Ethics

[johnwhelan]

Recently there have been a number of threads about including freeware content in payware routes.

To create content I've spent money on books for research and on software. I've invested a considerable amount of time as well.

A number of my items use textures which are only licensed for freeware and I have given undertakings that they will only be used in this way in order to obtain permission to use them.

I don't think its ethical that payware routes should include freeware without permission including items that specifically say in the license not to be used as payware.

I'm very uncomfortable with WindWalkr's comments that there are no legal or ethical issues involved and this goes against my understanding of how content on the DLS could be used.

Why should some one else be able to make money out of my time effort and cash spent?

Cheerio John

 

[ShadyCadence]

Suppose Payware routes were restricted to the creator's kuid/builtin items only, wouldn't that eliminate this completely?

 

[knight42]

I haven't published any content, free or otherwise, and I don't do payware at all, but I'm inclined to agree with this. I wouldn't be comfortable with someone charging for the use of my content, regardless of whether they supplied it with their route or not. I'm not sure I'd use the DLS for my work for exactly this reason.

 

[WindWalkr]

I'm very uncomfortable with WindWalkr's comments that there are no legal or ethical issues involved and this goes against my understanding of how content on the DLS could be used.

Why should some one else be able to make money out of my time effort and cash spent?

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't matter whether you're comfortable with it or not. As long as they're not distributing your content, it's both legal and (as far as I see it) ethical for them to distribute a payware route which references your freeware content.

You could perhaps come up with a convoluted license which makes it illegal for the end-user to use your content with a payware route; in doing so you *might* be able to sue any payware creator referencing your content for inciting criminal behaviour. This sounds like a very weak case to me, but maybe it would hold water. If you want to go this way, be aware that by uploading to the DLS, you're likely forfeiting any such license terms in favour of the DLS EULA.


In the end, and this is why I don't see an ethical problem with it, if you're not hoping to make money from the content, then you're basically uploading for the pleasure of the end users. If they're happy with your content, what difference does it make if they're also paying someone else for some payware content. What difference does it make if that payware content references your freeware content?

Note that in all of this, I'm assuming that the payware creator (1) is not distributing your content in any form and (2) is not claiming your content as their own work. Either of these is very likely illegal.

cheers,

chris

 

[mrscsi]

Note that in all of this, I'm assuming that the payware creator (1) is not distributing your content in any form and (2) is not claiming your content as their own work. Either of these is very likely illegal.

cheers,

chris

I'm sorry but I have to agree with this especially this statement. If someone makes a payware route and it technically doesn't contain (physically) any content from the DLS in the CDP file but merely points back to the DLS in the form of dependencies that any route built using built-in or DLS content does is really the way the system works.

Because the content doesn't make the route. Especially not a payware route. Generally what makes a payware route is having something prototypical and very well laid out. That takes work on the creator's side in creating the actual topographical map. If that's the only thing in the CDP and everything else is a dependency that's not included in that CDP. There really isn't much anyone can do about it.

Because they're not selling the freeware content on the DLS, they're selling the CDP with topographical map with a list of dependencies.

If content creators didn't want anybody to use their content, they wouldn't put it on the DLS. I still will always maintain if you want to keep control of your content, putting it on the DLS is a strange way to show that.

Now I emphasize once again if someone bundled those assets into the CDP, I would agree that's wrong, but if all they're doing is selling the CDP of the topographical map that merely points back to a dependency on the DLS, I really don't see a lot wrong with that.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

i had more typed but mrscsi said essentially the same thing. :wave:

 

[mrscsi]

i had more typed but mrscsi said essentially the same thing. :wave:

I cheatI use Dragon NaturallySpeaking

 

[Euphod]

Why not just make a poll since this issue seems to boil down to "I agree" or "I disagree"? I can't think of any salient points that are going to tilt it either way unless some lawyer or judge amongst us knows a precedent they would care to quote.

 

[johnwhelan]

Why not just make a poll since this issue seems to boil down to "I agree" or "I disagree"? I can't think of any salient points that are going to tilt it either way unless some lawyer or judge amongst us knows a precedent they would care to quote.

I don't see there is anything to vote on. Given the comment from an N3V employee it would seem the only option I can see is to make it less attractive to do it which means doing things such avoiding the DLS for uploading new content.

Cheerio John

 

[RRSignal]

I don't see how not putting content on the DLS gives you more of a right to prohibit your content being used in payware.

I've written articles (journals, commentary, etc.) that cite other's works - both freely-published and paid works - and that's perfectly legal. Just about any factual, footnoted or fully-annotated document, such as a book or article, will contain many references to other works, and these can be sold at a profit. Unless you've lived in a cave all your life, you have read books and written papers - at least in school - doing just that. On top of that, one can legally take part of one of these references and include part of it within their own work, e.g. a quotation. It's called "Fair Use."

a

 

[Deano5]

You really do not need a judge to tell you that a route that contains only the topography and a list of freely available assets that you can choose whether or not to add to the said route, is a legal issue or not.
But, just to add as a side note, the payware route from Snowsignal (many moons ago) has only the very basic track and texture from Auran (IIRC) and the few odd assets created by the author himself. The route being the topology from Preston to Carlisle with just the stations and the odd Auran tree. :wave:

 

[leeferr]

...textures which are only licensed for freeware ....

