Should banned user mods/maps/etc be deleted from these boards?

[cleveland]

Hi All,

Sorry for my naivete, but I haven't been around for a while. I just learned of the Great Schism, where many of the oldtimers I liked & respected were banned from this forum, only to be sentenced to a different boring forum (http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?act=SC&c=1).

So I'd like to take a modest straw poll.

Premise: Given that the purpose of this board is to be a sales tool (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=743623&postcount=17), should banned user original contributions be deleted from the boards? It only seems fair that if I ban a contributor from the board, I should not benefit from their past contributions, no?

Very curious to hear the community's opinion...

[Knai]

I voted no. The board is a sales tool, yes, but its also a community. If the mods remove a user, contributions and all, then its just massive collateral damage against the community as a whole. We don't need that by any means. Treating the board as a single entity justifies the fairness well enough, but that isn't accurate by any means.

[DeadlyShoe]

Removing content threads from banned users does nothing except make that content harder to find for new players, which does noone any good.

Poll is too passive aggressive by half. Didn't vote.

[Fantomen]

IMO it should be up to the creator. If Sombre etc. wants the content removed then it should be, if not then it should not. Very simple.

The best would be to delete the content but keep the threads and replace the OP with links to the relevant threads on the new forum, that way everyone gets access to the latest updates.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not sure who it is you are referring to as doing the deleting. Are you asking if the owners should? Or if Shrapnel should?

I think this was semi-decided back when in 2004 when another banned person went thru and deleted as many of his own programs and posts as he could find. Thats when the 30-minute edit window was reinstated, and the backups of uploaded items. The poster no longer gets those choices. Anything put on a companys server is considered to be their property.

BUT on the other hand, the users argued that the FIRST post of every thread should continue to be able to be edited. We won that back. Since most threads about mods and maps use the first post to store the link, they can be edited to point somewhere else. Anything that has been uploaded to the forum will still be there but the link would be broken. Whether or not they SHOULD be Id say no. It should be up to the author to decide, not anyone else.

By the way, the comment of "only to be sentenced to a different boring forum (http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?act=SC&c=1)" seems strange. I got the impression they had happily created that forum to prove the premise that a forum without strict moderation could be vibrant and active. I understand that there are some very entertaining threads there.

[rabelais]

They were actually BANNED here? Someone point me to the thread?

What the hey-ho could cause this? It should indeed be up to the author of the content. If it isn't that's somewhere between lame and theft.

[13lackGu4rd]

What the hey-ho could cause this? It should indeed be up to the author of the content. If it isn't that's somewhere between lame and theft.

well, it would have been theft is it wasn't for all the legal mumbo jumbo everyone has to agree on before creating an account. this legal mumbo jumbo basically means the company can do whatever they want with anything that appears on their forums, as well as many other boring things that nobody actually cares to read.

companies hire lawyers for a reason, to cover their asses in various situations. the customer, who generally isn't a lawyer by training, doesn't really have a clue about all those things he must agree on in order to create an account on the forums, and to play the actual game too while we're at it. so they put up various clauses that let them get away with anything they'll ever want by sneaking it in with all the other legalese.

so, to be honest, the community's opinion in this matter doesn't matter at all. the law is very clear, and by playing this game and having accounts here, we've all agreed to these terms, whether we like(or even know) about them or not.

[Calahan]

It should be up to the author to decide, not anyone else.
But (if my understanding on forum workings is correct) part of this argument/problem then though is the situation that arises when banned members can not access their threads/first posts in order to decided whether or not their work should be available to others.

As in that case it is not the author who is deciding whether or not his/her content is available to others (as you and many others say it should be), but instead it is those who are preventing the author from accessing the threads that author created that are deciding the matter. (unless banned members/authors will have any requests they make honoured with regards content they created that they now wish to be made unavailable/removed)

[thejeff]

Isn't this point largely moot? Have any of the banned mod authors requested their work be removed? I don't recall seeing complaints about that on the other forum.

There are games advertised on both forums. Most of the mods are available on llamaserver anyway.

The forums are a sales tool, but they are free. Game sales are where the revenue comes from. If the banned users actually wanted to hurt Shrapnel, then continuing to make mods to improve the game seems counter-productive, whether those mods appear on these forums or not.

[Warhammer]

Most company forums have a disclaimer when you sign up that any uploaded content becomes property of the company.

What is the point of the OP posting this anyway? This is a fairly inflammatory post, why bother unless you're just trying to stir the pot.

[Romtos]

It would be nice if the OP didn't add rationales behind "yes" "no" and "abstain". Using just the yes/no/abstain options gives a false impression that the options cover all possibilities, which is not the case. I voted "no", but that doesn't mean I think shrapnel games should own all posted content.

[DrPraetorious]

Well, Frank Trollman went through and systematically removed a bunch of his stuff. He would have used a "nuke all my posts" button, if one existed, but probably wouldn't have actually made a request to the admins.

It is of course *legally* the case that Shrapnel owns anything we post here - or, at least, that they own a license to continue serving it, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that they *should*: many forums with exactly the same legal boilerplate allow users to delete their posts if they wish, and I think it is better to allow someone who leaves to delete their posts if they wish to do so. There are all sorts of reasons for this, very few of which have anything to do with wishing to "hurt shrapnel."

Isn't this point largely moot? Have any of the banned mod authors requested their work be removed? I don't recall seeing complaints about that on the other forum.

There are games advertised on both forums. Most of the mods are available on llamaserver anyway.

The forums are a sales tool, but they are free. Game sales are where the revenue comes from. If the banned users actually wanted to hurt Shrapnel, then continuing to make mods to improve the game seems counter-productive, whether those mods appear on these forums or not.

[Peacekeeper]

or just host mods on storage sites like CBM does instead of attaching them to posts here. Then the authors can remove them at will and leave a dead link.

[Squirrelloid]

I think this was semi-decided back when in 2004 when another banned person went thru and deleted as many of his own programs and posts as he could find. Thats when the 30-minute edit window was reinstated, and the backups of uploaded items. The poster no longer gets those choices. Anything put on a companys server is considered to be their property.

