Ethics

[Pencil42]

The point that I'm trying to make is that I doubt very seriously that any of the builders of payware routes out there (even N3v) contacted every single creator for every piece of content in their routes to get permission to use the content.

Remember, Mike - N3V doesn't need to contact anyone if the asset is on the DLS - permission was expressly given to them at the time of the upload.

And legally, I don't see anything wrong with someone selling a payware route referencing DLS content in their route for sale - as long as the buyer has to go get the content from the DLS themselves.

Ethically, it all depends - different people and cultures have different ethical frameworks. You can debate back and forth all day long, but there is no 'correct' anwser.

Some think that people making money building on top of a foundation of free content is wrong, some think that is capitalism at its finest.
Some think it is immoral to spend time duplicating something that has already been done, instead of spending that time on creating something new.
Some even think that discriminating against certain classes of users is wrong.

It's a good discussion, though

Curtis

 

[mrscsi]

My apologizes, I should have made it clear that there was (and still is) a lot of non-DLS 3rd party content in this payware route. I'm 95% sure that he is hoping to sell/distribute this payware route, along with all the non-DLS content in both digital download format & DVD.
He may very well hope to include all the non built into content of 09, 010 & TS12 on the DVD/digital download...

My fault for not explaining it clear enough in the first place...

Cheers, Mac...

No problem Meat, then your friend has two options, obtain permission for the non-DLS payware or freeware, or the route that he puts out just won't include it. It will have a lot of missing dependencies.

If I were to put payware in a route and offer that route for sale I can do one of two things get permission from and pay licensing to the original creator or I could merely place a disclaimer in big bold letters "this route requires this asset or this asset or this asset, and this is where you can obtain them" and place a link back to the actual payware.

I think that's being both ethical and honest. If someone wants to replicate what I put out on their box, they either have to have the same version of Trainz that I have and the a registered user to have access doing DLS items or the same payware (if I include payware kuids in the route) if they do not have the same payware if I tell them that it is their responsibility to get it up front before any money changes hands I'm not ripping someone off, neither the end-user nor the payware creator in fact I'm driving business to the payware creator.

That's what your buddy can do, he can list all the payware or third-party assets and where they can be obtained. By doing that he's not doing anything unethical or illegal, he's merely providing information that the end user probably doesn't know or probably doesn't want to go get themselves.

Because a payware route that uses nothing but DLS assets is nothing more than a set of instructions or how-to guide on the placement of assets. That's it, it's nothing more nefarious than that. It is a little file that automates the placement of assets that are freely available to the end-user (if they have registered access) on the DLS.

It's like a batch file that automates repetitive action. A script file that does something. That's really all it is.

When an authorized end-user opens that map and then goes out and downloads all the dependencies and they magically appear on that map, it is just as if that end-user created that map from scratch and placed every asset themselves from a licensing standpoint.

The only thing that the payware route builder did was automate the process for the end-user, nothing more.

 

[leeferr]

Remember, Mike - N3V doesn't need to contact anyone if the asset is on the DLS - permission was expressly given to them at the time of the upload.

And legally, I don't see anything wrong with someone selling a payware route referencing DLS content in their route for sale - as long as the buyer has to go get the content from the DLS themselves.

Ethically, it all depends - different people and cultures have different ethical frameworks. You can debate back and forth all day long, but there is no 'correct' anwser.

Some think that people making money building on top of a foundation of free content is wrong, some think that is capitalism at its finest.
Some think it is immoral to spend time duplicating something that has already been done, instead of spending that time on creating something new.
Some even think that discriminating against certain classes of users is wrong.

It's a good discussion, though

Curtis

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure that I'm being clear enough on my points though. Yes, N3V received the authority to use the content in payware when the content was uploaded. I'm not sure that all users understand that point. I don't think N3V has done anything wrong here. Let's get off of N3V's payware routes for a moment. There are lots of other payware routes out there that are not distributed by N3V. My question is 'did the creators of these routes get permission from every single creator of content in their route'. I seriously doubt it. That's what I meant when I said I'd like to hear from them if there's any out there. I'm assuming (and we all know what assume does for us) that most payware creators have assumed all along that if the content is on the DLS, then it was okay to reference it in their route kuid. I don't know this as fact and I have no statistics to back it up. That's why I'd like to hear from someone that actually received hundreds of 'permission slips'.

This is obviously a sensitive issue, but I feel that it is a simple one. We're making it a lot more complicated than it really is.

