editingg IM files

[shaneturner12]

Fair enough, but it is still not something that I would recommend anyone doing.

Shane

 

[johnwhelan]

Reverse engineering is the process of generating information about the source of the constructed object. If it is a machine then it means constructing blueprints or specifications used to construct the machine. If it's a file it means creating the software objects or source code from which that file was generated. It is not applicable to config.txt or TGA files, but it is applicable to IM files because they are manufactured from a source - the GMAX data. If you use the information in that file to create, in whole or part, the original source information that was used to generate the IM then you are reverse engineering. Altering the file in some way has nothing to do with reverse engineering because it does not produce any copy of the source used to generate the file. It's not tricky or complex. If you were not permitted to change the file then the license would say so. It says you are not permitted to reverse engineer the file, but it places no restriction on changing the file.

I you were providing advice about the wisdom of changing an IM file then that's fine, but you weren't. Your statement is "Editing .PM/.IM (apart from using PM2IM or Attachment Maker) is seen as reverse engineering" and that statement is not correct.

Your statement is correct and in the past Auran /N3V have helped with reverse engineering the .im formats. This was done to create the exporter for 3D Canvas and was the basis for the first Blender exporter. These days the Blender exporter and other tools use an xml formatted intermediate file which is fed into the N3V Importer to create the .im file. There are some technical advantages to this basically in isolating what get dropped into the .im file makes for more robustness and probably one reason to stay away from hex editing a .im file.

However under copyright laws you may not modify an image or texture file and under the license that N3V has with you my impression is that restricts you from editing a .im file which makes perfect sense as a corrupt one can crash Trainz. Now if you and the content creator happen to live in a country that the license laws don't apply and you haven't downloaded the asset from the DLS, I think New Zealand no longer recognises software patients for example then you get into the legal arguments but from a practical point of view its best not to edit them anyway. The convention in Trainz is only the content creator should modify the meshes which I think is reasonable. One issue I've seen is where the original asset had an error that has been corrected assets based on the original such as reskins cannot be corrected by the original content creator even though the person who did the reskin hasn't been active in the Trainz community for some years. When you download from the DLS my understanding is you agree to some terms and conditions and I think in those terms and conditions you'll find a restriction about what you can do with the content.

Cheerio John

 

[Lots_Trains]

when did the passage of time diminish the restriction?
why not?

What has the passage of time got to do with it. Does a .im created by any person come under the durastiction of NV3, thats the question, I guess it could be argued the NV3 own the .im file format, very complicated so many points this could be argued on.

They, as the owners gave the source files for others to play with. No IM files so no anomaly at all. Try reading the EULA that came with the files.

Very True. But realistically how you ever gonna prove the file came from the art file or an altered.im

No idea how he did it, why assume it was illegal?

Defiantly didn't assume he did, and I do not know how he did it.

Whether they can or do prosecute doesn't change the illegality of reverse engineering an IM.

Its a very interesting subject, Answer me this, altering a texture file via an editor is an example of reverse engineering is it not? (please tell me you have never done it). you can alter an .im via an editor, whats the difference?? Its either reverse engineering or its not there is no difference. What makes one more legal than other. Textures are alter and copied by so many here, why is an .im so different, can you explain for me please.

Cheers

Lots

 

[Lots_Trains]

The convention in Trainz is only
Cheerio John

Sorry John, I have a problem with this bit, there is no convention, never seen it or heard or of it. Its either a law or it dosn't exist, or a convention you and someone else have signed up to but I didn't.

I think New Zealand no longer recognises software patients

I think it still does, we are pretty much main stream with the rest of the world. One thing of note that is different here is copyrighted materials, a portion can be used without the owners permission.

Cheers

Lots

 

[shaneturner12]

If it is in law, it's probably in copyright law. However, there may well be something in either the Download Station EULA or similar that may cover IM/PM files, but I haven't got time at the moment to double-check it. The developer of a product can stipulate restrictions though that are independent of law or that are not covered in law.

Shane

EDIT: From memory, all but the oldest versions of PEV's tools (the ones that work with .IM/.PM files anyway) use the XML format and TrainzMeshImporter (N3V's importer utility) to generate the relevant files.

 

[Lots_Trains]

The developer of a product can stipulate restrictions though that are independent of law or that are not covered in law.

Shane

Ummm no they can't that's the whole point of this argument, if there is no law for it you can't enforce it. ehehe you can stipulate what ever restrictions you want, it means nothing without a law.

Cheers

Lot

 

[shaneturner12]

Depends - that's what software license agreements (and similar) are for. Most of the time though, users don't seem to read them fully.

Shane

 

[martinvk]

Whats ya problem, I choose not to release my stuff, I do a lot of .im rebuilding and a lot of original stuff, I chose form a long time back not to release stuff its not my scene, I guess by your logic if I don't release stuff I have no right to an opinion.
If ya got a problem with .im files been modded don't release them I choose not to. You are naive to think that anything you put on the net won't be used in some manner you don't agree with.


Cheers

Lots

You just made my point. I share my IM files and rely on the decency of others not to abuse the privilege by not taking them apart. Naive? No, I knew there would be abuse but for the good of the Trainz community I did it anyway. You chose not to share so of course no one will take yours apart.

 

[BuilderBob]

However under copyright laws you may not modify an image or texture file and under the license that N3V has with you my impression is that restricts you from editing a .im file which makes perfect sense as a corrupt one can crash Trainz.

