'.
What happens outside the community is sadly the freedome of the net and civilisation.
As to your question about 'exclusive rights'....well maybe that is sometimes the case why people start taking the wrong road. In the end the real author does what he wants (as he owns the IP of his work no mather what).
Last edited by DaSquade; Aug 12 2010 at 14:20.
Well the way I see it is that Priority #1 for BI must be towards protecting their own interests. What I see as most dangerous to those interests is the practice of hacking their binarized .p3ds which can then potentially be used by other game communities with no licensing. In other words it benefits other software companies while offering zero return to BI. The good news is that, from what I can tell, I don't think this has happened so it's only a very minor threat.
What I hope is that as BI clarifies its licensing agreements, that it will focus on providing examples of proper crediting/licensing information that we should include in our addons (if based on BI work). I also hope that they will consider how the modifications of BI material benefits not just the community, but also the revenues of their company as a healthy mod community will attract new sales potentially for many years just as Operation Flashpoint did.
Even today there is still a vibrant hardcore little OFP community with older computers or people who just enjoy the THOUSANDS of outstanding addons and mods for that game.
In contrast compare BI to Novalogic who at one time was one of the main competitors in realistic first person tactical shooters. They had the potential of surpassing BI and in many ways were far ahead of their time, but they failed to capitalize on what they had in part because of extremely poor support for their mod making community. Hence their nickname "No-Logic" by the old "Delta Force" community that I originally came from before coming to the Operation Flashpoint community back even before the demo was released. Eventually games like ArmA and BF2 left the Novalogic games (Joint Operations, etc...) in the dust as far as sales, name recognition, and popularity. So essentially what I am saying is that it is an example to BI of the what happens when a game lacks a strong mod/player community that can sustain it in the face of stiff competition from similar games by other companies.
I have to say that for me, my loyalty to the BI company comes from their excellent mod community support. I have been there from the very beginning in the old OFP demo days and one of my Mod team members (Uziyahu) even helped with the sound effects for OFP. So BI is like family to me and I hope they always maintain that sense of family that maintains a very hardcore and loyal following that helps tremendously in marketing their software. Case in point. PC-Gamer's review of ArmA2 based upon MP gaming with the Tactical Gamer ArmA2 community (using the ACE mod which TG beta-tests). This was totally independent of BI. Yet this beautiful article was based on experiencing how ArmA2 was MEANT to be played and resulted in a surge of new players to the game. While TG is a player community, it also is closely tied with the ACE mod and a whole host of addon makers and mission makers that are all connected and working together to take the fantastic game that BI has given us and taking it to a whole other level of realism and immersion.
The other benefit of a healthy mod making community for BI is that it also allows for BI to identify and recruit the best talent from the mod making community as well as looking at how far some of these talented individuals can push the boundaries of the game engine (and looking at what works and what doesn't as well as what the community seems to want in a game).
I have no doubt that Maruk wants to see our very vibrant and awesome mod community continue to thrive and work together, but I also can understand their need for proper protections of their work and copyrights. I hope that the new upcoming clarifications will strike a good balance with clear examples of how we as addon makers should respect and acknowledge the hard work of the BI ArmA2/OA development team.
Team Leader of the Lost Brothers Mod (which as far as I know, is the oldest surviving active mod from the OFP days)
Last edited by Miles Teg; Aug 12 2010 at 17:37.
Originally Posted by Miles Teg
With only very little insight as to what BI are planning here (info in 1st post isn´t adressing any of the real questions the community has right now, but this is subject to change and getting more clarified as Dwarden pointed out), i´m only going to comment this for now: http://www.gtainside.com/download.ph...26176&orderBy=
It has happened, and i´m sure it happens alot more than we as a community get to know.
In this case i support BI, sue them, make ´em bleed, do whatever is needed to protect your IP.
Anything else i might have to say (and there´s alot cooking) needs to wait until further details are available.
Last edited by Mr Burns; Aug 12 2010 at 17:47.
REALISM! No, fuck that, FIRE THE LASER!
Ooof...ouch I guess I was wrong. The ODOL hackers I guess have been distributing it in other games. Usually they are not stupid enough to say where they got it from though. I agree they deserve at a minimum letters to all parties involved in releasing and distributing that addon and then a lawsuit if they continue distributing such copyrighted material.
I know other companies like the LucasFilms people go after unlicensed Star Wars mods ferociously... one reason why none of those old Star Wars mods ever got released past a few addons. Once LucasFilms gets wind of their Intellectual Property being used unlicensed, the letters from their lawyers start getting issued and the problem usually stops right there.
Same deal with the WarHammer 40K stuff. That's not even about models or textures but just basic ideas, designs, and themes.
Last edited by Miles Teg; Aug 12 2010 at 18:56.
Master Gunnery Sergeant
Interesting matter ... I really hope this topic is not going into a bad direction. While I agree that BIS content must be protected, I fear for the modding community. Giving credits / asking for permission is must-have for every modder, I agree on that one. Using BIS content outside of A1, A2, AO is forbidden, I agee on that one too. I wouldn't even allow backward porting from AO to A1 for example.
But what about forward porting? What about updating old BIS content by the community and requiring the latest BIS game? What about changing config values? What about changing textures, missions and sounds?