Thanks for your input. I'm just trying to logically debate the issue for the betterment of the entire community; however, I'm afraid that the issue may wind up further fracturing the community and I'd hate to see that happen. That's why I took my only payware route off of my website until I've satisfied myself on this issue.

Mike

 

[Retro00064]

Slightly off topic, but still relevent...

Ok, I know of a fellow Trainzer that started building a payware route 4 - 5 years ago in TRS2006. As I understand things, the route when nearly finished (2009) had 2850 freeware kuids (approx). He waited till the route was almost completed before he started trying to contact the freeware contents creators.

He realised it would be a massive undertaking to try and contact all those kuid creators spread right around the world. He started to try and get their permission to use their freeware creations in his payware route.
From what I can gather he sent out a very large number of requests, requesting permission to use those kuids. I'm told some replied "yes". Others replyed "No" (and fair enough). Other replied, "whats in it for me" ???

Problem is he never heard back from hundreds & hundreds of creators. Some had obviously left the Trainz scene long ago and other obviously couldn't be bothered replying. (Contact details weren't available for 100's of creators as well).
Now as I understand things, as a result of this 500+ (approx) assets/kuids were removed from this payware route.

Unfortunately to date, the route still hasn't been released because of new problems. Bringing it up 09, 010 and now TS12 standards/compatability. Second probable cause for the delay is nearly everyone who purchases a payware route these days expects that there's several sessions that come with a payware route.

Hopefully this payware route (& sessions) will eventually be avaliable for the community to purchase and enjoy. We've seen several screenshots of the route in the payware section of the forum awhile back, and IMHO the route looked very promising. By the looks of the sceenshots to date, if & when the route is finally released, (& if it is reasonably priced), I would certainly purchase it.

Now I'm told that this chap has put 1000's & 1000's of hours into this payware route. I guess this chap must be quite frustated with all the requirements to get a payware route to market. What with having to contact so many individual contents creators and the goal posts being constantly shifted. (versions and DLS versions supported policy).

So the big question I would like to ask is if he has made a genuine attempt to contact all the creators that have either left Trainz years ago, or the creators that can't be bothered replying, should he still use their creations in his payware route ???

Footnote to this question is that I started a payware route project back in early 2006 myself. I got the route about two third completed (18 - 21 months work) before I started to contact some freeware contents creators.
(both DLS & 3rd party non-DLS creators). Route had an Eastern European theme...

I got a mixed bag of replies from "go for it, no problem" to "if you use any of my creations/kuids, I'll sue you" After not hearing back from about two thirds of the creators I tried to contact, I decided to put the whole project in the too hard basket, and abandoned it.
Something I'm glad I did at the time as I couldn't be bothered going through all the hassles and drama !!! - Just couldn't be bothered with any possible "I'll sue you" crap !!

(The other thing I was concerned about at the time was whether Auran was going to be around for much longer)...

Cheers, Mac...

This post made some thing pop up in to my head, I believe. True, it is probably ethical for the route creators to honor the requirements of the content creators relating to use of an asset in a pawyare route by contacting them about it, but are the content creators themselves being ethical by making it hard on payware route creators by requiring such requirements?

Regards.

 

[leeferr]

This post made some thing pop up in to my head, I believe. True, it is probably ethical for the route creators to honor the requirements of the content creators relating to use of an asset in a pawyare route by contacting them about it, but are the content creators themselves being ethical by making it hard on payware route creators by requiring such requirements?

Regards.

There is an obvious anti-payware bias in the community. There are several reasons for this that we really don't need to debate here, but I believe that some of the bias is based on a genuine misunderstanding of what a payware route includes, what it doesn't include and how much work is involved in creating a quality route. I think many of us will think twice before we start another route. I've started a 150 mile Dem route from Chattanooga to Nashville and it'll probably take me at least a couple of years to complete it, but I doubt that it'll ever see anyone's computer except mine unless we can come to some kind of sensible solution to this. Perhaps N3V could modify their upload EULA by clairfying that by uploading to the DLS, the creator is allowing use of the item in payware routes. After all, creators are already doing that for routes released and distributed by N3V. It seems to be okay with the community for some reason if N3V uses DLS content in payware routes, but not for anyone else to do so.

Mike

 

[Pencil42]

I (think I) understand your points, Mike
I believe that additional permission is not required to reference a DLS item in any payware route, because N3V already has a license to distribute that content. The content creator's license doesn't matter at that point, because N3V is now distributing the content under their own license, right?