That is not, and never has been, copyright law. Copyright is only to do with distribution. You are entitled to make whatever changes you want to your copy of a copyrighted work. I can scribble in the margins of my copyrighted book all I want to and copyright law will never be involved. I can adjust a copyrighted image for my own purposes, and I can edit an IM file all I want. Copyright laws might prevent me from distributing that copyrighted work, with or without changes, depending on what the copyright owner has stipulated. (In fact, part of copyright law says you can only distribute a copyrighted work if you make substantial changes to it, and N3V makes the same comment about some of their copyrighted material.)

Copyright law says nothing about what is sensible or not - that, and licensing conditions, are completely different topics that are subject to their own rules and standards. But unless you can quote a different part of the license to what I have, there is nothing in the license or the terms and conditions that disallows changing file content.

 

[johnwhelan]

Sorry John, I have a problem with this bit, there is no convention, never seen it or heard or of it. Its either a law or it dosn't exist, or a convention you and someone else have signed up to but I didn't.



I think it still does, we are pretty much main stream with the rest of the world. One thing of note that is different here is copyrighted materials, a portion can be used without the owners permission.

Cheers

Lots

Unfortunately Trainz is international and the laws are national so a particular national law isn't really relevant here. Having said that agreements are relevant so the agreement you have with N3V for using the DLS content is relevant. I can amend my license on my assets if you like to specifically state that Lots_Trains may not modify it. I think Paul Hobbs has something in his license which more or less says you may not modify it without explicit permission.

Most of mine say

"The package may be redistributed freely provided the content of the package is unchanged,
i.e. no files have been added, removed or modified."

Which I think is fairly clear I can of course tighten this up if you feel it gives you permission to modify the .im file.

You have to take into account content creators wishes if you want them to create content. I have already cut back on assets that I'll upload to the DLS because of the N3V restrictions, if you don't respect the content creator's wishes and work then you get less new content.

Cheerio John

 

[Lots_Trains]

Unfortunately Trainz is international and the laws are national so a particular national law isn't really relevant here.

Sorry you got that wrong, National law is the only law. A country may sign onto an International Convention/Agreement/Law but no country can right the law for another country.

Having said that agreements are relevant so the agreement you have with N3V for using the DLS content is relevant. I can amend my license on my assets if you like to specifically state that Lots_Trains may not modify it. I think Paul Hobbs has something in his license which more or less says you may not modify it without explicit permission.

Most of mine say

"The package may be redistributed freely provided the content of the package is unchanged,
i.e. no files have been added, removed or modified."

You can write whatever you want in a license of your Content package but unless its backup by some law it dosn't mean anything. Fact.

Take this from one of Jointed Rail's EULA I don't know if they still have it in them or not.

" have given full expressed permission
for your local or national law enforcement agencies to sieze said computer
equipment that may be used in the storage or distribution of these products
for the express purpose of protecting these products' copyrights"

Never heard such a load of BS. As ex Police Officer I know I could never get a Search Warrant to do this and if I did the Judge would have my guts for garters, and I'd get sued its hard to sue in this country. You have to match law to each countries laws if you want to perform such acts. So you just can't write whatever you want in your EULA.

Now at the top of your EULA you said REDISTRIBUTE, I in no way said redistribute, I said I can edit, modify, or do what ever I want to an .im file for my own private use, nobody has the right to tell me any different, as long as I don't redistribute it, its perfectly ok. Some people here think they have the right to limit this or imply some moral judgement on people who do. That is my issue they need to pull there heads in.

Which I think is fairly clear I can of course tighten this up if you feel it gives you permission to modify the .im file.

You have to take into account content creators wishes if you want them to create content. I have already cut back on assets that I'll upload to the DLS because of the N3V restrictions, if you don't respect the content creator's wishes and work then you get less new content.

Cheerio John

Of coarse a person should take into account a Content Creators wishes, its the polite thing to do, but unfortunately not everyone is polite. Content Creators also have to be realistic about the expectations in regarding there wishes. At the end of the day its just wishes, and expecting them to be obeyed on the the net you are dreaming.

Cheers

Lots

 

[johnwhelan]

Of coarse a person should take into account a Content Creators wishes, its the polite thing to do, but unfortunately not everyone is polite. Content Creators also have to be realistic about the expectations in regarding there wishes. At the end of the day its just wishes, and expecting them to be obeyed on the the net you are dreaming.

Cheers

Lots

Of course you are correct spelling and expecting people to be polite are out of date but I suspect your background as a policeman also colours your opinion. There have been a number of studies that show policemen have a much lower expectation of the general public's behaviour than others probably because of the people they come across in their line of work. It might also explain your fascination with using a specific law to resolve an issue or concern.

Most software comes with a license, most people don't read the license. The licenses are contract of adhesion and originated in French civil law, they are now accepted in many countries including the USA. The courts do often have different interpretations of the agreements often depending on which court is hearing the case in the US for example, and if you wish to spend large amounts of money you probably could especially if the case gets appealed and overturned as it progresses. I think GameStation's contract of adhesion actually contained a clause saying you give them your immortal soul and several thousand people accepted even though there was a option to opt out of that clause.

So we come down to if you edit the .im file you create something that may cause Trainz to crash which is why these days we use the N3V importer to create the .im file from an XML file, you may be annoying content creators by not following their their contract of adhesion.

Strangely enough if you live in the US search warrants have been issued when there is a strong reason to suspect that software or data files are present on a computer that are outside the contract of adhesion and the police have seized computers in a number of cases so the Jointed Rail's EULA may well be enforceable in some parts of the world.

Cheerio John