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

[[frl]myke 14]

Another hypothetic outcome:

Amalfi never released unpbo, the AvonLady and her Newsgroup fellas never got more out of the OFP demo than what it originally offered.

No hype emerged.

OFP still became a great success, but as there´s no modding going on, it pitily passed away somewhen inbetween 2004-2005.

End of story.

Also hypothetic and we'll never know how it would have been turned out.

But why the hell is everyone always thinking that negative? The option of locking content will kill the Community. The option of locking content will turn the community in a bunch of elitist assholes. The option of locking content will end the armaversum.

On what bases this negative presumption?

[mr burns 131]

Myke;1781965']Also hypothetic and we'll never know how it would have been turned out.

But why the hell is everyone always thinking that negative? The option of locking content will kill the Community. The option of locking content will turn the community in a bunch of elitist assholes. The option of locking content will end the armaversum.

On what bases this negative presumption?

Hey hey now, i wasn´t saying it kills the community. All i said, hypothetically, is that ArmA prolly wouldn´t have happened at all w/o the freedom of modding as we enjoy it to date.

There´ll always be few guys who ruin the fun for everyone, be it locked pbo or unlocked. It will never stop happening, it´s an internet problem, not one that solely persists in ArmA.

[[frl]myke 14]

Hey hey now, i wasn´t saying it kills the community. All i said, hypothetically, is that ArmA prolly wouldn´t have happened at all w/o the freedom of modding as we enjoy it to date.

There´ll always be few guys who ruin the fun for everyone, be it locked pbo or unlocked. It will never stop happening, it´s an internet problem, not one that solely persists in ArmA.

Sorry, that "why so negative" wasn't addressed to you, it was more generally meant. Sorry for that.

[NoRailgunner 0]

In the end:

Its still the ip owner's own motivation & right to make and release addons/missions for free and the very same way its the ip owner's right to protect his own work and to sue ip thieves.

How come that idea to delegate this sense of duty and responsibility to a game developer?

How come that idea such an security solution should be free of cost/gratis?

How big is the interest for an game developer or publisher to make sure that ip thieves who are stealing community made content will get an appropriate punishment?

No doubt any kind of optional lock will be cracked sooner or later and then the discussion about a better lock will start and after a certain time another discussion again and again...

Choices are simple

1) make content for free and stand up for your self - sue thieves

2) don't make content for free and stand up for your self - sue thieves

3) do what you like and stand up for your self - sue thieves

Otherwise you are "Nuts!"

[dm 9]

How come that idea to delegate this sense of duty and responsibility to a game developer?

It isnt, no one said they cant help tho...

How come that idea such an security solution should be free of cost/gratis?

No one said that either. Infact several people have suggested that they would be willing to pay for such a tool.

How big is the interest for an game developer or publisher to make sure that ip thieves who are stealing community made content will get an appropriate punishment?

That they get punished? Not much. That they help out? Quite a lot, especially for a community centric company like BIS.

RKSL would use it, Project Reality would likely use it, members of RHS have shown interest. When you've got the big names interested, its in your interests to take heed...

[TRexian 0]

When it comes to community development, and hypotheticals that aren't so hypothetical, there is an example to look at: Falcon 4.

Rather than write a f'n treatise on it, here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Force

http://www.freefalcon.com

Suffice it to say that a relatively open-source community will last longer and be more productive than a relatively closed-source community.

That is, of course, an over-simplification, but I think it is instructive as to the hypotheticals that people are mentioning.

[JdB 151]

You see that troubles me too. What if one "trusted" member becomes disillusioned and goes rogue and hands out the tool? Or a team member hands it out to his mate and so on.

I've been thinking that maybe an extension of the BIkey system? Each user creates a unique encryption key. With their tag as a prefix? each addon's encryption would be different and verifiable on the servers and clients?

Wasn't it the same back in the early days, before O2 was publicly available? You would get a code that would unlock the program from what I can recall (not sure if it was a unique code). Back then, BIS decided who was worthy and who was not. That worked reasonably well.

