The old versions of SKSE (and OBSE, FOSE and NVSE) are always available from the archive - so folks can always go back assuming they can use a compatible version of the game. In this early stage of Skyrim's lifetime this will be more difficult. After BGS stops updating Skyrim in a year or so (after the last DLC) it will become much easier to move between versions of SKSE. But while the game is still being updated this is much more challenging.

EULA and Copyright are different issues, which are only loosely related. (And it's not clear that "accept on install" EULA applies when someone else installs the software, especially when it's difficult to find a definitive copy of the license when using the software.) That said, when an EULA grants copyright permissions, the absence of the EULA means you do not have those permissions.


You do not need EULA at all for copyright to be valid.

License, in the context of copyright, is a granting of permission. So if you wanted to be a real stickler about the mechanism you are describing here, you could say that Bethesda has not granted permission to generate mods using those other tools and thus distributing copies of those mods is a violation of copyright.

Of course this gets into other issues. In some cases a person could generate an alternative setting for the mods, where people would use them without them being a mod of Skyrim, and this might be enough of a technicality to avoid copyright issues (where the mod is providing completely new content, instead of altering an existing asset). But the big issue here is that permitting mods benefits Bethesda, as a business. They are not the only company that sells moddable environments, and it's a big business in general (Second Life and Minecraft are other examples of this kind of business). So while they might have the legal right to demand people not mod their games, it does not make business sense for them.


This (somewhat bogus) idea has way too many people believing it.

The trademark you are describing was rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before Zenimax even heard about it. It's not even an issue in the U.S.A.

Zenimax took it to court in Sweden. In Sweden, most people do not speak english and, thus "Scrolls" is not a word for most of the people there -- the word there would probably be something like "Rullar".

So, I think that the court action doesn't really have anything to do with the normal meaning of the word "Scrolls".

Also, if I understand how trademark law (and, especially, if I understand how Swedish trademark law) works, they do not have to "win" the court action to "succeed in their efforts": If the court says that "Scrolls" does not infringe on "The Elder Scrolls" that means that future court actions cannot claim that the "Scrolls" trademark weakens the "The Elder Scrolls" trademark. And that's what Zenimax is trying to achieve with this court action: they are trying to prevent their trademark from being weakened. So they just need to make sure that they have diligently presented all the relevant facts to the court, so that the court decision (whatever it is) is not overturned later, and so that they do not have their case (or later cases) rejected on the grounds that they were not diligent enough in their handling of the case.

That said, if I am overlooking some important information here, please fill me in.

I understand that. And I agree that this is COMPLETELY unacceptable. My point is, modders appear to be reacting to this wrong in exactly the same way that Beth is reacting to the wrong of having people illegally pirate their games; by adding third-party software that the user is forced to use, regardless of how legitimate the user is, so that the user now has to jump through hoops to prove they got the mod in a legitimate way. Actually, IMHO, this solution is WORSE than Beth forcing people to use Steam to play Skyrim. At least you can make the argument - right or wrong - that they are trying to protect themselves from a part of the affected population, albeit a tiny minority. This solution forces people who use mods to use a third-party program they may not want to stop another group entirely.

And I have to disagree with people who say that File Planet won't find a way around it. File Planet has money invested in this, and money available. I'll bet you anything you like, they will. If hobbyists can find their way around big software company protections - gaming companies and otherwise - a company with money and motivation can find their way around hobbyist's protections.


I appreciate the clarification; I'm not familiar with SKSE, since I have VERY few positive experiences with third-party modding programs in TES games, and therefore generally just avoid them altogether. I assume this is similar to a script extender? If it truly is necessary for the mod to run, then that seems a reasonably acceptable solution. That said, if it's being required by basic mods, such as house or armor mods, where some kind of expanded capabilities are not required for the content, and it could be manually downloaded and installed without it otherwise... Well, then, I hate to say it, but it looks to me like a distinction without a difference. You are still forcing a third-party program on me merely to make sure I'm not getting the content from an illegal source. And if this is merely an installer and organizer, than it should not be required for a mod at all, in terms of functionality.

The topic under discussion here is how to get files removed from File Planet that were uploaded without permission. It does appear that progress is being made and File Planet is complying with its legal obligation to remove those files.

It really does not matter whether those files are being uploaded by File Planet employees or through that anonymous upload process. I would think that esoteric discussions about copyright, intellectual property, license, permissions, etc might be better explored in another thread.

The issue of those anonymous uploads over at File Planet is probably a related issue but not really relevant to the topic at hand. That also might be better discussed in another thread or perhaps on another forum altogether.

Lyssia: SKSE is a script extender (much like OBSE, FOSE, and NVSE for Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas). RIght now SKSE is only extending the Scaleform/Actionscript code for the UI mods and providing a way for plugins to load. It will provide extensions of the Papyrus scripting.

I agree that folks shouldn't add a dependency on SKSE to manage this problem. Simple item mods or texture replacers with no scripting shouldn't need SKSE. Heck - mods that use vanilla scripting only shouldn't need SKSE.

I am not even sure mods already using SKSE should manage things in this fashion. The version discovering abilities are there to help make sure the right version of the mods are used with the appropriate version of SKSE (when new features are added to later versions). If a modder wishes to use them to also provide some ability to ensure the mods are updated regularly by users, that is their choice.

I am quoting the above because it is about the only thing anyone can do about it. Put a disclaimer on the mod. I'd go further and make it an in-game message for effect.