Now, that's not to say that asking the various creators wouldn't be a polite and nice thing to do - I believe it would. But I don't think it's a legal requirement.

Non-DLS content would obviously not be covered by N3V's license, so you'd be on your own there. Read what's in the license field, try to contact the creator, see what the license is at the download site, etc.

I agree it would be good to hear from some actual payware route authors to see what the actual practice is, but I could understand them not wanting to stick their head into this debate

Curtis

 

[leeferr]

snip...I agree it would be good to hear from some actual payware route authors to see what the actual practice is, but I could understand them not wanting to stick their head into this debate

Curtis

I don't think we'll be hearing from any either, but it's because I don't think that there's any out there that have actually obtained a separate 'permission' for every piece of content, whether, built-in, on the DLS or third-party. I could be wrong, so I'm still waiting for them to chime in. Sometimes, I'm not very eloquent in my speech, so it I explain my points in several different ways, please forgive me.

Mike

 

[mrscsi]

I don't think we'll be hearing from any either, but it's because I don't think that there's any out there that have actually obtained a separate 'permission' for every piece of content, whether, built-in, on the DLS or third-party. I could be wrong, so I'm still waiting for them to chime in. Sometimes, I'm not very eloquent in my speech, so it I explain my points in several different ways, please forgive me.

Mike

Actually this entire thread has made me consider it. I'm seriously considering obtaining a commercial license for TransDem so that I can create maps for sale.

What I may or may not include in those maps is entirely up to me. I may put track and some trees and some vegetation maybe even some switch boxes and/or buildings. IF I do it it will be using either built-in or DLS based content.

Also IF I do it and a content creator wishes to come on to the forums and mischaracterize what I am doing or in any other way defame me by calling me a thief, a freeloader, or any other of the disparaging comments that they have used so far in this thread I would not hesitate in the least to sue for defamation.

Because imagining that somebody is somehow violating some special copyright that you might have and actually going on an open forum and defaming someone are two completely separate things under the law.

The only reason I'm even considering it is that I am fully aware of what constitutes a payware route and what the CDP file actually contains and how it accesses with Auran/N3V system and what rules they have for that access.

It is that understanding that bolsters me to know full well that I am not violating anything of anybody. But if I do it, any content creator whose DLS assets I may or may not reference in a list can feel free to try to sue me for a bruised ego, but they better not go on record in an open forum mischaracterizing or defaming me in anyway, because that is something that can be sued over

 

[chrisaw]

On John's original problem, would it be possible to just substitute the copyrighted textures? I'd be happy to help out where I can, much better than losing content from the DLS.


As the discussion seems to have swung to what should, or shouldn't, be included in a payware route, why would anyone want to make such a route that requires DLS content?
Surely it should require only the bought route and the built in content from the version it's meant for. Who's going to be happy with the creator for providing something that doesn't run straight out of the box, and would require a FCT if the purchaser hasn't already got any additional content?


Chris.

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

But your route doesn't contain freeware it contains your map, a list of kuids and coordinates.

Well you're acting ignorant and arrogant by calling others freeloaders.

Then you go on to make another disparaging assumption about me after cautioning me on the COC, that's rich :hehe:

The fact is, and always will be, a route CDP does not contain any "FREEWARE" unless whoever packages it up puts it there. If it is just a CDP file that calls assets already on the DLS for registered users to use (freely I might add) nothing is being violated, not the spirit, not the ethics, nor any perceived copyrights.

If you can't grasp that then my initial description of you is extremely accurate. You called payware route builders "freeloaders" and then went on to talk about how people spend hours creating little masterpieces. So I'll ask again just who are you to tell somebody who spent years that they can only distribute their route for free?

They have just as much right to utilize the Trainz community as a content creator does. They do not have to bow to your wishes if they are adhering to the policies set forth by the DLS. You seem to think you have some kind of power that you don't as a content creator. The only power you have is to not create content for the DLS.

Once you press the accept button when you upload a piece of your precious content to the DLS you agree to abide by the policy. Again if I create a flat map and put every one of your assets on it and package it into a CDP file the only thing it's going to have is the terrain, a list of kuids and some coordinates. YOU don't have any right to say what I do with that particular file and you never will have.

If I sell it to 1 million people and they all access the DLS legally and pull every one of your assets to that map they have not violated any copyright whatsoever. Because they are using the DLS as it was intended to be used and how you agreed that your content would be used when you pressed the accept button when you uploaded your content.