This doesn't hold up in court actually. At least in the US, terms of service agreements are often thrown out as non-binding, especially when they conflict with other established rights. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that a creator's implicit copyright to work he creates trumps any boilerplate terms of service agreement. The only way to relinquish copyright in the US is to specifically agree to do so for a work.

So just because you clicked 'yes' to 5 pages of legal gobbledegook doesn't mean those 5 pages trump other legal considerations.

[thejeff]

I think this was semi-decided back when in 2004 when another banned person went thru and deleted as many of his own programs and posts as he could find. Thats when the 30-minute edit window was reinstated, and the backups of uploaded items. The poster no longer gets those choices. Anything put on a companys server is considered to be their property.

This doesn't hold up in court actually. At least in the US, terms of service agreements are often thrown out as non-binding, especially when they conflict with other established rights. I am not a lawyer, but I am virtually certain that a creator's implicit copyright to work he creates trumps any boilerplate terms of service agreement. The only way to relinquish copyright in the US is to specifically agree to do so for a work.

So just because you clicked 'yes' to 5 pages of legal gobbledegook doesn't mean those 5 pages trump other legal considerations.

Which instantly renders forums, blogs and much of the internet unusable,
since I just violated your copyright by copying your post into mine.

Discussions, archives, etc, all break if some of the content can be removed/changed at whim. Should you be able to delete not only your posts, but any posts that quote them, paraphrase them etc? All of which could be considered derivative works.

Any challenges to the boilerplate would likely apply to making use of the content in another form. If Shrapnel wanted to package up a bunch of mods and sell them, that would be a problem. Requiring them to delete content you've already allowed them to publish on the site is more like trying to require everyone who has a copy of your book to destroy it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually Squirrelloid you are correct up to a point. Clicking doesnt make it happen. No warning or disclaimer or agreement can change the law.

However, the law has already made some decisions. Its always changing but there have been plenty of cases. Mostly involving things like what a worker puts on a company computer but they hold. The other factor is the concept of "public posting" which allows a person to retain authorship, but not ownership. They can no longer control what is publicly posted. (latest cases involving google might make some changes soon but not much)

Ive worked sysadmin for a law firm while new topics of internet law was being hammered out. Its definitely still an area where please and thank you is far more effective than trying to quote law. If someone were to request it, then it might happen.

But I agree with others that its a moot point. I dont think either side of this is considering any deletions.

[thejeff]

Well, Frank Trollman went through and systematically removed a bunch of his stuff. He would have used a "nuke all my posts" button, if one existed, but probably wouldn't have actually made a request to the admins.

It is of course *legally* the case that Shrapnel owns anything we post here - or, at least, that they own a license to continue serving it, whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean that they *should*: many forums with exactly the same legal boilerplate allow users to delete their posts if they wish, and I think it is better to allow someone who leaves to delete their posts if they wish to do so. There are all sorts of reasons for this, very few of which have anything to do with wishing to "hurt shrapnel."



Since the OP was complaining about Shrapnel profiting from their past contributions, my main point was that the profit comes from sales of the game not the forums. Since many of the banned users have continued to make mods, they are still actively contributing to that profit as much as they ever were.

I don't really feel like rereading the flame wars from when they were banned, but I really don't remember anyone from that particular lot of banned users complaining about their mods still being available here. There's plenty of complaining about Shrapnel on the other site, but I don't recall much about that. Which would make this whole thread kind of pointless.

[ExHeretic]

Here is my two cents on the matter... I do not give a **** what the law says about things... I do care for what is the right thing to do... If the law tells me to do something that my moral code does not accept i wont do it but i will take the punishment that law reguires for me... whitout law there is jungles law... The stronges one is always right... So we do need laws...

For the vote... I really hate it when people put words in my mouth so i refuse to vote... I do think that people do have the right for stuff they have made... So if the maker of the stuffs in guestion wants them removed then they should be removed... If the one talking about the stuff is not the one who made it this whole conversation is pretty much irrelevant...

To comment the stuff behind all of this hate... i think that permanent ban is the forums version of death sentence... Death sentence does not give second chances. Nothing good comes from denieng the chance to rethink deciosions and actions. I mean that after all we all are just humans and we all make mistakes. Remember that eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. There should always be room for forgiving...

This whole post is actually pretty good example off stuff which could make for bad judgements... I just came home from pretty wet pre x-mas party and im guite drunk now =P So tomorrow when im sober i might read this post and think what the heck i was thinking when i wrote this :D So if i would get banned for writing this ( or more likely writing post whit this many typos in it :D ) would it be right? Or would it really increase the harmony of the forums? :re:

[TheConway]

Something tells me there's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kPUFxXYLs&feature=related

[S.R. Krol]

The poll is a tad inflammatory, eh? Consider the last option in the poll. Compared to most forums the banhammer rarely comes out. In eleven years I'm betting we could count on one and a half hands how many folks had to be banned (not talking about spammers of course), and definitely not because of voting in a poll.

The first two options are also problematic. Shrapnel doesn't profit from the mods, the community does. When someone purchases Dom3 they purchase the vanilla game. It's up to them to discover and use the mods. Likewise I don't think anyone from Shrapnel has ever said, "Ha! You fools, by uploading your maps you've played right into our hands. We own them now!" so the "rationale" behind voting "No" is way off the mark.

Gotta say sorta surprised to see the situation rear up again.

[PriestyMan]

Isnt it true that shrapnel profits from the content here in part because people purchase the game partially because they see all the mods and activity in MP games and discussion etc. I know of several people who played the demo, and checked out the forums, and talking to people on the forums/IRC decided to buy the game. So shrapnel does profit from content here. In fact a friend of mine decided to buy the game only after he saw some of Sombre's mods and saw how cool they were and wanted to make one of his own.

