Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

Myke;1782577']I have a few questions where i lack of knowledge so if someone could please shed some light in it.

Back in OFP days' date=' was the model format openable/editable by default or was it a community tool that enabled opening/editing it?

Are there any infos about the side effect that binarized MLOD's weren't openable/editable anymore was intended or not?

Does the fact that BAF DLC is encrypted rely on the fact that there is a debinarizing tool around?

From my limited knowledge (so please please correct me if i'm wrong) it looks like BIS always tried to prevent opening/editing their content and everytime some usermade tools forced them to go a step further.

Also the fact that there is no tool from BIS to open PBO's, let alone p3d, speaks a clear language to me.[/quote']

Yup, BI never gave a pbo opening tool, AFAIK, all has been done by community in this matter.

And without that, I can guarantee you we wouldn't know that much of the engine's inner workings

Some here make it look like a shame to learn by peeking at other's work, where most of the knowledge we have comes from this very behavior. Very strange....

If an addon maker NEEDS to lock his addon fully, then he most likely has fair reason to, in some cases models are sold for profit and contract, disputing the makers right to protect that contact is absurd

And I'm sorry for these guys, but if this means that most of the community will be forced to use their encryption format, and I'm pretty sure it will even if it's labelled as "optional", then I can't agree with putting in encryption. So far, this point has not been addressed, how to put in encryption without adverse effect on addon makers who don't need/want encryption

I think it's very questionable that you modellers go around claiming IP and copyright of something you plagiarized with millimeter accuracy without permission from the real designers.

Since you like clumsy analogies so much, that's like I heard a song on the radio and made a transcription of it with every note and word, and then claimed I have the IP to the sheet music because I put an artistic spin on it with my hand writing.

Well, BI may not have released a pbo-opening tool, but they did release the lods for various things at various times. And, while I do occasionally bitch about the scarcity of some information on the Wiki, it really is more developed than what many other communities get.

...... This dates form 2005 and is still valid to this day.

Oops. Stand corrected on that.

Memory failed me.

Thx

Well, BI may not have released a pbo-opening tool, but they did release the lods for various things at various times.

Exactly, BI released sanctioned reference material, so you dont need to look at my models to work out how to do something.

some people in beginning of topic said addonmakers to say what they think about issue

so from my point of view:

1) in theory i would say :

- why locking ? no need to do it , many times i open to look at something,

- binarisation for reason of better performance,

- why hiding all, on example someone can do his new stuff,

2) after this theory i took a look at real world:

- stolen content available on Turbosquid as example,

- content taken to other games where someone plays hero doing zero effort from his side (although i gave my work to people from other game),

and from my personal experience:

"fame factor" is important, we cannot deny it, it works in both ways

example number 1:

many people wanted some things that was released to change tag and release as their own

what would be profit of releasing the same thing but with other tag ?

only mess, 3-4 versions of the same, one made with effort, second, third repacked folder and PBOed

and i hear voices (not only in this topic) that something should be open, addonmakers should give permissions (in other topic one newbie told that it is MUST for me to release MLODs)

so for example on vehicles i made "texture selection" and anyone can release his own camo version of vehicle (M109, BMP1, .... etc.)

except Topas Polish army reskin, have you seen any "texture selection" , CDF skins of my vehicles, Takistani skins, other skins ?

no

so than it leads to one doubt

if some people - give MLODs , give permission etc. what stops them from release CDF reskin of tank, apc already done as US/Russian skin ?

nothing

why they not doing this, but demand MLODs and permission etc.

?

if already there is no problem to release reskin (texture selection) of M109, BMP1, why someone demanded those MLODs to release his addon ?

answer is simple - he has no skills, want to release the same skin, the same model , nothing changed except tag

3) conclusion: so in theory it sounds that locking is senseless but reality shows other way

there are people (not only for Turbosquid thieves) who want fame without effort

i had some requests about re-releasing my addons , what is sense of re-release THE SAME content (or 50% of this content) with other tag before file ?

reason is simple - fame hunger with no skills to work for it own hands

if there is for example "released American M109 howitzer" why someone demands another one , not "other country skin" which is possible by texture selection ?

in beginning i would thought that people who want close PBO are overreacting, but now it gives me doubt

if something is already available and possible and "hardly noone do anything" (comparing to OFP) than what is motivating people who say "not close" (at least some of them)