Ideally it would also be tied to the CD-key and blacklist offending CD-keys in the next patch (just like BIS does with "public" keys). At least then, it might be somewhat possible to put a penalty on stealing (having to buy a new copy of the game if they want to run the latest version). Additional online verification would be an additional measure, broadband connections that are online whenever the PC is turned on are so widespread these days that there isn't really any technical argument against it besides outdated complaints, most notably "If my internet connection is down, I won't be able to play!" My ISP has had only two short periods (few hours) of downtime in the last three years, and the ISP is rated as being only average. If BIS ever ran out of money, they could release a "final" patch that just removes the server check easily.

Edited November 4, 2010 by JdB

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Gnat;1781930']

BIS recently made its view pretty clear' date=' and I feel its great middle ground.

"No harm, no foul"

Not too many rules that it kills a creative community, not too little that the vultures from the four corners of the world decend.[/quote']

Precisely. If the rules and guidelines from the creator of the game (that have commercial interest), isn't enough to protect your interest as a freeware content creator (no commercial interests on the pbo part, I'm not talking model here), then this may not be the game that suits you the most.

It's obvious the intent is to stop peeking, and they use the theft argument to justify it. Peeking != theft. If you know what you're looking for, there is even built in commands to peek. De-pbo'ing makes it a whole lot more convenient, and also lets you find the things you don't know that you're looking for. In addition it lets you stumble upon interesting things that may be useful to have in the knowledge bag, down the line.

Also, as have already been mentioned. Optional != optional, it becomes the only way in due time if everyone is allowed to use it.

Edited November 4, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[st_dux 26]

If someone breaks into my house and steals my tv then i no longer have a tv. If someone still breaks into your pbo and takes your model, you still have your model and your pbo, just now someone else has a copy of it that you do not want them to have.

Totally different

This is an excellent point that IP rights advocates can never seem to wrap their minds around fully. You cannot "steal" IP in the same way that you can steal actual property. The latter involves what economists call "scarce resources" while the former does not.

[rksl-rock 1300]

This is an excellent point that IP rights advocates can never seem to wrap their minds around fully. You cannot "steal" IP in the same way that you can steal actual property. The latter involves what economists call "scarce resources" while the former does not.

That is just such bullshit. Stealing someone's ideas and hardwork is still stealing. Saying it isn't is just utter bollocks.

I'll reply properly later, but arguments like this just highlight how little people really understand the real world. :mad:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. The exclusive rights are however balanced for public interest purposes with limitations and exceptions to the exclusive right - such as fair dealing and fair use. Copyright theory says that it is the balance between the exclusive rights and the limitations and exceptions that engenders creativity. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation.

I agree the example was horrible, but I have to say, so was yours. That argument is only used to trap the unwary (in this case NouberNou and ST_Dux), it doesn't belong here because peeking is not theft.

You may trespass my property, but I can't use the theft argument.

There are laws against trespassing. I don't think there exist one for de-pbo'ing.

The ones that exist are based on "no harm = no foul" and is generally accepted as such.

Now, lets apply those highlighted passes to where you want to go:

* It's clear you don't want balance. It's only your side that is given weight. Ask you say. Communicate you say. Tried that. Didn't work.

* Limitations and exceptions (which I did read a bit on) is completely neglected with your approach.

* How does locking engender creativity? As has been repeatedly argued, it does the complete opposite.

* That last one about ideas was for the answer you gave above this one.

Edited November 4, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[rksl-rock 1300]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Go Google Intellectual Property

[dm 9]

This is an excellent point that IP rights advocates can never seem to wrap their minds around fully. You cannot "steal" IP in the same way that you can steal actual property. The latter involves what economists call "scarce resources" while the former does not.

So because you're not actually removing the "resources" that makes it ok?

Can I borrow your passport? I'd like to make a copy of it...

[TRexian 0]

This is a hobby, it isn't the real world. :)

That is a bit facetious of me, but the point is, if we REALLY want to apply real-world ideas to this, then you have to look at things like Fair Use.

FU includes educational uses. Taking apart a pbo to learn from it is an educational use, and would likely be protected by FU.

Plus, then we'd have to look at things like damages.

UberModderA releases a free mod.

UberModderB extracts stuff from UberModderA's work, and releases it for free.

Sorry, no damages = no problem.

And that's just a simple example.

Things are better the way they are now, IMHO.

[rksl-rock 1300]

This is a hobby, it isn't the real world. :)

Oh boy... where do you live and are the pills you are on free? ;)

This is the real world where things get stolen and are exploited. If you want to live in a "free" world with no possessions let me know when yu find one. It won't be in our life times nor on this planet.

