So yesterday's discussion in the "Not sure about Steam anymore..." thread brought up some interesting points of view, and caused me to think about some things I hadn't thought about before.

As scripters, as of patch update 1.6, we now have the capacity to reach out and affect other mods, using GetFormFromFile(). Using this function (along with other scripting), someone could:

• Find ObjectReferences, global variables, or any other sort of form used / created by someone else's mod.

• Modify those forms in various ways as allowed by the scripting engine. I could do something as benign as move the references to another location, disable a reference entirely, resolve an alias against that reference to cause it to have new events, modify a global variable, and so on.

There are perfectly valid reasons I may want to do this. The simplest example is compatibility: I may want to turn off one of the settings of a mod or prepare a global variable in a particular way to ensure compatibility. Or, perhaps there are objects in one mod that clip in the same places as a select few objects in some other mod. One could use this method to disable those objects which conflict at runtime. Or the reason may be that, someone wants to manipulate that object in some way, either by scaling it, rotating it, moving it, or removing it, for whatever reason.

Or, say I want to make wooden objects added by your mod flammable. I discover your ObjectReference's FormIDs, resolve them to an alias, and assign an OnHit() event to them. I have now modified the behavior of your content.

As modders, we have (to my knowledge, without external utilities) never had this level of control over another person's work at runtime. It also completely removes copyright from the argument; the script, and all the methods that drive it, would be 100% original content.

So, we have this capability. Now comes the sticky part: permissions, acceptability, and terms of service.

I think we can all agree that the right thing to do whenever affecting anyone's work, either directly or tangentially, is to ask permission to do so. It just makes sense and is the most ethical, human, good natured thing to do. The questions that are considerably more grey are:

• Is permission to alter someone else's work at runtime required? By whom?
  
• Does the nature, circumstances, or quantity of the changes have an effect on its acceptability? Why? (Excluding obvious malicious or hidden intent, which is clearly in the wrong; assume all changes are disclosed to the user)
  
• Is altering someone else's work at runtime against the terms of service of Skyrim Nexus, Steam Workshop, Bethesda, and so on? Source? Are these rules that have yet to be defined? This is especially important to clearly define and be made aware of, as this is what ultimately gets a file taken down.

Example A: Modder A releases mod A, which contains a flaw that can be fixed by simply changing a global from 2 to 3. Modder A refuses to fix the problem, or leaves the community, and never gives anyone permission to redistribute his work. The choice becomes either let the mod die on the vine, or use a script at runtime to fix the problem. Is releasing a script-based solution to the problem legal?

Example B: Modder A releases mod A, which contains an artistic decision that many in the community do not agree with, and the author declines to change it (which is fully within their rights). Modder B releases mod B that modifies a set of forms at runtime in mod A which alter Modder A's artistic decision. How the form is altered is relatively unimportant for the sake of this discussion, as long as we assume that Modder B discloses all changes made and the user is aware of the changes (there are no "hidden" modifications). Does Modder B need permission from Modder A? Is releasing a script-based solution to the problem legal?

An important distinction that I'm trying to draw here is one between "What someone wants" and "What is acceptable / correct / adherent to policy". I believe that they are separate concepts. (Do you?) I'm also trying to draw a line somewhere as to where a modder's rights begin and end. I believe that there should be an absoluteness about the nature of these things, and one person (or set of person's) personal feelings on the matter should not change the fundamental substance of whether or not something is right / wrong, or within / outside policy. (Again, do you?)

Please do me the honor of keeping this discussion civil. I'm not trying to "stir up" anything, nor is this discussion related to any one person or mod; it's about recognizing the power we now have, and coming to a consensus about how we feel about its appropriate use, as well as drawing the lines between what is acceptable to the community, and what is considered against terms of service.

This is an academic discussion and I'd like to keep it that way.

Which doesn't get you out of the liability for having used the tool in such a manner.

Far flung anology alert:

"Lawyer: Your honor, my client didn't do anything wrong. He merely provided the instructions to the gun to tell it how to kill the victim."

"Judge: "

For another twist to this subject.

Suppose an author decides an unauthorized patch is not acceptable. Suppose said author then takes their own active steps to squash that patch actively at runtime via mechanisms given to us by the game developers. This results in the patch being forced to unload from memory entirely.

Since it seems people don't view runtime modification of another's work a problem, surely runtime REMOVAL of that modification would be equally acceptable?

That anology isn't just far-flung, it's not comparable at all. Homicide is homicide, whereas making personal alterations to something I've purchased or downloaded for free is fair use.

More appropriate anology:

"Lawyer: Your honor, my client didn't do anything wrong. He merely followed the instructions and used the software to unlock his iPhone from the AT&T carrier."