4) so it took me to wonder: why need unlocking, MLODs etc. if single reskin even not appeared ?

i know little answer - clan packs, clan content on MP and some people who think that "we cant use this addon cause it has wrong tag, we must add our own texture improvement, otherwise it will not be good" and sometimes because FTP space or unification of clan require it (for example someone need more classes, changed weapons , add other crew, fix config for MP etc....)

i think that it comes from this last sentence: clan addons

5) modifying addon for personal (really personal, not 20 people ) use is for me okay, i also allow clans modification , i don't binarize configs, etc. ,

i also modify some content (for example i am deleting eventhandlers, ACE/CBA dependances, changing weapons for more real, changing loudout of soldiers for my own personal PC and my own fun and SP missions which i make for myself, including winter skins)

so it is very hard to say lock or don't lock

i see many problems because of locking (unable to change loudout, crew, dependence of other addon, checking something)

but from the other hands there are also problems because of not-locking - Turbosquid as example or some clans (not all, absolutely not all, but some)

i know some example of clan that f*** author, bash him and the same time spreading his content among them on their forum

of course i am angry when someone say that addon is bad, edit it and spread it "the way he want"

people who make problems releasing half-stolen addons are very rare

6) on locking PBO few not-nice community members would lost, but also many nice members would lost (nice clans, people who edit for really personal use, people who need to look inside to check something)

so i don't know if it is good or bad idea - to lock PBOs

locking or not locking is hard issue to vote for Y or N

it is for me as hard as gun-right debate

from one hand you must have right to protect yourself

from other hand one freak will demand to have machinegun and use it in school cause there was no limit to small capacity small power pistols only

it has advantages and disadvantages, models are already half-protected (T_D tools) , but what would happen with MP clans if PBO were locked ?

from one hand - it would quit badly acting clans (minority)

but other people would have problems cause would have to download 500 MB of different content to use 5 rifles and 2 vehicles of it , cause we addonmakers sometimes make too big packs (of course we do it for order, optimization etc. )

it is hard issue for me and i cannot take position Y or N

cause i am more N (not lock) as it comes to me, my addons, my models

but i see and feel sorry to people who make better models than me , better textures , bigger time effort and seen their content sold by other person on Turbosquid or spread on other sites/forums by other person in his "the way i want" version

i must remember about those people who had been stolen of their work , and thats why i can't say i am for locking, cause i feel also what other can felt

i understand them, if i was sitting 4 months on one plane model and someone would take it i would be much more angry, than when i spend 40 hours on model and textures together

7) to be honest i was even thinking about releasing some of my MLODs for people , when i realized that my real-life is more and more demanding and i cannot spent as much time by PC and deliver fun

but than i realized that i will see "copies" of already released versions (what for CARC painted M109 for second, third, fourth time ???, what for another US woodland PASGT soldier with Alice webbing if it is already available, what for another SAKO while it is available, what for another AK74M when it is already available , what for another solid green BMP1 when it is available ... etc. )

if (those who make problems - not hard working addonmakers who deliver us many vehicles, armies, weapons, islands, missions) people would act with sense - it would be no problem

i would release MLODs - and people would be doing desert, German, French, Italian, Brazilian, Takistan, Armeniya, CDF, CDKZ, whatever version of vehicle, soldier , army, chopper , apc...

but i know it won't happen , instead of this we would have 4 US CARC painted scheme vehicles, 5 US M81 woodland soldiers with M16A2... etc. the same as already

so i think that such behaviour can make addonmakers depression here (saying that they need locking)

but i am thinking, than troublemakers are tiny minority :)

of course we hear them cause they moan the most, but hey fellow addonmakers , this board has many many thousands / hundreds users ,

those who you afraid of , are few persons :) and many of us in beginning had problems and made mistakes (i also made many mistakes)

i know that some people put too much emotions in hobby

i know that newbies teenagers make most of problems

sory for too long text, but i wanted explain my point of view on locking, binarisation, protecting work etc.

Well, BI may not have released a pbo-opening tool, but they did release the lods for various things at various times.

And you think that addonmakers wont do the same because....?

Before you answer that, remember that myself i have released MLOD's, configs and scripts numerous times as open source, means everyone can use it without the need of asking me.

Why do you think that i (or guys like me) would stop doing that just because we can optionally lock our pbo's?

And no, i don't consider myself special in this case. In fact i believe that i'm still subpar regarding my contributions but my time is limited.

