And I think that having something like meaningful modders licenses that accommodate BOTH points of view (and there really does seem to be pretty strongly two) where you can ... where you can clearly declare what you want done (or not) with your material and it isn't ambiguous for those who download the content, or those who are seeking resources for building a mod... I think that would help this situation.

The ongoing debate solves nothing. The question of legal rights... why does it have to be solved to move forward? If we give up the FIGHT and instead move on to respecting everyone's feelings as well as rights, I think we could solve the problem and make it all go away. I am sure Bethesda would love to see this community work together on this rather than continue this drama for even one more minute. Don't you?

I doubt they care either way. It seems to be a pretty small group that has any stake in this argument.

So a majority voting or an overwhelming show of people posting that they would prefer this or that will never be enough, but having a corporation with no vested interest other than to protect themselves making a decision is going to be what it takes for others to adhere to what a larger majority already decided?

I'm not going to hold my breath for Bethesda. As I understand it anything created by the CK can be seen as their property, so I don't think even an EULA or copy-write or modders rights are really what is at stake here. What is at stake is a sense of community and if certain folks feel violated then why isn't that important as it is? Why doesn't that make a dent?

As for the topic of the thread I only ask again about that one point (distributing the work of others) because it was summarized and then denied consensus. That seems a pretty big point to me.

Altering mods at runtime though - I can't really see the difference between doing it via a plugin altering records or via a script. Whatever. It does need to be worked out and most likely will be through consensus and practice and community, but the taking of resources and work and claiming it as one's own is fairly obscene. Why would anyone respect that?

Why wouldn't one want to get permission?

Trouble is, his interpretation agrees with the quoted text he got from the US Copyright Office. So it's in line with what the actual law says, and the office's own interpretation of that law.

GameVoxColour;
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1395173-on-patches-mod-content-modification-and-runtime-methods-thread-2/page__view__findpost__p__21194417

Covered by this;
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what
"Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works."

Covers both published and unpublished works. Quite clear there.

His quote of section 106;
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Quite clear there, too. Derivative works were granted permission from Bethesda, thus an author can claim copyright over it. You missed this post..
http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1395173-on-patches-mod-content-modification-and-runtime-methods-thread-2/page__view__findpost__p__21194483

There is no 'interpretation', that is fact. The coverage from the EULA is also 'fact', not an 'interpretation'. I would suggest going to read on the topics of End-User License Agreements and how they have been covered in court (which they are generally not held up, anyways), along with reading the EULA Bethesda has provided.

And in more to add, there are programs written that are not derivative works of Bethesda's content - SkyProc, the derivatives from it (Realistic Lighting's patcher, ASIS, RePerkussion, Automatic Variants), the entirety of Wrye Bash and the bashed patch, and more.

It's quite a sizable group that has a stake in this. And quite a sizable group of users, too, considering it's the big-time modders that are interested in it. Notably, the ones who have put immense amounts of time into creating content. Interesting, eh?

Maybe so. But it matters to me too. And to enough people that it's being dragged into the empty threat of legal action and a debate about legal rights. None of which is really what matters here. What matters here, in my opinion of course, is how to stop this, and move forward. Not everyone agrees with everyone else. Why can't everyone agree to disagree, so to speak, and honor each other's wishes?

The way I see it is that while I am a major supporter of the cathedral concept, not everyone has to agree or participate in that philosophical point of view with me. I believe I am able to enjoy the game more and learn more about what is possible in the CK by seeing other mods - whether that mod author legally has a claim to ownership of copyright, whether they choose to allow me to mod their work, or whether I am legally bound to honor their wishes. Even if they tell me "no you can't do anything with my mod," if I choose to respect that for any reason - whether because I am legally bound, it is the polite, ethical, moral or right thing to do, or just because I want others to respect MY wishes even if they disagree with MY opinions - I still am edified by having seen the content. Should they be forced out of the community and into obscurity because they don't want to participate in building the cathedral with me and others who do? I'd rather that not happen. I'd rather SEE Modder A's content even if Modder A chooses to license their content in a way I think is not the best for me and my mods.

And that's what I'm driving at. I want to know why this debate keeps raging, instead of you very smart dang people working together to come to a compromising solution which accommodates not only your needs, but those needs of your "opponents" as well.

As for the idea that we should let Bethesda dictate to us what the "right" and "wrong" answers are, I can't come to see that point of view. We're talking about the right to do what we want with our creative works, including limit their use. Do we really want BETHESDA coming up with a solution to this? Such as, oh, I don't know, "every mod is now the property of bethesda and becomes an asset owned by bethesda and an implied component of the skyrim game product which is expressly granted rights to be modified and redistributed in the form of mods created with the creation kit..." I mean... you know. If Beth owned all the mods we create just because we create them, and thusly they automatically fell under the same grant of authority to use them as we see fit... would ANYONE want that? Anyone at all?