Also, your suprised that people still care/still dont like the whole thing? its going to take a lot longer for that to happen. too many old vets got chased away

[Dimaz]

Honestly I see no reason to reiterate all this all over again. Everyone who was involved or watching the incident has his opinion of what happened that is unlikely to change now, so why go through it again? I understand that OP wasn't present on the forums when it happened, but still he can ask others of their opinion privately instead of creating the so-called "vote" the only purpose of which is to add the fuel to another flame war, especially so considering the fact that the authors of the content never expressed the idea of removing the content themselves.

[TheConway]

fact that the authors of the content never expressed the idea of removing the content themselves.

Umm, did it occur to you that they, you know, couldn't cuz herp derp they were BANNED!:doh:

Unless you expected them to email shrap and cc everyone on the forums.

[LDiCesare]

No. It's up to the mod creator to decide.

[DeadlyShoe]

Umm, did it occur to you that they, you know, couldn't cuz herp derp they were BANNED!
pretty sure he meant anywhere.

Isnt it true that shrapnel profits from the content here in part because people purchase the game partially because they see all the mods and activity in MP games and discussion etc.
in that sense they profit from any sort of community site whether they host it or not. however its safe to say the vast majority of customers never even check forums before purchasing.

mods/mp activity is something most indie types would prboably hear about from friends etc.

[Dimaz]

I'm absolutely sure that they have a way to contact Shrapnel without logging to this forum. Well, I even heard that some of them had second accounts here ;). Anyway, I'm sure that such request was never made, and that if it will be made someday, Shrapnel will remove the content immediately.

[Gandalf Parker]

Even if Shrapnel didnt removed the content, it seems like a moot point.

So what if a mod like SingleAge stayed available on Shrapnel? A mod like SingleAgeComplete or SingleAge w/LLama Banners would be released which would make it stupid for anyone to download SingleAge anymore. Posts would point to the new one, and links in threads about new games using it would point to the new one, and LLama's server would point to the new one, and the Wiki, etc etc etc. Most users would never even pick up on the fact that the new version is being offered in a different place than the old one.

And I have ALWAYS offered FREE hosting to any project for any of the games Ive liked. Dominions has had this thru version 1,2,3. Free file space, webspace, email, etc. They can use Dom3Minions domain or their own domain. Thats all pretty ******* rare on any ******* game forum as far as I can see.

OR if anyone did delete their mod/map/program without offering a new one then anyone could reoffer it on the web. Its not like it would die from LLama's server.

[Soyweiser]

Something tells me there's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kPUFxXYLs&feature=related

Related was also nice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc

(they actually played that song in a bar I frequent a while ago :)).

[Foodstamp]

This thread is dumb. Wahhhh, only our tight knit group is using our forums, if we were able to delete our crap other people would have to come here and we could really stick it to shrapnel.

That being said, they should have the right to delete their stuff if they want. As far as some of the retarded legality posts go... the bulk of the banned guys stuff was based on copyrighted material. It would be hilarious to witness a court case where these guys sued a game publisher for hosting modifications based on another companies trademarked IP claiming them as their own works.

There should probably be an option for banned users to delete (Not modify) attachments in their old threads. These guys chose to stick it to the man, it is not fair that they didn't consider this little loophole and it should be corrected by the forum owners they disrespected...immediately no less!

[Muse]

Authors do not have the right to 'delete' their work from the public domain, whether or not a library they dislike profits from it.

It is rather foolish to advocate an action that will only cause more antagonism, and make less content available to all players.

My comments do not reflect my opinion on the bannings themselves, nor the persons banned-- they simply note a distaste for petty censorship that is nothing but self-destructive.


P.S.
It may even be advisable for Shrapnel to seek out modifications to the game made elsewhere and compile them here, for easier access to all players. With proper accreditation and linking.

[Soyweiser]

Authors do not have the right to 'delete' their work from the public domain, whether or not a library they dislike profits from it.

Public domain? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

[thejeff]

I agree that those words were misused, since "public domain" has a specific meaning in copyright context.
Do you disagree with the actual point though? Do you think authors have (or should have) the right to delete published copies of their work?

[Soyweiser]

I don't really have a clear opinion on it. Something can be said for both sides.

[NTJedi]

This topic is quite pointless since no matter what the voting results nothing would change. It's like having a topic called, "Should development work for Dominions_4 be started?". Even if 99.9% of the community voted "yes" with 80,000 verified real votes it would not change anything.
I'm thinking some disgruntled banned members orchestrated this discussion as a way for tossing pebbles into the ocean in an attempt to make some waves. It's kinda cute.

[PriestyMan]

Cleveland is definitely Sombre's alt

[thejeff]

More likely Cleveland just felt like poking the nest with a stick. You'll notice he hasn't commented after the first post.

Very successful hit and run troll.

edit: May or may not be someone's alt. Doesn't really matter. The outcome and likely intent is the same.

[archaeolept]

I'm thinking some disgruntled banned members orchestrated this discussion as a way for tossing pebbles into the ocean in an attempt to make some waves. It's kinda cute.christ that's dumb. It's purely cleveland's creation. He's an old and well-liked member of the community, but he only shows up now and then. He came by shrapnel, read up on the old news, became incensed, and posted this poll. Hopefully it doesn't mean that he's given up on Dominions entirely, but it may well.

[NTJedi]

christ that's dumb. It's purely cleveland's creation. He's an old and well-liked member of the community, but he only shows up now and then. He came by shrapnel, read up on the old news, became incensed, and posted this poll. Hopefully it doesn't mean that he's given up on Dominions entirely, but it may well.

Are you blind? Look at the abstain voting option and you'll clearly see it's not an independent view. Abstain is clearly an obvious attack instead of being "Abstain - No comment" and thus allowing members to post their own reasons for abstaining. As I wrote earlier this is just a pebble into the ocean... cute to watch. LOL

[PriestyMan]

its not an independant view. its umm.... clevelands. just like archae said.

[Muse]

Authors do not have the right to 'delete' their work from the public domain, whether or not a library they dislike profits from it.