@DM

hehe

Some of your models are better. ;) Ok, by 'you' I mean others in the community, too.

Plus, those occasions that I've done that, in all honesty, it is more on the scripting side. Someone does something really cool, and I wanted to see how they did it.

I do think that scripting and modeling are spiritual siblings, though. I don't think there is a principled distinction between opening a pbo for the scripts, and doing the same thing for models.

@ vilas

Great post! Very thoughtful.

@ Myke

Well, I think that at least some community members won't release MLODs, because they say they will lock them. :) Perhaps I'm missing a nuance, but it seems to me that if someone will go through the trouble of locking their pbo, they are unlikely to then turn around and release the MLODs.

I do agree that, particularly in the beginning, there wouldn't be much impact. The ones that have always been more open will continue to be. My concern is that for the longer term.

I do agree that, particularly in the beginning, there wouldn't be much impact. The ones that have always been more open will continue to be. My concern is that for the longer term.

Then you should take a look since when the most knowledgable and contributing members are around. Some might disappear in the future, some new talents might rise and be as open as the vanished were.

And even when some locked addons are around, you still have the way to ask about how something was done. If you don't get an answer you still might ask someone else if he might have an idea how certain things in a addon were done.

As already said, addons become more and more complex and therefor asking directly will bring you further in shorter time than looking at code you maybe don't understand from beginning. The creator can point you directly to what you were looking for. Alone you have to dig through thousands of lines of code (my F-16 actually stands by ~4500 lines and still not finished) from which you don't know how they are connected together to work.

@DM

hehe

Some of your models are better. ;) Ok, by 'you' I mean others in the community, too.

But that doesnt give you the right to just rip it apart.

If you want to learn how to use some fancy technology I (or anyone else) have created, just ask. Then you [usually] get a detailed response on how to implement it and builds better community relations, rather than everyone just stealing everyone elses technology (and often not doing it right).

For general modelling, the BIS samples are MORE than enough...

Edit to add: excellent post myke, prooves the point nicely.

Dig through 4500 lines of code, or write a 2 or 3 line PM...

@ Myke

Yes, I'll admit that I haven't been around as long as nearly all the other established devs in this thread. I only got involved since A1, so my opinion is formed by my experiences in that time.

First, not all devs are reachable. In my own experience, my mines addon started out as an extension of Pingu's claymore. Fortunately, Pingu and DMarkwick collaborated, so I had a good resource, and a claim for 'permission.' But, he was unreachable - apparently dropped out of the community. So, I had to take stuff apart.

Which leads to my second point. When I was a teenager, my grandfather and uncle (who were REALLY into cars) wanted to make sure I knew how engines worked. They explained some, but then took me out to take one apart. That's how I learned about it. Some people just learn better by disassembling and examining. Plus, it is more immediate than waiting for the other person.

Let me be clear - if you're going to USE something like repackaging, of COURSE permission is needed. But I continue to read other people's posts that say opening pbo's for informational purposes is part of the community standard. I still don't see a problem with that.

@ DM

If you want to learn how to use some fancy technology I (or anyone else) have created, just ask. Then you [usually] get a detailed response on how to implement it and builds better community relations, rather than everyone just stealing everyone elses technology (and often not doing it right).

Looking at a pbo is not stealing.

I've thought about this, and I think the only thing I've ever opened a model for (and not the config - I've opened some pbos to see the config) was to get an idea of scale. Someone had a mod - can't even remember which one - and I wanted to do something similar, but rather than trial-and-error, I just opened the lod and scaled to match. That's not really the kind of information you can get from a pm.

I'd be surprised if a model maker would object to that, too, but I've been surprised by alot of stuff in this thread....

Well... clearly, modder do NOT have the right to lock pbos now, because they cannot.

He has the right, he doesn't have the means (yet)

In other words, no - modder do not have the right to make a proprietary mod for BI's software.

The tools are BI's. The content created with that tool(s) isn't.

It is like saying that everything one creates using a free software (blender/gimp are the free ones that i can think of right now in the media.creative department) is the propriety of the software developers, which is bull, and i know you know it.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are suggesting (likely my own ignorance being exposed). What 2d pbo? Like, a config in one pbo, and the actual content in another? Let me guess - you'd basically just put your precious models in the locked one?