So that's the central point. There is a threshold, somewhere, where the author of that content no longer has control over it or its experience for the user, regardless of what he wants done with the material. Is the line crossed during normal gameplay? Of course not; no author can tell me how to interact with his content. Is it crossed when I redistribute his original work? Absolutely; I can't do that. Is it crossed when I change his work via an indirect method; a script, proximity to some other reference, and so on? And here we are. We are defining the definition of "original work" and what the modification of that work means, even if that modification occurs in real-time as an effect by an external source.

This is definitely not an argument for / against being courteous, working together, and so forth. We're all human, we all want respect, and I think we do a pretty good job of respecting each other and our work, all things considered. The question is where do my rights terminate.

The debate continues because it's a hard problem to solve.

Just want to clarify, this is not an argument, this is a discussion and debate which is the first step toward the peace you are interested in pursuing. Whether we have it in this thread or your thread probably going to be the same discussion.

Some modders put permissions in their readme files that allow anyone to modify and redistribute modifications of their work as they see fit. Anyone who wants to release their mods as a free for all already has that option. The problem is that the people who don't want their mods modified without permission aren't being suitably protected, from their point of view. People who think mods should be a free for all are not respecting the people, and maybe more importantly, the modders who do not share that opinion.

Because people want to call my rights as non-existent. I've spent quite a few hours writing my programs. Leviathan has spent many more writing SkyProc. While we have 'chosen' to license under GNU GPL v3, that is a choice. Not because we have no rights to it, but because we chose to license it that way.

There's I think 3 (?) people who disagree with the idea of mod authors having any rights. Otherwise, I think the consensus was that authors have rights, copyright law covers direct distribution, general, untargeted modification at runtime is a non-derivative work and therefore entirely legal, and that targeted modification without using any assets at all (not even touching the original plugin) is seemingly legal from the court cases, but is a bit fuzzy on the laws there.

And the consensus has arisen among everyone else that common courtesy should exist - notification, regardless of legality, should be done, and blessings even should be vied for if at all possible even when legal. When not legal without permission, that permission should be obtained.

Yes, I agree with this. That's why I am proposing a set of guidelines that could accommodate either point of view while reducing ambiguity and not affording bethesda the opportunity to solve the problem. (Since theoretically, the problem would then be solved, right?)

I believe in the cathedral. I also strongly believe in the rights of the "parlorist." I'm in favor of a both and solution.

I do not care what thread this conversation occurs in. I care that it happens and goes somewhere other than where it's gone thus far.



Yes, that is the central point, I think. But instead of insisting on a court-tested answer, or an answer from Bethesda, I propose a self-imposed, community derived response that ends the hostility and hopefully helps repair some of the hurt feelings. Because this IS an emotional issue. And that REALLY does matter, especially to us artisty types.

Okay, I'm not a modder, but I'm interested in at least learning to tinker with the CK and maybe at some point I'll be able to turn out a mod that's worth releasing. I've posted a fair amount in the General Discussion forum and I've posted the odd question here and there in the Mods and CK forums.

So here's the question. Although actual assets are copyright material and copying them without permission is flatly wrong, ethically verboten and in fact plainly illegal, we've also moved into the discussion of runtime operations that effectively alter what other mods do. Now, the point has been brought up, I think (I forget by whom) that this is perhaps a semantic distinction, and that runtime alterations should be treated as equivalent to outright distribution of altered assets belonging to others - I think I got that much from the discussion. My point is that this doesn't seem to wash, at least to me, because there are a large number of so-to-speak "global" alterations that would quite simply be effectively impossible if permission were required from everybody whose work might be altered.

I think one of the examples mentioned earlier was that of some sort of effect that would operate on all NPCs, with the implied question being "What about the author of any NPCs coming from mods? What if they didn't want their NPC affected by that effect?" Well, I think this could make a number of mods effectively impossible to execute if permissions were required. Obviously there are mods out there to make all NPCs non-essential. While I do indeed understand the "get the original mod author's permission" point of view, and generally agree, this example is one instance where that would be impossible.

I mean, suppose I become a talented modder, and I look at the previous "Make NPCs nonessential" mods and decide that they're using a kludgy, ugly workaround to achieve their intended effect. So I write what I consider to be an elegant and more effective piece of code, and tests show that it in fact results in a smaller mod which conflicts with nothing else and works more reliably than other such mods, so I release it to the public. Now, this mod obviously globally alters each and every NPC in the games of those who use it. Have I unethically altered somebody else's mod? If Modder_XYZ creates a mod that adds Gungbrag the Mercenary as an NPC, and he's built as being Essential, technically my mod will alter a single detail of Modder_XYZ's mod. Does that mean I should have asked permission from Modder_XYZ - and every single other modder on the Nexus, the SW, and every other mod site that I don't even know exists, if I can release a mod that will globally affect all Essential NPCs by making them Non-Essential?

