FilePlanet just taking mods and ignoring modders? : V - Skyrim

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:39 pm

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.

This. We can bicker about EULA, copyright, and who owns what all day, but the fact is none of us are lawyers or judges, and none of us have indisputable proof to show anything. Lets get back on topic guys.

» Sat May 19, 2012 2:24 am

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.

In that case I believe there are grounds enough to sue FilePlanet for copyright violation. So long as the mod has sufficient new content to qualify for Derivative Works copyright (and the modder resides in the US), then FilePlanet screwed up here big time.

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:14 pm

Topic.

Civil.

Whatever. I got a couple more reports, removed some posts.

I really don't have time to keep an eye on this thread and you all know I like to let you generally moderate yourselves. So don't make me turn this car around and take everyone home.

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:51 am

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.

The original author of almost every mod is Bethesda. That is why we call them "mods".

Meanwhile, when you upload your mods to skyrimnexus, you are granting everyone in the world permission to download and use your mod, for free.

And, to win a case on copyright grounds, you have to show how someone else's actions harm you. You are not losing money when file planet gives someone a copy of a file when you had already granted the downloader permission to use that file. So that makes a legal action more difficult for you.

The best legal interpretation I can come up with is: when you uploaded the file to skyrim nexus you did not really intend for me to use the file. And, personally, I am going to do my best to make sure that I live within the rules.

And, remember that if you put a license on your derivative which conflicts with Bethesda's license on skyrim, all that means is that that part of your license is invalid. That's a direct consequence of the fact that your creative work is a mod of skyrim.

If you feel that I am incorrect about how the law works, I would appreciate a detailed treatment of the relevant legal issues (one that touches specifically on each of the issues I raised here -- it doesn't count if you ignore most everything I said here). If you feel that this thread is not the right place for that kind of discussion, you are probably right: please start a new thread and either post a reference to it here or pm me with the reference.

» Sat May 19, 2012 2:23 am

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.

I was just replying to a poster who was asking about it.
The problem is that you cannot separate them from the topic when you start talking about legal rights and who owns what, as they go hand in hand. Saying that you have a right to something or assuming that you have a right to something doesn't make it so, until a court of law says you do, as you state. Even if you think the law is clear, any law is still subject to interpretation by a judge; you know, potatoh - potatoe, depending on many factors, including how the judge woke up that morning, or how good the other lawyer is.

I am all for a bunch of modders signing a petition and sending it to FilePlanet asking them to please remove the mods, and hope FilePlanet is courteous enough to do so. I like the approach by EggDropSoap as well, and as I say before, I'd go even further as to display a message in-game that says something like "if you downloaded this from FilePlanet, it may be an old version and mess up your game. Go here and download the updated version" just for effect.

» Sat May 19, 2012 5:15 am

I was just replying to a poster who was asking about it.
The problem is that you cannot separate them from the topic when you start talking about legal rights and who owns what, as they go hand in hand. Saying that you have a right to something or assuming that you have a right to something doesn't make it so, until a court of law says you do, as you state. Even if you think the law is clear, any law is still subject to interpretation by a judge; you know, potatoh - potatoe, depending on many factors, including how the judge woke up that morning, or how good the other lawyer is.

Absolutely agree here. It goes both ways. Until it's ruled or even contested, I own what I say I own. Bethesda has never contested it officially despite what their EULA states. In a sense, if they ever decided to try and enforce it, they may have shot themselves in the foot through years of neglect. Since we're not making or losing money here, there's a lot of gray area. I'm cool with that. Some assumptions have to be made for ANYTHING to be done though, whether it's releasing a mod or simply telling someone how to hack certain things in.Until those assumptions are challenged, they can be assumed to be true. It's not unreasonable to do so. As far as copyright, money isn't lost, but brand can be damaged through unauthorized release, and THAT is covered. Harder to prove and make stick, but still covered and able to be fought.

So, operating on the assumption that we (modders) could file a C&D or something of such a nature, What other actions can we take to protect our collective creative works?

» Sat May 19, 2012 6:44 am

When does derivative-work copyright exist?

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. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.