John
They're still only being used as freeware. The fact that a route references your freeware doesn't make your content payware. If I download a payware route but don't have your dependencies, I can do a couple of things. I can run the route without the dependencies or I can go to whereever the freeware dependencies are and download them. Either way, the route exists without the presence of the freeware.

Would you consider it unethical for me to purchase a payware route and then add some of your freeware to the route. I don't see the difference in whether I added your content or whether the route creator added it. All that I paid the route creator for was a series of sculpted baseboards and a list of dependencies.

Respectfully

Mike

 

[RRSignal]

And it's kind of a dbag move not to create or distribute just because someone references your work in payware. Heck, I've had quite a bit of stuff I made pirated - and some of the jerks put their name on it as their own - and I'm still happy I made it.

On the flip side, I do think this community is small enough and respectful enough of each other that we can just ask. I've not downloaded stuff from the DLS and elsewhere because I knew the copy was unauthorized; not because I couldn't, but because I didn't want to be disrespectful. And I sure as you-know-what wouldn't put out a piece of payware without asking permission from the content creators whose works I use in my route.

 

[clam1952]

Maybe to make it clearer, the licences, for those not happy about it should be reworded to read "Not to be referenced or used in any Payware route / item"?

I think that might cover all possibilities.

 

[Deano5]

John


Would you consider it unethical for me to purchase a payware route and then add some of your freeware to the route. I don't see the difference in whether I added your content or whether the route creator added it. All that I paid the route creator for was a series of sculpted baseboards and a list of dependencies.

Respectfully

Mike

This was partly my point about the Preston Carlisle route I have, I paid for the route and have added hundreds, if not thousands of freeware assets to it over the years.
Have I too committed a wrong?
What is the difference between me adding them or the route creator adding them as decoration?

 

[LMS_MAN]

I don't see there is anything to vote on. Given the comment from an N3V employee it would seem the only option I can see is to make it less attractive to do it which means doing things such avoiding the DLS for uploading new content.

Cheerio John

The main reason I wouldnt upload any content I produced to the DLS. As soon as you do you lose control of how it is used. It was proposed that there would be a payware section of the DLS years ago and for the same reason I decided not to use it if it had happened.

To me, a route full of references to other creators content is exactly the same as directly adding the content. Without the freeware creators hard work all you are purchasing is a bare board with lots of freeware added.

 

[knight42]

This was partly my point about the Preston Carlisle route I have, I paid for the route and have added hundreds, if not thousands of freeware assets to it over the years.
Have I too committed a wrong?
What is the difference between me adding them or the route creator adding them as decoration?

I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue seems to be the route creator making money from the freeware content, as opposed to you subsequently adding it. It's a very sticky subject.

 

[leeferr]

....all you are purchasing is a bare board with lots of freeware added.

That's exactly my point. That's all that a purchaser of a payware route is paying for....someones time to create the baseboards and assemble the references.

 

[sniper297]

Legal VS Ethical is a different thing. Slippery concept to start with;

http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under

I'm currently building a city route, if it had no buildings in it then it wouldn't be a very good city route. If I planned to sell it instead of giving it away as freeware, then it pretty much has to have a lot of different buildings to make it saleable. So if one of the things that makes the route good enough to sell is all of DMDrake's buildings, then I would be at least morally obligated to contact DMDrake and offer some kind of kickback. If I used his buildings to enhance the route and didn't offer to cut him in on the action, could he sue me?

Under US law I'm pretty sure he would have a case.

 

[rumour3]

Let me preface my comment with a note that all of my content to date has been given freely to the community via the DLS and I have never received a penny for any of it, including the considerable amounts now built in to TS2010 and TS12. At the moment I have no plans to do anything different- I create as a hobby simply for my own satisfaction and I get pleasure out of seeing others using and enjoying my assets. I've also never bought any payware, apart from the S&C add-on, and don't download assets from anywhere other than the DLS.

Creating a route of any size involves a huge amount of time locating, composing, grouping objects together to represent other objects and a massive amount of trial and error. There are those that can do it convincingly and those that can't, and I have a huge respect for the creative abilities of anyone who can put together a realistic route from the massive selection of objects on the DLS. My personal view is that this creative talent is something that shouldn't be looked at as being solely parasitic on the free works of others- although I have a strong preference for freeware, route creation is a time consuming and creative skill in its own right and I don't have a problem if those that are good at it (or even those that aren't- payware stands or falls on its quality) seek some financial reward for their effort, even if it uses my free DLS assets in the process. Even taking John's reductio ad absurdum single billboard on a blank baseboard example, I really don't have a problem with someone attempting to sell a route of this kind- anyone who would buy it probably deserves to be stripped of a few quid (provided that they're aware of what they're buying).

Of course I respect the views of those who, for whatever reason, don't wish to see their DLS assets used in this way, and the sensitivity of this issue is one of the reasons why I'll probably never release a payware route, quite apart from the fact that I don't think my completed route-building efforts to date are worthy of anyone's cash. However, I also think it would probably be good for the community if there were more really top notch routes around, even if this means more payware.

Cheers

R3