Because that would be flatly impossible.

Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill with this question, or, since I'm not a modder, perhaps I'm getting caught up in what is actually a minor, tangential question, but it seems that the "Always ask permission of anybody whose mods might be affected by your work" line of reasoning has the potential to place impossible hurdles in the way of people who are making global alterations to the game. Somebody mentioned ASIS giving potions to NPCs and the like, and that's an equally fair example. Could Modder_XYZ complain that he never intended Gungbrag the Mercenary to use potions, and that ASIS constitutes an inappropriate alteration of his work? I myself don't think so, but perhaps I'm missing something.

My question, just to make it plain, is abstract and not tied to any particular mods that sparked this debate in general.

But WE are not in a position to enforce a set of guidelines even if we sit and draft one up over the course of weeks, months, years. The first free-for-all user to come along is going to tell us just where to stick our guidelines. I'm not saying I disagree with you, we have a long standing honor code that covers most of this, you're basically asking us to put it in print, but we can't enforce it ourselves and we can't force site owners to enforce it either. The ones with the powers, hosting sites, have to set the guidelines. Last year Dark0ne, myself, and a number of other hosting sites took action to force uploaders to state their terms of use and permissions right there on their upload pages to diffuse a lot of these ambiguities. The next step is for hosting sites to outline where they stand on copyright infringement and its enforcement.

From the definition of a derivative work for copyright law, you can see this;
"[a] general, untargeted modification at runtime is a non-derivative work and therefore entirely legal" to quote my above post. I can bring up the passage if needed, but that should cover it.

The issue arises when it is a specific target for a runtime modification - is it considered 'based upon' the original work, and thus a derivative work? The RiffTrax incident would seem to disagree, along with the Apple incident. The examples also disagree. The text itself lends itself more towards the support, but it's fuzzy. From the previous incidents in courts, I'd start leaning towards a runtime modification being legal without direct permission.

I specifically don't want that. I specifically want to sort of reaffirm your rights, as well as the rights of those who espouse a "cathedral" view. I don't believe an ethical, or community supported "MPL-C" could be devised which demanded that "MPL-P" content was fair use. Instead, the "MPL-C" license would be crafted to go hand in hand with the "MPL-P" license, with each serving to support the other's validity. I don't think there are any solutions out there right now that make that possible.

And why I think a single "MPL-C" style license would be useful is because then I could go, for instance, on Nexus, tick off in my search parameters that I'm seeking "MPL-C" content, and know that it conforms to a philosophical use policy I respect, while not infringing on anyone else's rights, whether those rights be related to MPL-P, CC, GNU, GPL, etiquette, politeness, copyright law, bethesda or steam's terms of service, or anything else. MPL-P content has a place and I see no point in trying to demand that my rights as a "cathedralist" extend to violating anyone else's rights as a "Parlorist."

I just would like to not have to worry about a lot of fine print and a million different possibilities and that's why a unified "MPL-C" style heading would be so useful to me, and I think to everyone who believes in the cathedral concept.

But please let me reiterate that I dont' believe any ethical, community supported MPL-C license could EVER be crafted or interpreted to infringe upon anyone else's actual or theoretical rights, of any kind. That can be done, and I don't see any good reason not to try to do it.

Does anyone?

@Gram - That was very articulate, and you summed up that point perfectly. (Also, welcome to modding!) The counter-argument (by Thomas I believe) was that a mod that specifically alters another mod's appearance / behavior / what-have-you is not covered under this fair use agreement, but non-discriminatory mods (such as the one you mention here) are fine.

Okay, so then in the case of a global alteration like in my example, the authors of affected mods have no ethical - I assume that without the re-distribution of copyright assets that there's no question of legality - no ethical claim against the author of the global mod.

So then, what about in the instance of a more targeted mod? I can see where it would be in poor taste to write a mod that alters specifically only a single other mod written by somebody else, even if it were legal, but assuming that the accessory mod wasn't actively malicious (it did for the end user what it claimed to do) then would it cross the line from poor taste to being actively unethical?

I dunno. I don't know anything near enough about how modding the game works to come up with a hypothetical example for that one, so I guess I got my question about global alterations answered. Thanks.

I agree entirely. And I think a meaningful, relevant license that could be used by modders - regardless of their view - would be a very helpful thing for people like you who run a site as it would afford you a guideline against which you could easily compare and contrast your own individual policy if you don't choose to espouse it directly. But it's like a start, you know? Something.

Like CC and GNU GPL are a good place to start, too, for some of us. And copyright law applies to all of us.

So I'm just saying that the complexities mean none of the available solutions yet fit very well. So maybe an alternative license would help with that. No, WE can't enforce it. But WE can use such a thing, just like we use copyright law, CC, and GNU, as examples, for defining how we want to release our work.