Love the attitude. Yes he actually means he can have some in 2 pbos the whole addon. One with the content you can learn from, and one with the 3d model and mesh, textures and whatever else, which you can't learn a thing more than looking over BI samples. Simple.

That still puts the decision as to what to lock in the hands of someone (like yourself) who puts their own ambitions ahead of the community. I'd say that is a bad thing for the community....

Better than to allow people like yourself who don't respect a damn contract (EULA) and they rip apart other ppl work, no matter what purpose that is. And all you have to do to get the same result is send a PM/mail.

I find it fascinating.

I keep hearing about the devoted community, that wants (but is not allowed by elitists who are selfish and they don't share their work and content - preferably in a mlods/editable format) to develop for this game, and increase the user made content and functions.

Guess what: it is not like that at all. 90% of the community is made by users/consumers and NOT creators/developers. Most of the people here just use, and never give back (in whatever form). And that is to be expected behaviour. What i don't get is WHY the very same people are having an opinion here, or WHY they are against a lockable OPTION, since their current behaviour would suffer no change (nothing to earn or loose).

Maybe BI's? :)

What does BI have to do with it?

You are saying that BI shouldn't spend time and get involved on creating/releasing a pbo lock option, but then, all of a sudden, they should get involved, and tell me how to pack an addon? Really...

I am using commercial software for creating the mesh behind an addon. Most of us do (again, the exceptions are Gnat and maybe Myke). Besides that, we spend money and time on getting references (in forms of books, pdfs, etc etc). For 2d work, it goes the same way.

Same goes for textures the configs and other code out there. It can be done (and it is done) outside the tools provided.

Now, what does BI have to do with all that?

We are all grateful for that, and the fact that this game is so modable is the main reason the game is evolving (see all the content available in BI based on community development), and is lasting that long. BI, more than anyone, should know it.

I'd call that the potential for monetary gain. And, if it was on the basis of their work - good for them. I wonder how many community pbo's they dismantled to get the expertise.... ;)

You'll be surprised.

Actual, the fine point that I am making is to keep the control in the hands of BI. They, after all, are the true creator in this conversation. They provide the framework for all this stuff.

I already proven that assumption is wrong. There is one thing to provide the framework, it is another to actually own the content created using the framework, or ported in your framework.

More than anything writting in this thread (which i said i won't be posting it, but seems i have changed my mind) i find mindbogglingly the way addon making is perceived, and the lack of respect for other people work (that you call selfish) which provides new toys, environments and functions for free for you to play with, and in exchange, all they are asking for is just that: to respect their IP, and their conditions stipulated in the EULA.

If you find that a bad deal, well, then i got no further comments.

Looking at a pbo is not stealing.

Correct in my opinion... but do you REFERENCE them and their addon and what it taught you? I can bet many people don't, they just tear the PBO to bits and make something with it, without his PBO you wouldn't have learnt, so it should always be referenced, even if you used none of the actual content and just methods. If you want to use sections of someones work, ASK and wait for a reply... If they don't reply then don't use the work and get someone else to help you solve the problem.

Again, learning is not an excuse to poke around in someone else hardwork without asking, even more so to rip it apart and take what you want.

@ Myke

Well, I think that at least some community members won't release MLODs, because they say they will lock them. :) Perhaps I'm missing a nuance, but it seems to me that if someone will go through the trouble of locking their pbo, they are unlikely to then turn around and release the MLODs.

I do agree that, particularly in the beginning, there wouldn't be much impact. The ones that have always been more open will continue to be. My concern is that for the longer term.

You can release the MLOD using a 2nd/3rd LOD. In the end staring at a 3d model won't help you learn how to model (but will allow you to use it commercially). A 2nd or 3rd LOD will still contain selections, etc, and the p3d will still have its other special LODs (mem, geometry shadow etc) in place. It would provide the same amount of info for learning purpose

Looking at a pbo is not stealing.

Exactly, it´s pure fun.

Last week someone on TS3 prompted us/me to download and depbo that Berzerk/Valhalla Mission, with absolutely no intention of stealing or other bad things, it was only to get a laugh out of the wicked 'encryption' skills the authors used (ouighnweiroghnuw.sqf ftw :D).

Another time i´ve had this idea with RH´s M14 replacing BI´s broken boomstick,

again i´ve had no ill intentions doing so, it was just that i really wanted to play with the M14 without pulling my hair out anytime i miss the target. Of course i could´ve asked RH beforehand for his feelings about this, but it´s purely for my personal enjoyment and won´t see a public release ever, so who´s hurt? Nobody.