Public domain? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

They do, and you're obfuscating the point.
"Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all."
It would take long years in a sympathetic court to yield even a slight acknowledgment of IP rights on a mod. Especially a mod of one copyrighted game to add the units of another copyrighted game to it.

As I've said, this does not reflect my opinion on the modders themselves, but it is nonetheless accurate.
The purpose of modding is likely to improve something you enjoy. You clearly acknowledge that you will be aiding the game and all who profit from its improvement. Including you.

I'll give a useful example:
If Jim Butcher urinated on the floor of a Barnes and Noble, he may be banned from the premises.
Will the store still sell The Dresden Files? Yes.
And he actually does have the IP rights to that series.

[NTJedi]

its not an independant view. its umm.... clevelands. just like archae said.

That's your opinion and my opinion is different.

[archaeolept]

no, that's the simple fact, and your opinion is different.

[NTJedi]

no, that's the simple fact, and your opinion is different.

You truly are pretending and nothing will change. :happy:

[Soyweiser]

They do, and you're obfuscating the point.
"Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all."
It would take long years in a sympathetic court to yield even a slight acknowledgment of IP rights on a mod. Especially a mod of one copyrighted game to add the units of another copyrighted game to it.


Creating a mod of copyrighted IP in another copyrighted IP does not an will never ever release anything in the public domain.

I'm not obfuscating the point. You are using public domain wrong. Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod. But neither is the mod released to the public domain. Public domain is never the issue here. Unless the creator of the mod (a mod which is not based on a third party IP) released it specifically to the public domain. Which nobody ever did as far as I could recall.

So my point stands. You misused public domain.

[Edi]

Muse, Soyweiser is absolutely right in his comment about what public domain means. Just accept that you are using the word wrongly in this instance and move on.


On the subject of the opening post:

If somebody wants to retain the options to do what they wish with any mods, maps or other work they may produce, even in the event of being banned, or due to dislike of certain forum policies (such as Shrapnel being granted certain rights to anything posted on the forums), then host them elsewhere under your own control and use external links.

I use that approach myself, not because I live in expectation of being banned or the like, but because I like to retain full control over what I do. It also makes cleaning up after obsolete versions much, much easier.

All the stuff I've posted here on the forums, such as the various analysis about site frequencies, the FAQ and such, I still own the copyright to those posts. Just that by posting on the forums, I've agreed to let Shrapnel use them as they see fit and they do. At the same time, by posting them in a public venue (publicly viewable by others), that's used up the first publication rights right there.

That's why even if I wanted e.g. the FAQ removed, which I don't, it would stay there. It's too useful for everyone and I've granted permission to Shrapnel to do what they will with it.

On the other hand, if I wanted to yank the Dom3 DB, the Faerun map, the event list or otehr stuff in my Dom3 hosting folder, there's nothing anyone can do to prevent me. Not that it's going to happen, but I have the option. I put too much work into a lot of that stuff to just hand control over it to anyone else. Anyone can download the fruits of my work and use them, but they can assert no control over what I do with them. They could even repost them should I remove my work. And since I've posted that stuff in a publicly accessible place (even though it is under my control), it pretty much follows that they are not important enough to me to put them under lock and key.

If I do consider something so important that I want to keep full control of it all the time, it's never going to get posted anywhere online in the first place.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you won't be able to stuff it back in. It pretty much applies to everything posted on the net, including mods and other things posted on this forum.

As far as making mods using 3rd party IPs (such as Warhammer, LotR, The Witcher or whatever else), that's more or less covered by fair use and the non-commercial nature of the mods. The mileage may vary according to what the law says in a given jurisdiction, but more or less it's not going to ruffle feathers.

But the second anyone tries to actively make a buck by charging for such derivative work (unless it is the original copyright holder), you can bet that the knives will come out so fast you won't even see the first blows.

[LDiCesare]

Authors do not have the right to 'delete' their work from the public domain, whether or not a library they dislike profits from it.
Depends on your country.
In France they definitely can. Except for software for some reason. The code de la propriété intellectuelle goes so far that there are some rights that cannot be legally transferred (moral rights), and these include the right to no longer allow publication of one's work.
Art. L. 121-4. Nonobstant la cession de son droit d'exploitation, l'auteur, même postérieurement �* la publication de son oeuvre, jouit d'un droit de repentir ou de retrait vis-�*-vis du cessionnaire. (...)
So basically anything written in France cannot be published without the author consent, even if there was a paid contract for that. Problem being the paid contract being broken, the author will have to pay an indemnity to the publisher if he wants to stop the publication, and he has to give this same publisher priority should he allow publication og his works again...

[Muse]

Creating a mod of copyrighted IP in another copyrighted IP does not an will never ever release anything in the public domain.

I'm not obfuscating the point. You are using public domain wrong. Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod. But neither is the mod released to the public domain. Public domain is never the issue here. Unless the creator of the mod (a mod which is not based on a third party IP) released it specifically to the public domain. Which nobody ever did as far as I could recall.

So my point stands. You misused public domain.

Saying something vehemently enough does not make it true.
You have no point, because you have no evidence, like many other comments made both about the game mechanics and otherwise.

Releasing a work to a publicly available website without meeting the criteria for Berne Convention attachment (originality, derivative-work copyright) places it in the public domain. Period.

Anyone accessing the website can take, modify, repost, and make collages with the mods here without even needing a lick of Fair Use justification.


In France they definitely can. Except for software for some reason. The code de la propriété intellectuelle goes so far that there are some rights that cannot be legally transferred (moral rights), and these include the right to no longer allow publication of one's work.

The 'droit de repentir' even in the case of a fully copyrighted work is under the purview of the Court, which can and has denied the right when its exercise would be abusive or was requested under 'disingenuous motives.'

In France, it would be technically legal for the great-grandson of an original author to request the cessation of production, distribution, and display for, say, a book such as The Lord of the Rings.
Will it be denied? Yes. Cultural facet.
Further, it is only enacted at the payment of damages to all owners of the property rights. If the property rights have lapsed into public domain, the damages would be considered infinite.

