Ethics

[Deano5]

Dear John,
I truly hope you do not take this route, as you are a valued member and creator in the Trainz world, to use only third party sites as our sim progresses forward to the big wide world of multiplayer would only cause us more harm than good. As the masses now choose to only use DLS content for their routes, it would be such a shame to have to lose so much good content as unusable in modern MP Trainz routes.
As always, this subject has been brought up from it's gutter to start another riot of EULA wars.
On the plus side, I did learn not to bother with payware routes as by the time I had got it looking anywhere near a decent and industry active route, I was just fed up with it. :hehe:

 

[johnwhelan]

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.

a

It doesn't but it does make it much less convenient for a payware route customer if the payware route doesn't automatically pull in the content from the DLS and convenience sells so it should lead to lower sales for them. I assume that N3V realise that one of the selling points of Trainz is the free content available on the DLS.

I realise that others will suffer but that is the price to pay since I have given undertakings that some textures will not be used for monetary gain. I also feel quite strongly about spending cash and many months of my time creating an asset that someone else basically gets money for my effort.

Cheerio John

 

[ex-railwayman]

This issue has been raised before. I think it got split into 3 major points.

1) Whose law do we stick to - Australian law for the DLS, Canadian law for John's creativity and his uploading of said content to the DLS, me, being British, for hypothetically building a Payware route utilising John's content on it and me selling it around the globe.

Nobody could give a definitive answer, as it's impossible to implement which Law was to be used.

2) 10 years ago when the game was in its infancy, the DLS was set up to provide a central area for end-users to upload content they had personally created for the benefit for any end-user around the world to download and install and play on their personal version of the game. The DLS, which to me doesn't look as though it has been touched since 2004 as it still has adverts on it from way back then, maybe does have a EULA somewhere, but, whatever it says on it is news to me, and maybe lots of other people also, can Chris show us where it is in full view of the public please.

Times have moved on, maybe 10 years ago there was no use for assets in Payware routes because there weren't any around, only the default routes in each version of the game that Auran brought out periodically, since there seem to be more layouts being sold these days, is it feasable that this EULA could be out of touch with today's requirements.

3) As has already been mentioned, we were once a smallish community, if folks decided to build a route it was only right and proper to ask permission from the asset creators if they minded their content being included on it. 99% would agree to this, the odd person said no, and gave a valid reason which was respected and their assets weren't considered. Over these last few years, Payware creators, who will remain nameless, didn't bother to ask for permission and just put onto their layouts any content they could get their hands on, this quite rightly infuriated a lot of creators, so much so, that a few even took their content off the DLS altogether. Some creators may not be too bothered if and how their content is used, others, like John, may now feel that too much is being taken for granted without as much as a thank you, let alone, anything financial.

I think this debate will rumble on, but, maybe one or two grey areas need sorting out for the future.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

 

[CaptEngland]

It doesn't but it does make it much less convenient for a payware route customer if the payware route doesn't automatically pull in the content from the DLS and convenience sells so it should lead to lower sales for them. I assume that N3V realise that one of the selling points of Trainz is the free content available on the DLS.

I realise that others will suffer but that is the price to pay since I have given undertakings that some textures will not be used for monetary gain. I also feel quite strongly about spending cash and many months of my time creating an asset that someone else basically gets money for my effort.

Cheerio John

As The title says `Ethics`

Ethic wise, using someone's stuff without asking for permission is wrong, do we all agree? As WindWalkr says, to quote

`Now, for a Trainz route, we don't actually embed the dependencies into the route itself. That means that you may make a route which depends on copyrighted items, and you may distribute that route in any way that you see fit (payware, freeware, whatever.) You are making copies of the route, but not of any of the dependencies. There are no legal issues, and certainly in my opinion no ethical issues with this process. Our content creation system depends on this. If the end user has the necessary dependencies, they will show up in your route. If they do not, they'll be missing from your route.`This I do agree to, to an certain extent.

I think what John is saying is that the textures he uses is used on the understanding that the item will always be free. The grey area that he faces is does a reference to his item, even if it is not included in a payware route, constitutes a ethical (or legal) breach of his use of someone else's texture? I would say no as he has used the texture in good faith and someone else is miss-using his content (in an ethical sense). I can see how John is thinking, but in my eyes, he has nothing to feel bad about.

Maybe Mr WindWalkr, people are getting so confused at the moment because of Skipper1945's content being ripped off and is still available on the DLS to download. The thread that was added to about content theft was closed when most of us complained (including skipper1945) but nothing seems to be done about it! Your company seems to want others to produce items to keep your sim alive, but now-a-days you don't want to support the people who make the items.

Please give us all a very good reason why we should all continue to support TS2012 if anyone can upload anything they like (ethical or not) ripping off other peoples hard work?

From a slowly getting fed up with N3V's ethics,

 

[Barry]

As a former trainz maker of routes and content on the DS, I understood freeware to mean freeware and not to be used for profit by others in any form or method of placing content in a route..unless agreed otherwise..as in the instance of payware used for a specific cause. Times seems to have changed, but as I only now make routes and content for myself in the Blender Game Engine my opinion is only academic. B

 

[pfx]

I would have to say I am behind John on this one. Granted, the DLS is freeware available to all but simply put, if you are going to use these items provided free, for financial gain, it is at least courtesy to ask the original creator regardless if it is freeware or not, regardless if it is only a reference to an asset.