It´s this kind of common sense that mostly works since years, and will work for years to come. I can´t imagine an ArmA world where everything i want to know/do lies behind a wall of text messaging .. especially since non-english speakers often simply don´t want to go through the hassle of writing up enormous walls of text.

If profesionals like Rock need their modells protected in order to protexct their real life income that´s perfectly fine, give´em model encryption ffs. It´s a fully understandable reasoning behind their interests. But leave the open nature of .pbo´s in peace!

Better than to allow people like yourself who don't respect a damn contract (EULA) and they rip apart other ppl work, no matter what purpose that is. And all you have to do to get the same result is send a PM/mail.

I find it fascinating.

I do respect valid contracts (damn or otherwise). What I don't respect is people over-reaching their legal authority. Don't like it when Microsoft does it, don't like when a community modder does it.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Educational/informational Fair Use is just that - a "fair" use of someone else's intellectual property.

Guess what: it is not like that at all. 90% of the community is made by users/consumers and NOT creators/developers. Most of the people here just use, and never give back (in whatever form). And that is to be expected behaviour. What i don't get is WHY the very same people are having an opinion here, or WHY they are against a lockable OPTION, since their current behaviour would suffer no change (nothing to earn or loose).

First, I agree - consumers make up the vast majority of the community. Your 90% figure might be low! And, consumers in this context rarely care if the product is morally 'good' or not.

Second, everyone should be entitled to express their opinion. This is an open marketplace of ideas. I don't think there should be an admission-test before someone is allowed to post their opinion.

Third, I think in the long run there would be fewer choices for the consumers, because of fewer addons.

You are saying that BI shouldn't spend time and get involved on creating/releasing a pbo lock option, but then, all of a sudden, they should get involved, and tell me how to pack an addon? Really...

I think there's a miscommunication, probably on my part. I'm not sure what you mean with this.

You'll be surprised.

I'd only be surprised if the answer was zero. :)

I already proven that assumption is wrong. There is one thing to provide the framework, it is another to actually own the content created using the framework, or ported in your framework.

My assumption isn't wrong, I think you are mis-reading it.

We agree that the IP for original content, regardless of the app to produce it, belongs with the creator - not BI.

More than anything writting in this thread (which i said i won't be posting it, but seems i have changed my mind) i find mindbogglingly the way addon making is perceived, and the lack of respect for other people work (that you call selfish) which provides new toys, environments and functions for free for you to play with, and in exchange, all they are asking for is just that: to respect their IP, and their conditions stipulated in the EULA.

If you find that a bad deal, well, then i got no further comments.

Ok.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Again, learning is not an excuse to poke around in someone else hardwork without asking, even more so to rip it apart and take what you want.

It's not only an excuse, but it's a legal right in most countries.

He has the right, he doesn't have the means (yet)

No, he has the desire but not the means. Encryption of data is not a right. Protection of theft is a right, which everyone has already.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

Correct in my opinion... but do you REFERENCE them and their addon and what it taught you? I can bet many people don't, they just tear the PBO to bits and make something with it, without his PBO you wouldn't have learnt, so it should always be referenced, even if you used none of the actual content and just methods. If you want to use sections of someones work, ASK and wait for a reply... If they don't reply then don't use the work and get someone else to help you solve the problem.

If I use code that someone either provided or allowed for use, or I had help with, I reference it. If I learned of a coding practice from an addon, I might not, as the coding practice is not his either, just a coding practice. There are lots of occasions where I simply don't know how to code a specific thing, and there is no relevant example on the Biki. We are not all professional coders here, and some of us are learning all the time.

No, he has the desire but not the means. Encryption of data is not a right. Protection of theft is a right, which everyone has already.

It depends where you look at it from. Let me put this in perspective.

1. protection of data is a right

2. dep3d tool is available - no more protection

3. encryption would nullify the use of the specified tool

4. encryption is a right - conclusion

Again, i said it before, like several times now. I couldn't care less about the content that has no commercial value (even though this is also part of my IP). I do care about the one which does.

Messing in someone elses work is of bad taste (at least in my mind). Using its content for your own purpose is even worst, and i understand and support (to a degree) why some would prefer others NOT to mess with their files without a prior consent, especially when that is written in a license file.

But none of the above can compare with the use of content outside the armaverse. Period.