Again, I don't think we have to say it HAS TO BE copyright law as copyright law exists and is real whether anyone wants to say so or acknowledge the fact or not. Exempting our works from regular copyright law, that's more what an MPL might be used for. Something to say "Instead of regular copyright law, I thnk this is more meaningful to me." Likewise it says the same thing about CC or GPL or any other licensing scheme.

Since copyright law is applicable to content producers always I don't see the point in debating that. I see a lot of value in creating a safe creative space where "cathedralists" can collaborate in the same space as "parlorists" or "copyrightists" or whatever other term someone might want to use to defne those who don't agree with the cathedral idea. Personally, I love it, but I also love copyright and believe in law. I think we all have a right to be here, and I think we can all work together. I think we have to choose to do it though.

I'm going to say at this point that the legal or otherwise examples brought up by myself and Langy all but say that patches and runtime modification are both legal in this case and time is being wasted arguing about that unless someone feels like taking one of these supposed copyright infringing mods to court themselves or can find a counter example. The problem now is figuring out what ground rules to lay down and whether they're going to apply to a license (if the wishes of the community even can be enforced by a license and have fun bringing a lawyer in guys) or if it's just going to be a list of rules handed out to administrators of sites or services like Nexus and be suggested that they be enforced.

Anyone can license it as they please. If they want to use MPL-C, or MPL-P, then that's fine. I think the issue you'll run into is getting mod authors to actually support that. It's one thing for a few major authors to do it, but it's another thing entirely to get the entire community along. By putting a few posts on it, you are shoving - but you are shoving against a fully-loaded train.

This isn't meant to discourage you, but I'm bringing up that it's unlikely. Wrye had initially pushed for two types of licenses, similar to what you brought up, and as you can see - they never took a foothold (not even remotely).

I know you aren't trying to go against anyone's rights, no worries. Like I've said, I've licensed under GPL - I am more of a cathedralist in viewpoint. I also believe that I have the choice, though. Not believe - I have a choice based upon intellectual property right laws.

@Flaren; I would tend to agree. The cases involved point towards run-time modification as being legal, common courtesy aside. All the licenses exist already, though a consensus could create a specific modding license I think it's unlikely people will be interested in it (a sizable portion of people don't even know the content they have is copyrightable, and another sizable portion don't have any knowledge of licensing in the first place, or what it really is and means - all they know is the concepts of 'stealing' and 'I made it').

It's more a matter of just enforcing the legality of it if the circumstances arise, via moderators. Can do more if necessary, but for a community I'd hope that's enough.

This has worked just fine for the modding community for the past...almost decade? Maybe more. I suppose the popularity of Skyrim and the introduction to the modding community via Steam has caused a rift between the ideals of some of the newer community members and the older ones.

I didn't know Wrye had done this already. Amazing. I think that says about all *I* need to know on the subject. I will now return to my cheesy bread and re-run marathon of Six Feet Under.

I hope y'all work this out. Best of luck on it.

Wait...you had cheesy bread this whole time and you didn't offer any to the group!?

I didn't feel the group's behavior warranted a treat. I'm sorry.

None of you get cheesy bread.

Hmmm. This makes me think of another example. If this seems pointlessly weird or perhaps tangential to the point of being generally not applicable to the discussion, ignore it.


Suppose I really, really, like something somebody else - 733+MODDER, let's say - made in a mod, named ABC123. Some asset - some bit of armor, or weapon, or even just a set of textures. Now, suppose I make a mod, and I really would like to use that asset; maybe I have an NPC I want to wear that armor, or I have a location where I want to use those textures. And suppose I do the right thing and ask 733+MODDER if I can incorporate his asset in my mod to make things work like I want them to work. Let's say that 733+MODDER gets up on the wrong side of the bed that day, or just thinks I'm a general lackwit (Gram's the [censored] that wrote that horrible mod making NPCs nonessential! To hell with him!) or whatever, and outright refuses permission.

Now, it would be not just rude or unethical but actively illegal to include 733+MODDER's assets in my mod against their wishes; as has already been said, copyright begins at the moment of creation. But suppose I go ahead and write my mod to use his assets, but I don't include those assets in my mod. I write the mod so that it will look for his assets, use them if present, and doesn't work if his assets aren't there. I include in the README file and the description on the Nexus (or wherever) that my mod will not operate unless they also download and install 733+MODDER's mod ABC123.

So then in this example, my questions are:

(1) Is this illegal?
(2) Is this unethical?
(3) Is this rude?

I can't tell. I'm not including any owned assets, remember, I'm just making a mod that will only work if those assets are present. My guesses would be (1) no, (2) not sure, and (3) still not sure. I'm interested to know the opinions of the modders, though.