The 'moral rights' of France even apply to architectural plans, and I must say, the actual court cases for their invocation on those are very amusing.

[nordlys]

I think it would be for common benefit if mods are stored on a separate custom-tailored resource (like TES/Fallout3/DAO/etc-nexus, NWN-vaults, Mount & Blade repository etc) rather than forum threads. Authors have full control over their submissions, files are stored in special repository instead of being deleted from rapidshare, full interface with screenshots, comments, sorting by mod types, ratings etc. And forum grudges stay in the forums.

[Soyweiser]

You have no point, because you have no evidence, like many other comments made both about the game mechanics and otherwise.

What do game mechanics have to do with this? And you don't provide any evidence either.


Releasing a work to a publicly available website without meeting the criteria for Berne Convention attachment (originality, derivative-work copyright) places it in the public domain. Period.


So if I make a mod based on the IP of both dom3, and warhammer and release it here it is in the public domain? I doubt it.

(And you could always argue that the creation of the mod itself constitutes the creation of a original piece of work).


Anyone accessing the website can take, modify, repost, and make collages with the mods here without even needing a lick of Fair Use justification.


If I where to post a mod here in which I used my own sprites, and my own fantasy nation you couldn't. I would still have the copyright on that.

[Fantomen]

I agree with Nordlys here, it would definitely be great. It would also allow modders from different forums to store thir works in a common place and link from wherever they like.

As for this thread being an echo of the Sombre spectacle, yeah of course it is. There will be more for years to come I suppose. That's not very surprising when you f*ck things up so badly. It's not a matter of where the blame lies, just plain old cause and effect.

Another event to be written in the community history along with norfleet, monkey PD, NaV sillyness, setsumi etc... It will be continuosly referred to and bickered over.

I don't mind, I think it's rather entertaining.

[Muse]

What do game mechanics have to do with this? And you don't provide any evidence either.

"Like." An analogy, obviously.

"You're wrong because I said so. Prove you're right."
My evidence is in the letter of international copyright law, which you claim I've misused out of hand, most likely without reading yourself.

Public Domain is literally and shortly defined as: "That which is not covered by Intellectual Property rights."
For the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html


So if I make a mod based on the IP of both dom3, and warhammer and release it here it is in the public domain? I doubt it.

(And you could always argue that the creation of the mod itself constitutes the creation of a original piece of work).


You can argue anything, the law may state differently.
"For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work."

If you genuinely care, you can start with L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder.


If I where to post a mod here in which I used my own sprites, and my own fantasy nation you couldn't. I would still have the copyright on that.

The data on the fantasy nation is copyrighted as original work.
The mod itself is not. The mod is public domain, and may be freely distributed.

[Soyweiser]

Public Domain is literally and shortly defined as: "That which is not covered by Intellectual Property rights."
For the United States: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html


Yeah, and the faq doesn't really answer the question what is covered by intellectual property rights. It does nicely show when something is in the public domain.

" “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. "

But it fails to list these requirements.


The data on the fantasy nation itself is copyrighted as original work.
The mod itself is not. The mod is public domain, and may be freely distributed.

Actually the mod is programming code. So in that way all the normal rules for software code apply. And software can be copyrighted. Sure it isn't software in the strictest sense. But I think you could argue that it is a form of computer code. And in this sense the creation of these mods is a creative act.

Sure if Sombre had used sprites released in a games workshop game for his mods, and perhaps edited them a little bit it would not have been creative. But in this case I think it is.

Sprites are also an important part of the mods. Are they not original work? The statistics abilities and the description of the different units are also data. And thus original work. And while rules of games cannot be copyrighted, the specific expressions of these can. Which I think would also consider the different statistics and abilities given to the different mods.

Ps: did you just really call mod creators uncreative? So the creation of the different Warhammer mods by Sombre is a "uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work." And not a creative reinterpretation of earlier work in a new environment?

And sure L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder show that a copy that clearly looks a lot alike doesn't fall under copyright. But that doesn't apply in this case. Lets take the example of the Sombre warhammer mods again. The creation of these sprites is a variation of the physical models and drawings that Games Workshop has made. But not an uncreative one. As Sombre has used a new medium, sprites. Instead of the traditional ways games workshop shows their different fantasy models (pewter, and normal drawings). So I don't even think that in the case of the creations by Sombre it constitutes as uncreative.

See Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. for example.

[thejeff]

The warhammer mods certainly could be argued to be derivative works, of both dominions and Warhammer. That doesn't make them public domain. If anything, it makes them copyright infringement. (Assuming them to be done without the permission of whoever owns Warhammers copyright. They can be assumed to have at least implicit permission from Illwinter.)
That still doesn't put them in the public domain. If they're infringing works, they can't be in the public domain, or the holder of the copyright being infringed couldn't do anything to stop distribution.

[Muse]

" “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. "

But it fails to list these requirements.

You've stated in an earlier post (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=766016#post766016): "Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod."

Therefore, by your own admission, I've used the term 'Public Domain' correctly.

Humorously, the rest of your post argues that Sombre should be sued for creating a Derivative Work without permission of the original copyright holder.
That is a danger of taking an uninformed stance for pointlessly erudite banter.

The warhammer mods certainly could be argued to be derivative works, of both dominions and Warhammer. That doesn't make them public domain. If anything, it makes them copyright infringement.

It is a Fair Use work in the public domain.
Claiming anything else serves as a detriment to a potential author's creativity, since it will call forth the threat of infringement contentions.

[ExHeretic]

I smelled the coming flame war when i first saw this tread.

But not this kind :D

Very amusing ;)

[Soyweiser]

You've stated in an earlier post (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=766016#post766016): "Sure the creators of the mod do not gain the copyright for the mod."

Therefore, by your own admission, I've used the term 'Public Domain' correctly.


I have since realized that my statement is incorrect. They do gain copyright regarding certain parts of these mods. Sprites, content that was invented to create the stats and abilities. Stories written, and not copied verbatim from other sources.


Humorously, the rest of your post argues that Sombre should be sued for creating a Derivative Work without permission of the original copyright holder.