And before you bring the rippers into discussions yet again, for the nth time, it is not the same amount of ppl that can use it. I feel we are repeating ourselves though

Glad to see people still dont understand the IP rights regarding O2 and things you make with it :j:

(BIS has said over and over and over that whatever you make with the tools is your IP. But that doesnt help your nay-sayer argument now does it....)

Well, I for one has never said that. What you create with any tool is your creation, unless you are under an employer contract that strictly says so (it could be their IP). My arguments are that your sense of IP rights are augmented way beyond that what the law actually protects, for commercial reasons. Utter theft and/or major distribution? Of course. Some lines? Questionable. Poking? No way.

CarlGustaffa, you openly admit that you unpbo other peoples work, edit them and then distribute them with your friends without permission from the original authors. And you claim that you have the right to do so just because you "need" it done in the next 5 minutes.

I thought I mentioned a month. I can give you examples where I did get permissions too. And I don't think (but I'm not gonna re-read every readme I have to verify) I have never seen the kind of restrictions you talk about afaik. You now have some twisted ideas about my morals, and some weird image of my personality. Based on what? Some talk? Me admitting to wrong doings in a thread? Did you tell your friends how bad I am? Off course you did. That's what protectionism is all about. It's that nasty rumor milling effect that follows in its wake. And it completely ruins the good attitude on the forums, and a much bigger problem than editing stuff for fun and personal use.

Well even if there is no legal obstruction to do so, even if your morals are twisted enough to do so, you still don't see how other people see that as offensive?

Well, I've been offended a few times in this thread. Not much I can do about it. ;) Seriously though, no, I guess personally I don't think my morals are twisted. I've never ended up in trouble because of it, so I think I must be doing something right.

And after the people who get hold of these unofficially edited addons make the original authors chase for bugs that do not exist in their original addons like examples even in this thread have shown, you still don't see how it pisses off the addon makers? For me that shows complete and utter disrespect for the original author.

Ok, valid point about faulty bug reports. Doesn't happen with us though. Only me is active here, so only me makes these reports, and any errors would be checked against the original. In addition I find bugs that are not obvious unless you poke around in configs and see what is wrong. Also I'm very open about it, but I guess honesty is just proof of my twisted morals, huh? But I don't agree it shows disrespect. The fact that he is even making a bug report says to me there is some respect involved. But, individual opinion on what respect is maybe...

You made a post earlier linking to that soundmod guy "who was never heard from since" (oh wow a couple of weeks weeks is a looooooong time not hear from someone).

For someone who just released an addon, probably proud as hell about his works, yeah I think even hours would qualify as a long time. When you release something, don't you check in on your release thread?

Yet in his very own thread you blatantly give the guy notice that you ripped off some of his sounds for your own library.

1. Read that line again. With glasses. Is there any other way to read that? Considering the package didn't come with a license. Think!

2. Was he upset with me? No. Was he upset about "malicious insinuation"? Yes. From protectionists (protecting CS in this case, at the start, then going more general). Now I'm definitely not against giving notice, hell, even reporting it if you're sure about what you're doing. By the rules you are required to do it. By the rules you are also required to not make an issue of it on the forums. But by doing it in public, others jump to conclusions and cause "bad vibes". This is a better example. He didn't leave because of it (the other guy may have left due bad critics or knew he was in trouble if he knew he did something wrong, who knows), but he clearly states what he thinks. That's not what I want to see go down around here. Hell, even the RKSL thread was locked due to complete immaturity. :(

The way I interpret that message, and I know there are others here that see it the same way too, is that "I stole your work and theres nothing you can do about it". You are rubbing it in his face.

1. See? Clouded judgment caused by an already fixated image of me. That image doesn't even have to be made by you, but "planted" (?) by others who have that image.

2. If you discuss me and my "bad actions" with others, try to shift focus a bit from me over to the rumor milling.

Now I do not know about your ambitions or motives like you claim to know about others but for me you make yourself look like "I'm more important than you so I can do whatever I want with your addon."

1. Motives: Having fun, being nosy, poke around, learn stuff. Change parameters and observe what happens. Being a scientist. Sounds to me someone forgot the fun part somewhere and it's now all legal mumbo jumbo.

2. Not about that. I weight pretty carefully what I think could be harmful to the other part. The same common sense we all (well, most) apply.

Skipping what I consider personal attacks and foul language.