Now you can whine and cry all you want and you can call people freeloaders all you want but it's not going to change the fact that that CDP file of that route does not contain your assets and you have NO right to tell anybody what they can do with that CDP file.

Now I guess the only remedy for you is to quit building content for the DLS, because as long as the DLS is in existence, route builders have every right to build a route and package that CDP file and either give it away or sell it and they're not being freeloaders they're not being unethical and they're not being thieves when they do it.

I don't know whether you are brain dead, senile or just plain ignorant.

I do know you are one arrogant bastard.

IKB.

 

[mrscsi]

I don't know whether you are brain dead, senile or just plain ignorant.

I do know you are one arrogant bastard.

IKB.

Coming from someone who constantly counsels others on the COC I guess I should say I'm surprised, but alas I'm not.

Confident yes, arrogant not so much. I am confident that I know exactly what is in a route CDP and I am confident that I know what isn't in a route CDP. I am also confident that I have been able to read and comprehend Auran/N3V policy as well as licenses exhibited by John earlier in this thread.

I'm extremely confident that putting together a route that lists DLS assets and making it for sale is neither unethical, immoral, illegal, or any whole host of other negative terms you wish to imply about it.

But make no mistake I'm not arrogant about it, I am however confident.

That you're either too bullheaded or just plain dense to accept it even when representatives from Auran/N3V tell you so, that's your hangup not mine.

You prefer to sit in an open forum and call people freeloaders and worse to what end? Do you think it's going to stop somebody from making a payware route that uses DLS assets? Do you usually have delusions of grandeur?

Long before you made your post (I'll let you in on a little secret) I had confidently made the same assessment about you, and I'll bet that my assessment is closer to the mark than yours is.

Because if you can't read and comprehend the agreement that is in front of you before you press the button to upload your content, can't or won't acknowledge that a route CDP contains no assets, and can't get over your little ego been bruised, then you really need a little self reflection and you need to quit projecting your inadequacies on other people.

 

[knight42]

Actually this entire thread has made me consider it. I'm seriously considering obtaining a commercial license for TransDem so that I can create maps for sale.

What I may or may not include in those maps is entirely up to me. I may put track and some trees and some vegetation maybe even some switch boxes and/or buildings. IF I do it it will be using either built-in or DLS based content.

Also IF I do it and a content creator wishes to come on to the forums and mischaracterize what I am doing or in any other way defame me by calling me a thief, a freeloader, or any other of the disparaging comments that they have used so far in this thread I would not hesitate in the least to sue for defamation.

Because imagining that somebody is somehow violating some special copyright that you might have and actually going on an open forum and defaming someone are two completely separate things under the law.

Wow. Your confrontational attitude has guaranteed that no content of mine will ever reach the DLS. I'll host it somewhere where I can specify clearly that it may not be used in payware routes and where the DLS T&Cs don't override that. Your "special copyright" be damned.

Strutting around tell us you can do what you like with OUR content - whether that is true or not - and threatening defamation suits doesn't paint you in a very good light.

 

[knight42]

Can someone from Auran explain why, if the DLS terms means content creators cannot limit the use of their assets, Content Manager has a "View License" button? Sure any license displayed by that button is negated by the terms of the DLS?

 

[mrscsi]

On John's original problem, would it be possible to just substitute the copyrighted textures? I'd be happy to help out where I can, much better than losing content from the DLS.


As the discussion seems to have swung to what should, or shouldn't, be included in a payware route, why would anyone want to make such a route that requires DLS content?
Surely it should require only the bought route and the built in content from the version it's meant for. Who's going to be happy with the creator for providing something that doesn't run straight out of the box, and would require a FCT if the purchaser hasn't already got any additional content?


Chris.

Well believe it or not Chris, there are a lot of people who want prototypical maps and offer quite a bit of money for them. Some people want them completely finished, others want them partially finished, and some just want the map and some track and maybe a building or two where a town is supposed to be so they can finish it to their liking.

The bottom line in the debate is you have content creators who say someone building a payware route that accesses anything on the DLS is a freeloader and the ripping off the content creators and or violating their licenses blah blah blah.

When actually the fact of the matter is this a route file contains no assets, just a list of kuids. And if they're making that route for registered users first-class ticket or no first-class ticket, they have every right to use built-in and DLS assets because they're not charging for them, they're not distributing them, they're not changing the license or violating the license in any way shape or form by including them in a route that is being sold to a customer.