"Could" is not the same as "should". You are putting words in my 'mouth'.

And yes he could be sued. But I think trademarks are more a problem here. In the case of a lawsuit he would probably be asked to stop. Not that there where any damages done. But it wouldn't be a move GW has not performed before.

And now you are trying to make me change my point just to defend Sombre. Which I won't sure, the works are Derivative Works without permission of the original copyright holder. But that still doesn't change my original point. No Public Domain.


That is a danger of taking an uninformed stance for pointlessly erudite banter.


Classy.


It is a Fair Use work in the public domain.
Claiming anything else serves as a detriment to a potential author's creativity, since it will call forth the threat of infringement contentions.

What? So to prevent mod creators from potential lawsuits we should ignore the law and create our own reasoning to protect something that you probably cannot protect in court?

And it will not call forth the threat. Because it is already there. (Not that this will cause big problems, as there is no potential lost revenue in this case of derivative work).

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Muse]

I have since realized that my statement is incorrect. They do gain copyright regarding certain parts of these mods. Sprites, content that was invented to create the stats and abilities. Stories written, and not copied verbatim from other sources.

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a crime.

Honestly, just read the definition of 'Fair Use.'

The only parts of a mod granted protection under the Berne Convention are those that pass the originality test, or Derivatives with explicit permission of the original owner.

The rest is a Fair Use work incorporating multiple copyrights for the betterment of the public.

What? So to prevent mod creators from potential lawsuits we should ignore the law and create our own reasoning to protect something that you probably cannot protect in court?

I'm not suggesting 'we' change the law to this, I'm suggesting the law is already as above to encourage creativity.

[Soyweiser]

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a crime.


Copyright infringement is only a crime when it is done on a commercial scale. If it isn't it can be brought to the courts as civil suit.

Large scale copyright infringement is covered by a the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPS. Which was signed by most of the WTO countries. This agreement forces countries to make large scape copyright infringement criminal.

In this case it is neither large scale, nor commercial.

[Muse]

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a crime.


Copyright infringement is only a crime when it is done on a commercial scale. If it isn't it can be brought to the courts as civil suit.

Large scale copyright infringement is covered by a the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIPS. Which was signed by most of the WTO countries. This agreement forces countries to make large scape copyright infringement criminal.

In this case it is neither large scale, nor commercial.

Oh, alright. You do not like that word?


I have since realized that my statement is incorrect. They do gain copyright regarding certain parts of these mods. Sprites, content that was invented to create the stats and abilities. Stories written, and not copied verbatim from other sources.

One cannot be granted Derivative Work copyright protection without the permission of the original copyright holder.
You cannot gain personally from a infringement.

Honestly, just read the definition of 'Fair Use.'

The only parts of a mod granted protection under the Berne Convention are those that pass the originality test, or Derivatives with explicit permission of the original owner.

The rest is a Fair Use work incorporating multiple copyrights for the betterment of the public.

What? So to prevent mod creators from potential lawsuits we should ignore the law and create our own reasoning to protect something that you probably cannot protect in court?

I'm not suggesting 'we' change the law to this, I'm suggesting the law is already as above to encourage creativity.

Will that help to reduce the deliberate obfuscation?

[Soyweiser]

Related to the thread, but not the current conversation:

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?showtopic=14&st=0&#entry141893

[Soyweiser]

Will that help to reduce the deliberate obfuscation?

It does.

[NTJedi]

Another event to be written in the community history along with norfleet, monkey PD, NaV sillyness, setsumi etc... It will be continuosly referred to and bickered over.

I don't mind, I think it's rather entertaining.

Exactly! I completely agree!!

[Adept]

Passive aggressive dickery is not nearly as clever as this poster thinks.

[cleveland]

Gents,

The question was "Should banned user mods/maps/etc be deleted," not "Must" or "Legally" or "Under threat of prosecution" etc, etc.

It's an ethical question.

I'm merely wondering if a company can ethically profit (forums are a sales tool, remember?) from the contributions made from those they've forbidden from participating.

Apologies for the flavor text around the poll options - perhaps they're a bit, er, dickery (sp?) - but I'm still curious to know the community's opinion, my own interpretation aside.

[Gandalf Parker]

But even thats asked abit lopsided.
The answer would tend toward NO. That is IF the forbidding was purely the act of those who run the forum. How much of the forbidding can be chalked up to the actions of the people who got banned would tend to affect that.

Also... are you asking if the forum admins should themselves automatically delete the posts and products of everyone they ban? Wouldnt wiping out someone from the existence and history of the forum be even more heavy handed?

Or are you saying that the people who are banned should automatically demand that their posts and products be removed? That they should take such a banishment so heavily as to do that to their former peers? And I guess to avoid the profiting thing that they should abandon the game completely, not create anything else for it, and not recommend it.

[cleveland]

Not sure what's so unclear about this question. I'll try again, in a different format:

If you were banned from this forum, would your like to have your copyrighted material removed from this forum?

[Dimaz]

Now that's *completely* different question from the original one, and here I have an actual answer - no (if we omit the "copyrighted" part, that will again lead to definitions of copyright etc). I don't want the content created by me to be deleted in case of my permaban if it happen. I made it mostly for myself and for other people that are as obsessed with this game as me, in my free time; it had nothing to do with profiting me or the company. I want people to have access to my work if they need it and in no way I'm going to restrict them from it, company has nothing to do with it at all. Since these boards are their territory they have the right to delete it themselves of course, which will make me sad.

[Gandalf Parker]

That also creates an answer for me.
NO
At least I never have in the past. And Im fairly sure I wouldnt here. In fact, I find a subtle satisfaction in my posts and offers still creating thankyou's and comments on boards I can no longer answer on. Just create a webpage or a blog (or forum) saying you were booted from that forum and make all your comments there. Someone on the old forum will point there every time the question comes up. Much more satisfying than pissing off all your old peers by deleting the stuff.