In the case the author doesn't reply do you really think that gives you the right to edit it?

I've posted links to similar stuff several times before. Here is yet another one. Focus on the bold parts, but it ends with Limitations and exceptions balance the monopoly right of the creator, in the public interest. But "you guys" don't want any of that balance for the public (this community) interest. I'm not claiming as own, so it's not IP theft. I'm not distributing officially and/or on a scale that could be harmful. The stuff "us bad guys do" is only harmful to your ego, maybe that part is what needs changing around here?

I've read Maruk's thread with great interest (but I can't atm remember the details, only the intents, roughly).

"addon makers and users need to understand that the fact something is possible or easily available technically does not mean they really can take it and do whatever they like with it."

And I agree with that. But I read whatever as like I have to apply common sense. For me it doesn't read "and do absolutely nothing with it." Ehh, not entirely what I mean but I'm not able to describe it in words.

Your responses alone are making me want to lock even any mission .pbo I am ever going to release in the future if this option will be given to us.

Well, I did suggest alternative thinking on how to attack the, or part of, the problem. A more fair editing scheme than this locking solution which all us nay sayers say is damaging. In order to limit possible damages caused by home tinkering, without removing the possibility. Only one person seemed to notice that part. Blinded by hatred or just don't want to hear any other suggestions?

As for your mission, well, with locking allowed you're pretty much forced to use the lock if you don't want anyone else to claim it as theirs without you being able to do anything about it to prevent it. Before we were forced to use common sense about how we used things, and things could remain "Share-Alike".

Everyone bends these rules a little from time to time. Hell, even when we try to be as good as possible it's unavoidable. And if it's not these, there are other rules and regulations you bend. How many here are 100% legal in traffic wrt speed limits, use of safety devices, mobile phone use (where applicable) etc? Not a single soul! Note that these are also criminal offenses unlike ours which wouldn't even reach a civil court (other than a "stop distributing" effect). How do you expect or intend everyone to be "that lawful" within this community? Angels doesn't exist (except for a certain female :p)

I think it's very questionable that you modellers go around claiming IP and copyright of something you plagiarized with millimeter accuracy without permission from the real designers.

Since you like clumsy analogies so much, that's like I heard a song on the radio and made a transcription of it with every note and word, and then claimed I have the IP to the sheet music because I put an artistic spin on it with my hand writing.

No, they don't need permission to represent the shape. BMW (and others) has tried for it and lost. They won't get anywhere unless trademark is violated. They do however hold IP on the industrial design, but that covers a whole lot more than a graphical/3D representation of its shell.

It depends where you look at it from. Let me put this in perspective.

1. protection of data is a right

2. dep3d tool is available - no more protection

3. encryption would nullify the use of the specified tool

4. encryption is a right - conclusion

As far as rights are concerned, I don't think they follow through to logical conclusions :) Your data is already protected, that's your right. Encryption is only a tool to enforce that right, not a right in itself.

And before you bring the rippers into discussions yet again, for the nth time, it is not the same amount of ppl that can use it. I feel we are repeating ourselves though

So in other words ONLY the people who can commercially exploit models will continue to do so. That's a little harsh, to protect your data from the community but not from the real damage. I don't know of a community stolen model that's ever been successful, the community and BIS come down hard on such activities. Encryption might stop some of that at an earlier stage, but it will also allow successful intra-community theft to go unchallengeable.

I think it's very questionable that you modellers go around claiming IP and copyright of something you plagiarized with millimeter accuracy without permission from the real designers..

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Let's take an example:

I do model of a VW Golf. I have it modelled with all the details, up to the millimetre. The model is my own IP, and i can use it as i want (sell it etc). The trademark or the design does NOT belong to me, but to Audi-VW concern.

But then again, i am not selling the design, nor the trademark, but a 3d model based on the design. I never said i own or that i was part of the designing process.

Plagiarizing is a totally different game, which we can have a talk about, but it isn't this.

In the US, there is a case (with which I STRONGLY disagree) regarding a flight sim that held that (IIRC) Boeing (either that or McDonnell-Douglas) had an enforceable IP right against the maker of the flight sim that prevented them from using the WWII planes. The company had to pay damages for using the 3d models of the WWII planes.

I'll see if I can find a link.

yes, i have heard about that myself. The difference is that they can't use the trademark (see GTA, and even BIS coyotas).

But this has been covered before