Eradrain wrote...
@FunkySwerve:
Um. I'm not really interested in talking about legality here, partially because as Estelendis pointed out, it's ridiculous that this discussion has even gone in that direction, and partially because I don't think we need to resort to it.
Actually, you did broach legality, when you mentioned IP. I think it's become a habit in some circles to conflate the two, which is a large part of what I'm objecting to. And I hardly think it's rediculus that the discussion has gone there, since the OP has posted repeatedly on the topic. I've largely been honoring Este's requests, only responding when other posters, such as yourself, raise the issue anew. Your post implied that there was some kind of level debate on the legalities, rather than the morality, which was what I took issue with.
I think ultimately it is not asking too much for custom content authors to be respected for the work they make, and a great deal of that respect comes from acknowledging the fact that whatever greater licensing issues may apply, they are the artists that made what the builder and player are enjoying, and they deserve concrete acknowledgment of that fact.
I agree with that 100%. As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy for content creators, being one myself.
Citing legality and saying "Hah! This doesn't belong to you anymore, you put it on the vault!" is precisely doing the opposite, by going over their head and explaining to them in no uncertain terms that you do not care for their feelings with regard to their own creations.
I have yet to see anyone do that here. Who are you referring to?
Ultimately, this causes talented artists like LR (And much less talented but still previously active ones, like myself) to question why they are even making content for people who approach them with barely any thanks, but an enormously swelled sense of entitlement, and then they simply stop. And the whole community suffers for it.
I've had similar experiences. Especially irritating was when someone tried to blackmail me into working on their mod by voting a 1 on the Vault until 'I made it work', because they were too lazy to read the readme. It certainly wouldn't cause me to leave the community, though - more on that later.
Now if you want to continue to stick to the legality as the sole deciding factor here, then go ahead, that's your right. But I won't think any better of you for it, and it's possible it might contribute, as this attitude has in the past, to the diminishment of this community of content authors.
I get the impression you haven't read my posts in this thread very carefully. Just above, I urged authors to discuss the morality,
rather than the legality, of the issues at hand, instead of resorting to false legal claims in an attempt to bully people into complying with their views on authorship. I'm certainly not 'sticking to the legality' as you put it, as a sole deciding factor for how people should behave, I'm just ensuring that people don't make false claims about legaity in order to advance their own agendas.
That aside, though, our legal system is based on very nuanced economic and moral theory, so it's a useful point of reference in any such discussion, as some of the points I made about effiency above aimed to demonstrate. Our contract law hails back to english common law, and finds its roots in both market theory and utilitarianism. The notion that the law is somehow diviorced from moral considerations is mistaken, at least insofar as it relates to market forces.
@Olivier:
I didn't mean to imply that all people who don't make custom content but use it fall into the category of entitlement I described, I'm sorry for having it come off that way. Rather, I think it's something like Gay Rights/Gay Marriage, where while (presumably) all or almost all gay folks (Content authors) believe in their right to get married, there are plenty of heterosexuals (Supportive, kind community members) who also support them in that right (Regardless of what the letter of the law may say on the matter!), but there are also people who feel that they should not, for whatever reason, be permitted to marry (Unsupportive, entitled community members).
While it's completely tangential to the conversation, I'm just DYING to hear you complete this analogy.
'> Who are the set-upon content creators here? What inferences is the reader intended to draw here?
In point of fact, the kindness of those people, like yourself, who go out of their way to recognize and thank custom content authors is a large part of what makes it worthwhile to share these creations at all. Even, in some cases, to even bother making them. I was not trying to downplay the value of positive feedback in a modder's experience, its importance and value cannot possibly be overstated. Rather, I was just identifying the two polarities in this recurring conflict.
I think that some content creators tend to exagerate this polarity, just as they tend to give too much weight to their own rights, and not enough to those of end users. Take, for example, the notion that an author's right to control of their content is supreme in all circumstances. This sounds great if you're an author, but what about the guy you gave access to your stuff, without warning that you might suddenly retract permission (to use the example that sparked this debate). Since you gave him access, he's expended work of his own in order to put your creations to use - creating creatures based on models, areas on tilesets, and so on. To expect him to toss all that work out on a word from you is to assign all value to your own work, and none to his - to place your rights as supreme to his in all cases, based on some abstract definition of you as 'creator' and he as 'modder'. This is a grossly one-sided approach, which is why you should warn modders up front if this is your expectation (and also why it is covered by contract rather than copyright), so that they are aware of the risks to using your content, and disputes over who should bear the risk are avoided. That way, should you decide to pull your content, they had fair warning, knew the risk, and opted to take it - they have no basis to complain. Of course, some end-users may well opt not to use your content under such conditions, but that's the cost of such control.
On a more personal level, I have trouble understanding why someone would opt to leave the community over such a matter. This is a hobby, and they're presumably doing it because they enjoy it, and enjoy seeing their work put to use by others. That's part of the reason I don't bother slapping even a generic license on my stuff (lack of fear of lawsuit is most of the rest - there's a big upside to the EULA as well). Even the people who plagiarized my work were praising it, in a backhanded sort of way - imitation, after all, being the highest form of praise. Amusing coda to that tale - the plagiarists actually came to me looking for help, some months down the road.
Likewise, I don't understand the desire to exercise control over one's content once it's out there. Creation is a dialectical process - expecting your work to be static once it leaves ones hands doesn't seem particularly realistic to me . People are going to use it to do things you never anticipated, and some of which you might not even like (and some of which will rock). That, however, is a part of the value you've created - the potential for creative adaptations. Why the desire to stifle it? I just don't get it. If you stood to make money over it, I could see being upset for a multitude of reasons - loss/dilution of commercial value chief among them, but in a non-market setting...eh. From where I'm standing it seems like some content creators are applying a set of market-based expectations to a non-market, hobbyist's arena, with predictable results.
Funky