[Knai]

Were I to create something, I would say no. On other forums for other games, largely tabletop, where I have actually created content I would want the community to have it even if I got banned. However, the questions are completely different, the category of things I want to happen contains only a tiny fraction of what is found in the category of things that should be allowed to happen.

[Foodstamp]

Not sure what's so unclear about this question. I'll try again, in a different format:

If you were banned from this forum, would your like to have your copyrighted material removed from this forum?

That is not what you asked. Your "yes", "no" and "abstain" all have strings attached. You know why it is unclear because you made the thread just to troll.

[Fantomen]

That also creates an answer for me.
NO
At least I never have in the past. And Im fairly sure I wouldnt here. In fact, I find a subtle satisfaction in my posts and offers still creating thankyou's and comments on boards I can no longer answer on.

So you've been banned from several forums?

[Gandalf Parker]

That also creates an answer for me.
NO
At least I never have in the past. And Im fairly sure I wouldnt here. In fact, I find a subtle satisfaction in my posts and offers still creating thankyou's and comments on boards I can no longer answer on.

So you've been banned from several forums?
Of course! As often as its been called for here, you find that surprising? Ive been spanked and demoted on this forum more than anyone I know. Ive also been on Internet since its birth. I was bound to end up on forums whose policies tended more to match those who felt I should be banned from here. There are forums for everyone (and consequently, NOT for everyone). There are also forums, chats, newsgroups where I get to do the banning.

There is also the fact that the more forums someone is on that requires them to be a certain way (forums where you are moderator, or run by friends, or very useful but managed quite strictly, or like Shrapnel all of the above) the more need there is to be on forums where you do NOT feel like you have to be that way all the time. If you only have one forum, you tend to try and force it to be everything.

[Fantomen]

I don't find it surprising, I just wondered if that was what you meant.

On most forums where bans, warnings, censoring and the like are common practice I usually consider it a sh*tload of hypocrisy, this one being one of the weirdest. You can spread disinformation and be an arrogant slob with impunity, but not say f*ck or touch a touchy subject in a straightforward way. Makes me feel like I'm visiting my grandma or something.

I'm active on quite many forums, never been banned so far though. (that I do find a little surprising) FYI I don't think you should be banned, I've yet to see anyone here commit what would be a banning offense in my eyes. It's just that you manage to piss me the f*ck off all the time, and I'm not the kind of girl who keeps her mouth shut.

[Gandalf Parker]

Nahh thats about right for a corporate owned forum. I wouldnt have worded it that way but the sentiment is correct.

And you would probably have to be on the other side of the fence to have a feel for this, but most bans are considered to have volunteered for it. At least in the eyes of those who do the banning. Very few people ban from forums, or kick from chats, or nuke from worlds suddenly or on a whim. It usually involves a conversation where the bannee pulls the trigger themselves. Kindof like someone standing in front of a person that has a gun and saying "sure go ahead and shoot me". Of course, the bannee never sees things as having happened that way and you will never convince them of it. Thats just a common viewpoint of those who feel they were forced to ban someone. :)

Remember there are three sides to every situation.

[Fantomen]

Kindof like someone standing in front of a person that has a gun and saying "sure go ahead and shoot me".

Yes that's a good comparison, as any policeman taking "go ahead and shoot me!" for a valid reason to shoot should be fired on the spot.

[Scarmiglione]

Related to the thread, but not the current conversation:

http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?showtopic=14&st=0&#entry141893

Regardless of the rest of the discussion, I just want to point out that this post removes any doubt that the banned user Sombre at least would like his material removed from this forum. I'm only saying this to counter those who say that no banned members have expressed a desire to have their work removed, since at least one of them certainly has...

There's the law, and there's the right thing to do. As we all know, the law barely applies on the internet, in practice, despite what many governments and corporations would like to claim. With the internet being a de facto lawless place, rules and regulations are much less important than not being a dick. If you ban a guy, but keep his work, you're being a dick.

Just my two cents, of course. I half suspect somebody will try to paint me as a sockpuppet of some banned veteran, which is laughable considering how bad at this game I am...

[Warhammer]

Right, but it would be very easy for someone to post the mods here. If his whole point is that he cannot maintain the mods, than that can be easily fixed by someone who frequents both boards. Or someone could post a link to the new forums with the updated mods.

[Scarmiglione]

well that's not exactly what I mean, Warhammer. All I'm saying is that it appears that sombre, for example, wants his mods removed from this forum, presumably to host them on his own forum, and it's a dick move to keep his work somewhere he doesn't want it. Of course, as you say, anybody could just download them from his forum and repost them here, but it would be common courtesy for the admins of this board to disallow such postings, perhaps maintain a "Do Not Post" list for removed files.

I don't think that his "whole point" is that he wants them removed because he can't maintain and update them here, I am under the impression that he doesn't want his mods here at all, updated or not. His reasons for wanting this are irrelevant I think.

sure, technically there's no rule that shrapnel has to do this, but it is simple common courtesy that his wishes should be respected in this matter.

As a side note, one reason I feel so strongly about this is that I have been involved in a somewhat similar situation in the past, on a much different forum (details are off topic and unnecessary, I think). I'm not a friend or minion of sombre's, although I do admire his work, and sympathize with his position.

I think what I'm suggesting is obviously the sensible and mature way to handle things, rather than focusing on spite and copyright and "rules lawyering". It doesn't matter which side is "right", just remove the guy's mods if that's what he wants...

[Scarmiglione]

emphasis mine:
Thats just a common viewpoint of those who feel they were forced to ban someone. :)

with respect, I feel sort of compelled to quibble with you over semantics, Gandalf. It is literally quite impossible to "force" sombody to do something over the internet, there is always choice involved. Nobody has ever been forced to do anything online in the history of the internet, with the possible exception of botnets and the like (lol). I've been (and am) a moderator myself on various forums, and I can tell you I've never been "forced" to ban somebody, I make the choice to ban somebody who has broken my interpretation of the rules, or, more likely, just pissed me off (which is honestly what all mods and admins do, not just me).