Yeah. I'm pretty sure the BI decision makers will make the right decision on this issue. If they don't.. well 80% of the mod community will likely disappear overnight and take their talent to other games. That would be very sad. What I fear is that some at BI may argue that this is the way to weed out the newbies and keep only the top addon makers who make everything from scratch. If so then... that could possibly be the end of my mod after all these years of being loyal to BI as we are heavily dependent on retextured BI addons. It would be very sad. But again... I seriously doubt anything draconian is going to be decided. That's not how BI has handled things in the past. What I hope is that we will just have guidelines for including BI copyright information and credits if we retexture any of their work while the modification of ArmA2 and OA ODOLS would require direct permission from BI and conditions (or simply not be allowed). I think that would be a fair and common sense solution without getting bogged down in legalistic lawyer talk. But then again what seems fair to us may not seem fair to the BI design team. I hope that ultimately, egos can be put aside and the focus can be put on what is best for BI's financial growth and whether stopping the usage of BI ArmA2/OA material will benefit or harm BI's financial growth in terms of sales of ArmA2, OA, and future addon packs (like their British military pack).
My opinion is that any harsh measures would have a very negative impact on projected sales of their products. Furthermore the addon makers who would leave the community would likely never go back to supporting any future BI product. Hence the reason for (I hope) a balanced and logical approach to dealing with the issue.
Team Leader for the Lost Brothers Mod Team
Last edited by Miles Teg; Aug 13 2010 at 00:16.
Ahh, how great would the world be if there weren't any thieves (or lawyers). But seriously, the Grand Theft Auto community is a perfect example of an uncontrolled group of people who hack anything and put it into their games. I saw the Littlebirds from Modern Warfare 2 in GTA4 a few weeks after that game's release.
It's an interesting topic. I think there's also the consideration of what is legal in terms of international law and what is enforcable. I think many of the GTA people think, "I know this is probably illegal, but until the FBI bangs down my door, or I get banned, I'll keep doing it." That's not an excuse, but...well think of it this way: Superpowers have been stealing technology from each other for years in order to make money or gain a military advantage. We've all seen the similarities between Chinese and American Hummers, Soviet and American aircraft, etc. And then a game maker comes along and has to license those designs from both parties (the original, and the stolen) so that they can have fun and make money. Then mod makers come along and modify those models and textures for free and THEY are accused of misuse of that property. This accusation comes along mainly because a lawyer can say that it's stealing because the modmakers are sidestepping the royalty-paying step.
But the day that John Carmack released the first "demonstration" version of his game Doom, everything changed. Words like shareware had to be invented. A new world was created based on popular opinion. For the first time, a game could become more popular because a limited version of it was free and sales would increase more than they would if the game never had a demo version. BIS hopped on board and allowed players to modify their game helping to create and further the world of mod-makers and helping to spark the talent, creativity and imagination of millions. I think that since these events, the old definitions of "stealing" and "fair use" need to be updated. The GTA community is a great example of creativity, but also a great example of where we don't want the ArmA community to go. I personally think the ArmA community is very fair-minded and professional (mainly because of the example set by some great moderators and site owners) and we are just a few steps away from a mutually beneficial arrangement between BI, modmakers and legal license holders.
Great thoughts guys. Very interesting points of view.
BIS's Huey in GTA is a bit of a shock.
But it does prove a point I made elsewhere, there is ALWAYS a risk of ODOL hacking before any "public" tool.
It shouldn't be "OMG, someone might be able to open my addon now, shit! No more stuff is coming from me now"
.... close to paranoia and fear mongering.
No, I am not refering to people who need to manage their own 3rd party copyright for their models. If youre selling models elsewhere, you can expect completely different issues to deal with, not typical of what most of us have to deal with. Lets be clear who we're talking about. The community contains "free" addon contributers (majority) and those who mix in a bit of Commercial.
And lets face it, the OFP community didn't implode when a tool was released. Lot of heated views, but the community still moved forward.
My policy is I'm not making any posts etc that might allow any non-ArmA community member easily track down any tool that might allow ODOL hacking.
The less that is said, the lower the instances of BIS or User models being hacked.
Originally Posted by Feint
Agree, for the comminity, and only the community.
Originally Posted by Legislator
It might be hard for BIS to hammer 3rd parties who hack User addons (to either sell or use in another game), because they can't be expected to have confidence that the model was 100% the Users own,
But they should hammer (or at least try, to Feint point about "only when the FBI knocks") 3rd parties outside the Community for their own models.
The AH-1Z is also on that site, and I reported 6-7 models that were ripped from AII and put on turbosquid a couple months ago. Those have since been removed.
In favor of calling BI's Mi-28/Ka-50 mash-up the "Hamok".
Originally Posted by vilas
Aug 13 2010, 14:49
Since removed but they expected us to leap through numerous hoops to get them removed
Originally Posted by Darkhorse 1-6
If someone reports an issue/complains about the Alpha etc, replying in the thread "dude it's an alpha" doesn't really help anyone! Point them to the Arma3 Alpha feedback tracker instead please!
Please do not PM or Email me directly about your CD Key issues, follow the guidance in this thread instead.
Tags for this Thread