Examples of derivative works under U.S. law

The most famous derivative work in the world has been said to be L.H.O.O.Q.,[18] also known as the Mona Lisa With a Moustache. Generations of US copyright law professors — since at least the 1950s — have used it as a paradigmatic example. Marcel Duchamp created the work by adding, among other things, a moustache, goatee, and the caption L.H.O.O.Q. (meaning “she has a hot tail”) to Leonardo’s iconic work. These few, seemingly insubstantial additions were highly transformative because they incensed contemporary French bourgeoisie,[19] by mocking their cult of “Jocondisme,”[20] at that time said to be “practically a secular religion of the French bourgeoisie and an important part of their self image.” Duchamp’s defacement of their icon was considered “a major stroke of epater le bourgeois." Thus, it has been said that the “transformation of a cult icon into an object of ridicule by adding a small quantum of additional material can readily be deemed preparation of a derivative work.”[21

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

To a certain extent the legality is handled on a case-by-case basis, however there are some guidelines. This concept of “transformative” works is the most legally relevant. If a derivative work adds something that was not otherwise presented in the original, it generally qualifies as derivative.

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

So, while not all mods would qualify, many would. For example, a house mod, which merely arranges existing game objects in a new and unique way, would likely NOT qualify for copyright protection under derivative works. A house mod which contained extensive scripting language adding functionality not present in the original “game” or copyright material, would be an example of a case that MAY qualify, but would likey require adjudication.

HOWEVER, mods which add new spoken dialogue, entire questlines, written material, custom models, or any other content which was entirely original, would most certainly qualify under present US copyright law.

Therefore, if the mods in question being pilfered by FilePlanet contained such transformative derivative works, AND the modder specifies they have reserved their legal copyright under law for that material, in that scenario, FilePlanet is in violation of US intellectual property piracy law.

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:29 pm

If you feel that I am incorrect about how the law works, I would appreciate a detailed treatment of the relevant legal issues (one that touches specifically on each of the issues I raised here -- it doesn't count if you ignore most everything I said here). If you feel that this thread is not the right place for that kind of discussion, you are probably right: please start a new thread and either post a reference to it here or pm me with the reference.

In all honesty, any talk of EULAs, copyright, etc is pretty much moot. In reality, there's little anyone can effectively do, unless of course you go to court, and in this case, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time, or money, to do so.

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:26 am

In all honesty, any talk of EULAs, copyright, etc is pretty much moot. In reality, there's little anyone can effectively do, unless of course you go to court, and in this case, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time, or money, to do so.

Point for you good sir.

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:06 am

So, operating on the assumption that we (modders) could file a C&D or something of such a nature, What other actions can we take to protect our collective creative works?

Well, unfortunately not much. I am really hoping that the original idea of requesting the removal of mods works.
Some things that we could do (some already mentioned):
* Making dire statements in readmes, in-game.
* Hit different forums and make threads about not downloading mods from FIlePlanet because we didn't authorize mods to be taken from the original site. get a list of game forums, post the links on a thread here, and we just take turns making sure the threads remain in the first page. I am sure if something like that is done here, we would get a great start.
*Some sort of mod DRM as suggested, but that probably is taking it a bit far.

To be honest, this is one of those things that modders may just have to accept as the way it is.

But when we start talking about legal stuff, it just doesn't make practical sense. I guess if someone had enough cash and time to spare he/she could take a run at it, but it would be a painful and long road. Just think about it for a second how that would go.

And one last comment in general: if anyone is thinking about sending a request to FilePlanet, I'd leave any talk of legal rights and copyrights out of it. It may bring you lots of problems one would not expect.

» Sat May 19, 2012 1:46 am

So I would love to hear from more people who have emailed, have your files been removed?

Not yet. I might have to try sending notice again from my gmail account instead. I hope the guy hasn't gotten tired of all the mail he's probably getting.

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.

Yes, for better or worse, I do know what the basic legal principle behind a license for copyright entails, and that a EULA is nothing more than a license for a copyrighted work. I've spent the better part of 10 years dealing with these issues from my time in the MUD community and having to fend off code thieves using the same principles.

http://cs.elderscrolls.com/index.php/Eula is fairly clear on the matter. It's provisions very clearly only apply to mods which are created using the CS. Anything that falls outside of that cannot be affected by it. I don't remember the specifics of it, but for practical purposes that tends to make the mods we create a collective combined work of multiple authors who both have assertable rights under copyright.

As I'm sure you know, one of those is the right to control distribution of the work. Which is precisely what we're trying to do here by bringing FilePlanet to taks for distributing copies without permission. You seem to get this well enough, but SystemShock clearly lacks a proper understanding of the issue.