I know it seems like I'm a nitpicking jerk, but I feel in these sorts of situations it's important to use words precisely. Uncorrected semantics become propaganda if not remedied.

sorry for the double post, i would have edited this into my last post if I was allowed to do so ;)

[DeadlyShoe]

@Scarmiglione - it's funny you mention spite - that would be the only reason to pull your own work from the board entirely.

It's also far above and beyond common courtesy to expect board moderators to be IP police for the content of a banned user! That's simply absurd. The most that could be expected is what's extended to any person, i.e. deletion of posts that claim fraudulent authorship.

[Scarmiglione]

Deadlyshoe, as I said, sombre's reasons for wanting his work taken down are irrelevant. whether it's motivated by spite or not is unimportant. I'm not sugggesting the mods should IP police on behalf of any individual user, What i am really saying that there should be a simple list of files removed by request of their authors, that should not be posted again, not just for sombre, but anyone wanting to remove his work for whatever reason. that would not add any significant work for the moderators at all.

The spite I was referring to was the spite of the shrapnel mods for refusing to simply remove a banned user's material. It is entirely correct to hold the mods to a higher standard than the users they ban. Ostensibly, the mods should not be spiteful, even if they are dealing with a "spiteful" user. Especially in this case, where the mods are also paid(?) employees of the company. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander in this case.

Despite what you claim, nothing I've suggested is "above and beyond" common courtesy. What I've suggested is, in fact, the very essence of common courtesy. There's no reason that the admins can't remove a banned users work if that's what he wants, except for a level of spite and immaturity that is unacceptable for admins. it is unnaceptable for users to be spiteful and immature, too, but of course the users in question have already been banned.

[llamabeast]

Lest anyone really cares about this, I should perhaps mention that Sombre asked me some time ago to delete his mods from this forum and give links to the new forum, and as a moderator I can do that, but just haven't gotten around to it. His reasons as I understand them are simply that otherwise people will keep on downloading old versions of his mods and he won't be able to maintain them properly. With mods it's particularly important that everyone has the most up to date version, as confusing errors will arise otherwise (dominions won't tell you you've got the wrong mod version, but in a multiplayer game funny things will happen). It's not a practical solution to ask someone to keep on updating the copies of the mods on this forum. That is definitely too much faff and I wouldn't expect anyone to do it (I certainly won't do it).

Incidentally Sombre's and Burnsaber's mods are amazing, and I highly recommend everyone gets hold of some of them and has a go.

Also I have not read everything so don't know where this "spite" thing has come from, but spite definitely isn't something that Sombre or Burnsaber would bother with.

[Gandalf Parker]

What i am really saying that there should be a simple list of files removed by request of their authors, that should not be posted again, not just for sombre, but anyone wanting to remove his work for whatever reason. that would not add any significant work for the moderators at all.
That does sound reasonable. But your link didnt fully give that impression. I was first concerned with whether he only said it there or actually requested it. But it appears a request was made. He didnt say to who. But apprently it was to a moderator which would be proper.

Im not sure though it a list was provided such as specifically which posts he wanted fixed. Im not sure if deleting a thread is proper, but deleting the link definitely would be.

Especially in this case, where the mods are also paid(?) employees of the company.
I do not think there are any paid moderators at this time. There has been a "head moderator" paid position but I think the co-owner fills that now.

Despite what you claim, nothing I've suggested is "above and beyond" common courtesy. What I've suggested is, in fact, the very essence of common courtesy. There's no reason that the admins can't remove a banned users work if that's what he wants, except for a level of spite and immaturity that is unacceptable for admins. it is unnaceptable for users to be spiteful and immature, too, but of course the users in question have already been banned.
Im not sure Id agree that there is no reason not to delete. In fact I would think there is more reasons not to delete than there is to delete (altho I do think there is good reason to make some deletions). But either way I definitely think the use of "common courtesy" is straining things. Courtesy yes, but common does not ring true at all. Such a request being done on forums would be quite uncommon to the extreme as far as I can tell.

[llamabeast]

I should say that in this case there would be no downside to "deleting" the mods from this forum since I'd just replace them with up-to-date links to newer versions of the same mods. The functionality of this forum would be increased in fact.

Also someone pointed out to me that not having done the updating yet might make Shrapnel look bad (since as a moderator, I am somewhat associated with them). Well, that was not intentional - I saw the request from Sombre as a friend asking a favour, which I just haven't got around to yet.

I really think this is all a non-issue, since as far as I know all parties are happy.

[Hoplosternum]

I should say that in this case there would be no downside to "deleting" the mods from this forum since I'd just replace them with up-to-date links to newer versions of the same mods. The functionality of this forum would be increased in fact.

Also someone pointed out to me that not having done the updating yet might make Shrapnel look bad (since as a moderator, I am somewhat associated with them). Well, that was not intentional - I saw the request from Sombre as a friend asking a favour, which I just haven't got around to yet.

I really think this is all a non-issue, since as far as I know all parties are happy.

I hope you won't get around to it :) Or simply add a link to the posts there rather than delete the downloads.

I don't know how long Dom 3 will last as an actively played game and community. And when the community here, on Sombre's special place and elsewhere has drifted away many of these sites will go too. But not necessarily all. Some may survive and people - probably us finding our old Dom 3 disk in the future - may come looking for mods, maps and threads about this game. The more places they are the more chances we or others will find them.

I doubt I am the only forum member who occasionally digs out an old game to see if it still plays as I remember it. And then goes looking for information, hints, walkthroughs, mods or maps of the game. Google is a great friend here but many links are dead or the sites defunct. I already cannot find the maps to many of the maps I remember downloading for games like HOMM3. Even if some of the sites are still there many of the downloads have gone.

The more sites they are on - even if not in their final version - the more chance that they will be available in the future. And if anyone comes along while the community is still active and expresses any interest in Sombre's mods there are plenty here who will direct them to the latest versions.

[llamabeast]

Good point! I'll bear that in mind. Also I intend to keep my server (where the mods are now stored) up indefinitely, although I guess you never quite know what will happen.