"Judge: You're right, Apple can svck it."

And this actually happened.

[EDIT] I hope I don't sound too glib. I have a lot of respect for you (Arthmoor), so I don't want anything to come across as contempt or similar.

Oh, I don't doubt it. But the question is, is it legal (I think we've covered the other bases), and do I as an author have the power to remove a mod that contains a script that directly alters my mod. Or in more general terms, I point back to my tower example. I built the guard tower, you put a bunch of guards around it that make the guard tower no longer uninhabited, in the exact location of my guard tower with the express intent of populating it, and I happen to not like that. Can I get your mod removed?

Oh, I don't doubt it. But the question is, is it legal (I think we've covered the other bases), and do I as an author have the power to remove a mod that contains a script that directly alters my mod. Or in more general terms, I point back to my tower example. I built the guard tower, you put a bunch of guards around it that make the guard tower no longer uninhabited, in the exact location of my guard tower with the express intent of populating it, and I happen to not like that. Can I get your mod removed?

Going to drop this in here since it got posted late:




No. It's actually entirely appropriate, if extreme, but I find extreme anologies bring these points home well.

Your own Apple anology falls flat though. In your situation, the user followed instructions, more akin to what Chesko put forth about how to alter the Beegees music. I don't remember all the specifics as I don't tend to follow gadget related cases but if the judge actually ruled that a piece of software that does this FOR the user is perfectly OK, it's one of the most moronic legal rulings in the IP sector I've ever heard. Especially since it would open the door to legalizing piracy across the board.

Also, note that I edited stuff in to my post, but things are moving to fast for most to have noticed

No. It's actually entirely appropriate, if extreme, but I find extreme anologies bring these points home well.

Your own Apple anology falls flat though. In your situation, the user followed instructions, more akin to what Chesko put forth about how to alter the Beegees music. I don't remember all the specifics as I don't tend to follow gadget related cases but if the judge actually ruled that a piece of software that does this FOR the user is perfectly OK, it's one of the most moronic legal rulings in the IP sector I've ever heard. Especially since it would open the door to legalizing piracy across the board.

Also, note that I edited stuff in to my post, but things are moving to fast for most to have noticed

Suppose an author decides an unauthorized patch is not acceptable. Suppose said author then takes their own active steps to squash that patch actively at runtime via mechanisms given to us by the game developers. This results in the patch being forced to unload from memory entirely.

Since it seems people don't view runtime modification of another's work a problem, surely runtime REMOVAL of that modification would be equally acceptable?

The reality? The decision to have a mod removed will never fall to mod authors. It will be decided by the hosting site whether the mod in question violates their unique ToS enough to justifiably remove the content from public distribution; it will be up to the site owners and staff of major hosting sites to define what is acceptable for their service. Clear outlining of their ToS will at least give modders the choice to decide if those terms are acceptable for the handling of their works.

Minor copyright infringements happen every day from fanfictions, to photo manipulation art, even screenshots are technically a derivative work. Is a derivative like the one you describe legal? Not by the definition of copyright. Is it tolerated? Yes, usually, because it does not alter the original content in any way.

No; as I mentioned, his mod would not be considered a derivative work in the legal sense and thus would be perfectly legal to distribute. It is pretty much exactly the same as the RiffTrax example.

A continuation of the http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1394993-on-patches-mod-content-modification-and-runtime-methods/page__st__180. My original OP:



In the previous thread, some general ideas were agreed upon:

• Permission should always be sought after.
  
• This community is strong because we respect each other and our work.
  
• A modification of an ESP file and redistributing it is not acceptable, ethical, or legal.

The remaining questions relate to legality, does a script-based runtime change constitute a derivative work, and do these types of solutions not mesh with the terms of service of major hosting sites, such that a mod of this nature is a candidate for removal.

• A modification of an ESP file and redistributing it is not acceptable, ethical, or legal.

EDIT: Ishmael, I thought that Apple was allowed to try and combat that practice? In other words, they didn't need to make it easy to jailbreak their iPhones. However, they couldn't punish someone who did jailbreak their iPhone by, for example, disabling it or whatever (though it could void the warranty).

What.

In my experience on this board, most threads end up getting closed at page 7 or 8. I was being proactive. As for my opinions, I don't think I've stated very many of those myself; I've just asked a bunch of questions.

What? It's clearly a violation of copyright law.

Only seven pages? What, did you close it because no one wanted to listen to your misinformed opinions?

What? It's clearly a violation of copyright law.

Modders waive any legal or moral rights when publishing mods created through the Skyrim Creation Kit, so no, it isn't.