On the subject of damages, one can sue for damages on a free product. The only catch is that one must apply for and receive copyright registration on that work in order to collect statutory damages. Those can be quite significant.

» Fri May 18, 2012 11:24 pm

It's silly of me to think this will put the myth to bed, but due diligence and all that... I'd feel bad not trying.

http://cs.elderscrolls.com/index.php/Eula

It applies a viral licensing clause to any work created with the Construction Set. This clause DOES NOT remove the modder's ownership of created works ("New Materials"). It removes the modder's right to sell such works, and it grants Bethesda the unqualified right to use them for any purpose (notably including sale for money, or as promotional material). That does not mean that Bethesda owns the copyright. Bethesda cannot, for instance, transfer ownership of the copyright, whereas the original modder can (though not for money, and probably not in a way that invalidates Bethesda's automatic license).

All inherent rights under copyright law remain with the modder, period. The EULA only adds some very specific stipulations. Furthermore, as I read it, the penalty for violating those stipulations (including revoking Bethesda's license to use your work) is that your license to use the CS is revoked. That's it. Stop using it or they can sue you... nothing else, your prior works are still your own.

This means that every single modder has the right to issue a DMCA takedown notice to U.S-governed host sites. These do not cost money to produce, and are enforced by the U.S. Federal government. I'm not advocating this if, as people have commented, FilePlanet is now responding to emailed requests. My point is only that the power is there. It's not a futile battle.

The parasitic myths that uploading a mod makes it public property, and that copyright is only applicable when there's money on the line, are also entirely wrong but beyond the scope of such a simple rebuttal (at least from me).

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:06 am

RDM, Systemshock, I am going to ask you very politely to please leave this thread. You are both hashing out issues that are off topic and are causing argument, this thread is not about your opinions on the EULA, it is about FilePlanet. I will say one more time....the EULA is not the topic of discussion here, if you have a file you want removed from FilePlanet post it here, if not....please leave this thread or I will be reporting your posts myself.

Now please, has anyone else had success in emailing FilePlanet?

This is very important because if they start ignoring again then we will be putting Step One into operation.

Edit, sorry missed your post Arthmoor. We have to consider the Christmas holiday, what would you think was a reasonable amount of time to wait with that in mind?

We only have 27 posts left until the thread limit and somehow I doubt the mods here will be too keen to allow another thread. So if you want to hash out EULA stuff start your own thread. For now, if this thread gets closed then people may miss some valuable information.

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:55 am

As I'm sure you know, one of those is the right to control distribution of the work. Which is precisely what we're trying to do here by bringing FilePlanet to taks for distributing copies without permission. You seem to get this well enough, but SystemShock clearly lacks a proper understanding of the issue.

In the 10 years or so you spent in the MUD community, did you ever go to court and got a ruling?

Quick edit: I am being asked to leave the thread, very politely I may add, so if you wish to reply, just send me a PM, or we can start a Moot Court thread

» Sat May 19, 2012 7:31 am

I don't mean to be harsh, we just have few posts left in this thread and much to cover.

For one thing someone has brought up the issue about anonymous uploads on FilePlanet, apparently this has now changed and people are required to login to upload. I am not sure how recent this change is, perhaps someone knows?

Having now read properly through the many posts, this is all I have to say on it....please don't think that Step One, the petition, is all we have planned and after that we will give up. Step One is a courtesy, Step Two is real action.

I hope we don't even have to get to Step One and so far things are very promising, but I am under no delusions about just how far FilePlanet would be willing to go. They would hardly be happy about pulling all the Oblivion or Skyrim mods, regardless of how they were obtained. No site is going to suddenly empty their stock, even if it was stolen. However, our steps may bring about some changes and prevent further occurances like this. One step at a time. Right now communication is open and we need to act politely, but firmly in order to keep that communication open and hope that more can be acheived through it.

» Sat May 19, 2012 2:12 am

Edit, sorry missed your post Arthmoor. We have to consider the Christmas holiday, what would you think was a reasonable amount of time to wait with that in mind?

I guess that depends on how far past Sunday we should wait, because next week will begin running into New Years as well. I'm still going to resend via gmail on the off chance it was just something dumb in a spam filter somewhere.

In the 10 years or so you spent in the MUD community, did you ever go to court and got a ruling?