I am just going to regurgitate what others already posted: anything and everything you do for a TES game belongs to Bethesda. You, as a modder, have no practical legal recourse. Before anyone challenges IGN on this matter, one would have to challenge Bethesda on the legality of its EULAs. And Bethesda is not going to challenge IGN on this either. They couldn't care less. Besides, they are working on the Steam Workshop for Skyrim, which is going to be Bethesda's preferred mod channel.

Funny, though, I got flamed on the SOPA thread on the community discussion forum, now people want SOPA for mods

I am sorry but you are. This thread is about getting mods removed from FilePlanet, not about arguing what has already been argued to death, the EULA. Do you have a mod on FilePlanet? Are you looking to get it removed?

That goes for you too Systemshock.

The fact is that nothing is absolute until it has been decided in a court of law. Neither side can win this pointless debate. So....do you have a mod on FilePlanet that you want removed?

I'm somewhat torn about modding for Skyrim. On the one hand I have more ideas and inspiration going than any previous title I've modded. On the other, I'm homeless. In a crap economy, with rapacious multinational corporations making more money and power in the hands of fewer than ever in our history and people getting squat, I just have a hard time justifying putting in that much work on scripting and other technologies for nothing, just to get it ripped off by some big-name website to help drive advertising to increase THEIR profit of MY work.

The modern internet is seriously screwed up. Greed ruins everything. Even TES.

I'll be the first one to admit DRM in any form svcks. My suggestions earlier in the thread were just an idea of one way we might be able to combat unauthorized mod distribution, while still keeping it as painless as possible for users.

There is no perfect DRM solution, and in this case I don't see a perfect solution presenting itself. We should count ourselves lucky that someone has the email address of an employee at FilePlanet still willing to listen. That may last a while and end if/when he gets fed up with complaints. Who knows.

For now, I'm glad to see Meek and friends getting their work off of FilePlanet as they intended.

Then host your own mods? Or use the Nexus as people have been saying. He isn't in it for the money, he has had the sites for 10 years and while he does make money off of it (Which I dont mind) I believe he also has a job?

I agree with some of the posts about staying on topic. None of us know the facts about the EULA or copyright, so we can discuss it all we want, that's not what this is about. If you have a mod that is on fileplanet and you dont want it there, we will help you get it removed.

Fixed that one for you

So what are you saying? That Fileplanet staff can take peoples mods against their will, then if they're asked to remove them by the mod makers "They don't have to" remove the file,
or they don't have to be nice?

In this case, they should be beaten about the head and shoulders with heavy blunt objects. The problem though isn't REALLY how they got there, but the general refusal to even acknowledge the original author of the work when they want it removed, much less have a dialogue of any sort.

That is correct. They don't have to.

There is a misconception here that modders have some sort of "artistic rights" to their mods because they made them. That is just not true. I find it funny when I see a mod readme with a "legal" subheader describing permissions and whatnot. There is nothing legal about it. The mod doesn't belong to you. You can ask nicely and hope others respect your wishes, but that is about it.

If FilePlanet is indeed removing the mods upon request, then it is pretty much a courtesy on their part. They don't have to do so.

What makes you think that the mod does not belong to its creator?

Hey guys i'm one of those guys that uses all your mods and loves you and praises you guys for being so badass...so first off I want to say THANK YOU!

Secondly, I want to say you guys are the little guys and will most likely not win this war...HOWEVER I have supported some of the transgressors in the past and now give you my word that is all done with now! Again thanks for everything ya'll do and I hope this all turns out in your favor

On the bright side maybe more like me will join in and it will be small battles won...baby steps I guess...

We really don't need to go 'round this circle again, do we?

You are WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#When_does_derivative-work_copyright_exist.3F
For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own.

Try doing some research before firing your mouth off next time. Alarmism doesn't help the modding community, and being a corporate svck up makes you look bad.

The EULA that comes with the game and the EULA that comes with the construction kit, both of which you agreed upon.

I've read the EULA. Show me where it supersedes US copyright law. It doesn't.

Hey, I agree that they haven't done their research and are all talk, but be nice. We just had the thread locked yesterday for this kind of stuff and I'd like this conversation to keep going.

Since you asked:

I have published mods for skyrim (though my alias here on the forums does not match my name on the site where I posted them).

I have not looked to see if any of them are on File Planet.

I would not want them removed from File Planet if they were there.

Finally, you did not ask this but your comments make me think I have not been clear about my interest in this issue:

From my point of view, "not for redistribution" is equivalent to "unreleased", and for my purposes I would want to get permission to redistribute before downloading such a mod. (I hope SteamWorks let's me filter out mods with no general permission to use in further mods, from their list of released mods.)

It was always my understand that assets created from Beth's assets are property of Beth. So stuff like armor mesh edits, esps belong to Beth. Now I really doubt Beth can have any legal claim over a model created from scratch by say Exnem, Gizmodian or Jojjo.

Why is it whenever big corporations trounce the rights of people there are always people who delight in spreading defeatist propaganda that you can't do anything about it? Does it make you feel big like a corporation? Like a remora on a shark?

Economic Stockholm syndrome rears its ugly head.

Legality of a EULA are both highly contestable due to the nature of presentation. Because you have no way to view/agree or disagree with an EULA before purchase, the terms often overstep the bounds of legal rights to make. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE CIRCLES OF THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Until there's a reason to assume otherwise, modders and Bethesda both have rightful claims to assets produced. If Bethesda does not contest the ownership of said assets, then it is ours until it is contested and ruled in a court of law. There have been cases established for rights holders who do not exercise their rights, and basically a pattern of non-enforcement can lead to loss of claimed rights. We aren't here to discuss this though. We're here to discuss mods that were uploaded and distributed outside the modders' express wishes and Fileplanet's refusal to even issue "jargon speak" in an effort to deal with it.