The only way they would be violating anything is if they downloaded the assets and included them in the route CDP.

That's the bottom line and there are some who can't seem to grasp it or want to accept it. I have purposely stayed away from building routes for hire for a number of reasons, this issue not being one of them.

But when this thread appeared and I see the… (I really don't how to describe it) childish for lack of a better word attitude of some of the content creators on this issue and to have been called what I have been called in this thread for merely explaining the fact that it doesn't violate anything because it doesn't contain anything makes me want to go out and do it just on principle.

I'm confident I have the right, Auran/N3V says I have the right, but there are some content creators that swear regardless of what anyone says that they're right and the only way that they're right is if they can somehow renege on the agreement they made when they uploaded their content to the DLS.

Because if there wasn't a market for it we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is a market for it and these content creators know it and they seem to think they're being ripped off somehow when they have nothing to do with the process of building a payware route. So in essence they're demanding royalties for something that they're not entitled to.

John even posted a license agreement that undercut his argument. I'm not sure whether he meant to do it but he did. Because a payware route doesn't grant access, distribute, change, or do anything to an asset on the DLS. It just doesn't do anything to it. People don't buy payware routes for the assets they contain, they buy it for the topographical map and any time and talent spent placing assets on that map so that they don't have to. That's why people buy payware routes.

Now an asset creator has nothing to do with that process, they created their assets, they pressed the button and uploaded it to the DLS for the community to use. Now when some in the community decides to maybe use that asset, now they're crying foul. It's a little late for that in my opinion.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

I think the debate while being very intresting hearing everybodies point of view has now runs it course as we seem to be now going round in circles.

 

[mrscsi]

Wow. Your confrontational attitude has guaranteed that no content of mine will ever reach the DLS. I'll host it somewhere where I can specify clearly that it may not be used in payware routes and where the DLS T&Cs don't override that. Your "special copyright" be damned.

Strutting around tell us you can do what you like with OUR content - whether that is true or not - and threatening defamation suits doesn't paint you in a very good light.

You'd be confrontational too if you had been called what I've been called in this thread merely for stating a fact.

Because when you push the button and accept the agreement to upload to the DLS. I'm sorry if you don't agree with it but you have given access to everybody who is registered legally to use the simulation to use those assets.

Hosting off the DLS is always your choice, it's been the choice of many a content creator. But that threat doesn't change the fact that a route CDP contains no assets, that a route CDP whether payware or freeware accesses the DLS in the exact same way, that only registered users of the simulation with access to the DLS have access to those assets (which they've always had by the way) and no one else.

I mean if facts be damned you're right. But fortunately we don't live in the world where facts aren't facts. The content creators whining in this thread they don't want facts to be facts, they want to imagine that a route CDP is something other than what it is.

As far as my comments about defamation. After what I've been called in this thread and I've never made a payware routeI merely again stated a fact, IF I ever did make a payware route and a certain content creator who the comment was aimed at came into an open forum and shot his mouth off like he's done so far, most assuredly a defamation lawsuit would be in his future.

Because regardless of how you feel about a certain issue you can't go and lie about someone in an open forum and make disparaging comments about their character when they are absolutely positively not true.

That even holds true for England

And if I get called the names I've been called and have the remarks made about me that have been made about me in this thread and I haven't even made a payware route, what does that say about content creators?

Because I'll tell you something, I'm a content creator too and you know what? I was able to read and comprehend the license agreement and agree to it before I pressed the upload button.

I'm a firm believer in copyrights and licenses. But I also understand what I agreed to when I pressed the upload button for the DLS. I also understand what is and isn't contained in a route CDP. Call me of above average intelligence if you like, but I know what's in it and I know what isn't in it.

So if you want to live your life by emotion and have emotion rule your life, that's your choice. But facts are facts and the fact is that there is nothing unethical, illegal, immoral, any other descriptive phrase you'd like to use about creating a payware route that utilizes DLS assets.

Facts are stubborn things that are not easily dismissed.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Guys
I didn't want to have to do this, however again a small number of people have decided to use a discussion such as this as a war ground, in which they can throw around personal insults, etc.

We've allowed a fair bit to slide with this thread, purely because it allows everyone to actually look at this in a number of different ways. However, making personal attacks is not a way of achieving this.

We (N3V) have NOT stated that anyone can simply do as they please with the asset. What we have said is that the asset can be referenced by any other asset, so long as the user is not redistributing said asset (well, without permission anyway).