Quick edit: I am being asked to leave the thread, very politely I may add, so if you wish to reply, just send me a PM, or we can start a Moot Court thread :smile:

No, I haven't, no that isn't relevant, no I don't see a need to pursue it further. You can find out all you need to know at copyright.gov.

» Sat May 19, 2012 7:33 am

From the sounds of it only a few people got their file removed. Others are still waiting.

So far I have reports of three being removed and two still waiting to hear.

We must consider that it is likely that their staff are on Christmas vacation, what with Christmas a mere two days away. So don't give up, we will get there. Perhaps try emailing this address as well...

FPOps@IGN.com

» Sat May 19, 2012 12:03 am

I'm not a modder, but I damn well hope that you guys can get File Planet to remove your mods. You deserve it. I also hope you don't mind me using a post just to say that.

At least they're not hosted in China, where http://kotaku.com/5812722/meet-final-combat-chinas-shameless-team-fortress-2-rip+off is allowed to exist.

» Sat May 19, 2012 8:41 am

My response to the whole situation and all those that are muddying the waters is a clearly audible and bloody face palm. :facepalm:

As for the "allowing the holiday to pass before expecting action" thing, I'd say give them one week past the standard return to work date of Jan 2. So give them till Jan 9th and take action on the 10th.

» Sat May 19, 2012 3:01 am

Got a response back on my primary address, so I don't need to try again via Gmail. Both of my links are now dead, the files have been removed. That Peure @ ign.com address seems to be the way to go, he's apparently the file editor for FilePlanet.

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:36 am

Why would anyone go to File planet to begin with? Neuxus and soon Steam, theres no reason to get mods anywhere else. If it doesn't come from the Nexus, it doesn't get loaded on my machine.

» Fri May 18, 2012 9:23 pm

Some people have been banned from the Nexus. When modders choose to have only one official place to download from, they drive people to sites that steal mods and untrustworthy upload sites. That's why stuff like FilePlanet can get users.

Bethesda have insisted they own all mods before. At one point, someone tried to sell CDs of Morrowind mods (donated for the purpose) for charity. When Bethesda shut them down, they tried CDs of just original .nif creations meant to be put into Morrowind. Bethesda still shut them down. It has therefore been proven that Bethesda claims mods as theirs in practice, not just in theory until someone disagrees.

So this whole thread is a discussion for them to have, in their offices, about what they feel like doing with their stuff that modders make for them. And I personally can't see them going after FilePlanet.

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:49 am

Bethesda have insisted they own all mods before. At one point, someone tried to sell CDs of Morrowind mods (donated for the purpose) for charity. When Bethesda shut them down, they tried CDs of just original .nif creations meant to be put into Morrowind. Bethesda still shut them down. It has therefore been proven that Bethesda claims mods as theirs in practice, not just in theory until someone disagrees.

But thats trying to sell them. The EULA says we cannot sell them, but that doesn't necessarily mean we dont share ownership. When it was just the nifs, was it JUST the nifs? It didnt include an esp or anything? I'm sure there was more to it. Also, if it was just Nifs, maybe you need a liscense of some sort to sell those as well? I doubt it was as black and white as "You made that with the intent of it going in our game, so all your content are belong to us."

» Sat May 19, 2012 7:34 am

But thats trying to sell them. The EULA says we cannot sell them, but that doesn't necessarily mean we dont share ownership. When it was just the nifs, was it JUST the nifs? It didnt include an esp or anything? I'm sure there was more to it. Also, if it was just Nifs, maybe you need a liscense of some sort to sell those as well? I doubt it was as black and white as "You made that with the intent of it going in our game, so all your content are belong to us."

I would truly appreciate any documentation on this alleged "shut down" for my own research purposes.

Bethesda does not have ANY rights to the .NIF file format. They LICENSE the Gamebryo engine to make their games. Therefore they have NO legal grounds to stop the selling of CDs containing ONLY .NIF files.

This sets off my BS alarm regarding that whole post. Again, I’d love to see some evidence.

EDIT: As an unrelated note, I really dislike this new auto post formatting.

» Sat May 19, 2012 2:11 am

tejon, thank you for your post; that was very helpful.

They really need to re-add the Ignore feature. Several people in this thread are clearly incapable of producing thought worth consideration.

EDIT: Aha, there is one still. Excellent.