Sheesh, get real.

[Fox '09 14]

Couldn't of put it better myself trex

[dm 9]

you have to look at things like Fair Use.

FU includes educational uses. Taking apart a pbo to learn from it is an educational use, and would likely be protected by FU.

Unless it is expressly forbidden by the EULA.

But as you've said, you dont give a crap about licences, which is why we're seeking further protection...

[rksl-rock 1300]

Couldn't of put it better myself trex

This is a hobby' date=' it isn't the real world. :)

That is a bit facetious of me, but the point is, if we REALLY want to apply real-world ideas to this, then you have to look at things like Fair Use.

FU includes educational uses. Taking apart a pbo to learn from it is an educational use, and would likely be protected by FU.

Plus, then we'd have to look at things like damages.

UberModderA releases a free mod.

UberModderB extracts stuff from UberModderA's work, and releases it for free.

Sorry, no damages = no problem.

And that's just a simple example.

Things are better the way they are now, IMHO.[/quote']

OK Fair Use only applies when the author's rights, IP or license is not infringed. The scenerio you suggest here is an out right infringment of all of it.

To release someone else's IP without consent or license is called Theft under every legal system in the world

You may want an open source community where everything anyone makes is up for grabs. But in reality thats not how this or many other communities work. So lets get real and deal with fact not fantasy.

[TRexian 0]

@DM-

EULAs and copyrights are separate things, my friend.

A EULA is a contract. Contracts must be supported by 'consideration.' When you buy a game, the exchange of money is the consideration.

Whether there is consideration to support a EULA for a free addon is an open question. To my knowledge, no court in any country has addressed that.

A gentleman's agreement type principle has been cultivated by BI regarding OFP/ArmA addons, and I think it is generally effective. But, my point is to really just caution those of you who do this sort of stuff professionally - the real world principles that protect you in your professional life are ill-suited to this hobby.

In fact, the underlying principle of IP law is to keep stuff closed, as much protection for creators of work as possible. That is almost diametrically opposite of the openness that is fundamental to the OFP/ArmA community that I have become familiar with.

@Rock-

Fair Use is a defense to infringement. It generally means that an infringement DID occur, but that the owner of the IP is not entitled to any damages.

Worldwide IP does not use words like 'theft' - I'm surprised to hear you even say that if you are a professional? Who is dealing in fantasy after all?

;)

Edited November 4, 2010 by TRexian

[jw custom 56]

You may want an open source community where everything anyone makes is up for grabs. But in reality thats not how this or many other communities work. So lets get real and deal with fact not fantasy.

Most of us here talking about "open source" which is a wrong word to use are talking about looking at other peoples sources, learn from them. I have personally solved many of my problems by looking at other peoples work to see how they get around problems.

Nobody is talking about grabbing peoples work without permission.

[TRexian 0]

This is the real world where things get stolen and are exploited. If you want to live in a "free" world with no possessions let me know when yu find one. It won't be in our life times nor on this planet.

Sheesh, get real.

hehe

If ArmA addons and the internet are The Real World to you, I think you have bigger issues than freeware copyright infringement. ;)

[t_d 47]

woah, quite a lot to read here but not much content. Everyone is just repeating himself it seems to me. Do you think this discussion lead to somewhere?

[TRexian 0]

It led to Dwarden posting that they are unlikely to implement encryption. After that, it is mostly just mental masturbation. :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Go Google Intellectual Property

Wiki will have to do for now:

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

Did you file a patent claim? No, so that doesn't cover it.

Trademarks and industrial design rights doesn't seem to fit.

Is it a trade secrete? Let's see...

* is not generally known to the public;

* confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);

* is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

It is generally known. And you have no economic benefit from locking a pbo (not model). If I read the last one correct (not sure about this one), I don't think so - it's a set of config values, or a mission consisting of generally speaking publicly available information, not granting it enough uniqueness to warrant it.

What's left then? As far as I can see, it's only copyright, which I explained above.

[Daniel 0]

woah, quite a lot to read here but not much content. Everyone is just repeating himself it seems to me. Do you think this discussion lead to somewhere?

Well, it lead to a response from BIS that confirmed BIS won't be implementing extra protection for community authors. But it also let's people express their views, which is healthy. As long as people respect each other's posts and don't start getting petty.