However, I doubt very much there is any international law that would cover every disputed aspect of such use.

 

[Lots_Trains]

1) Whose law do we stick to

The law where the offense took place is the only law that counts. If its in Poland, Polish law, in China Chinese law ect ect. Nothing else counts.

If it goes to court, it goes to court in the country where the offense took place. generally in the closed court the where the offense took place.

Really is anyone seriously going to take any of this to court, the costs involved would be ridiculois. You have to wait till Coca Cola of some other corporate uses your texture and then sue them that the only way you gonna cover your costs

Really if someone wanted to sue me over Trainz stuff I'd pleaded not guilty so they have to come to my country and prove every single point, that would be horrendously expensive. Don't think to many here could afford that. And if I lost in court good luck trying to get the money out of me, I've got 5/8ths of stuff all.

Ethics mmmmm the old morals debate thing, don't think anyone has the right to impose their morals on anyone else, think they tried that in the dark ages, burning at the stake, witches that kinda thing, if its legal get over it.

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"?

Just because you right it in a licence, dosn't make it legally enforeable

I wonder how many here have actually spent a day in court (TV dosn't count) or even given evidence in court.

Cheers

Lots

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

Even though i don't always see eye to eye with John. I agree with his premis, that ethically it is wrong even if it is not illegal.

Without referencing his freeware, the said route would not exist in it's present form. Therefore without the freeware content the route would be unfinished and therefore not salable.

So in effect the creators are profiting from his freeware content.

Equals - Unethical.

IKB.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

The DLS, which to me doesn't look as though it has been touched since 2004 as it still has adverts on it from way back then, maybe does have a EULA somewhere, but, whatever it says on it is news to me, and maybe lots of other people also, can Chris show us where it is in full view of the public please.

the EULA appears when uploading content from CMP, or the location where you upload content in your planet auran account.

N3V Content Creation and Distribution Policy

Table of contents

General terms
1. Consideration
2. N3V's rights
2.1 Grant of license
2.2 No conveyance
2.3 Rights to remove
3. Warranties
4. Indemnity
4.1 Limitation of Liability and Indemnity to N3V
4.2 No Indemnity by N3V
5. Limitation of liability
6. General
6.1 No partnership
6.2 Inconsistent law
6.3 Governing law
7. Interpretation
8. Contact Details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General terms
This is a legally binding license agreement ("license") between you, the uploader of New Works to the Auran Download Station and N3V Games Pty Ltd (ACN 118 743 534) ("N3V") in relation to N3V?s rights to your copyrighted works. This license governs N3V's and, where applicable, its Representatives and Related Entities use of your works. By uploading New Works to the Auran Download Station, or otherwise using the Auran Download Station, you are deemed to consent to, become bound by, and become a party to all the terms and conditions of this license. If you do not agree to all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, do not upload works to or otherwise use the Auran Download Station. Your continued use of the Auran Download Station is taken as your continued agreement to this license.

1. Consideration
In addition to the other obligations in this agreement, the parties enter this agreement in consideration of:

(a) N3V providing you the Auran Download Station service (for such time as it decides in its absolute discretion); and
(b) you granting N3V those rights set out below.


2. N3V's rights

2.1 Grant of license
With regard to all your New Works uploaded to the Auran Download Station, you grant to N3V a personal, transferable but non-exclusive license to those New Works in order that N3V can redistribute the New Works to third parties:

(a) by making the New Works available for download from the Auran Download Station for free or for payment;
(b) by including the New Works on a CDROM or DVDROM (or other storage medium) that is made publicly available for sale or that is given away; or
(c) both (a) and (b).

2.2 No conveyance
The grant of the license in clause 2.1 ("Grant of license") is not and cannot be deemed to be a sale, transfer or any other conveyance of your intellectual property rights held in the New Works.

2.3 Rights to remove
N3V retains the right to remove any or all of your New Works from the Auran Download Station at any time and for any reason.
You can contact N3V and request that N3V remove all or any of your New Works from the Auran Download Station but N3V is under no obligation to do so.


3. Warranties
You warrant to N3V and its Representatives and Related Entities that the New Works that you upload to the Auran Download Station:
(a) are free from all computer viruses;
(b) do not infringe any copyright, patent, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any person;
(c) do not contain any 3D meshes, textures or other computer files created or distributed by N3V that have not been substantially modified; and
(d) are appropriate for download by all members (including minors) of the Planet Auran community.


4. Indemnity

4.1 Limitation of Liability and Indemnity to N3V
You acknowledge that N3V is in no way responsible for the New Works and can in no way be considered liable for any of their contents. In addition to this limitation, you agree to indemnify N3V for all loss, damage and costs that N3V may suffer or incur arising out of:
(a) N3V's distribution of your New Works; or
(b) in respect of any claim made or legal or regulatory action brought against N3V arising out of or relating to any of your New Works.

4.2 No Indemnity by N3V
N3V does not and will not indemnify you for any loss or damage suffered arising from:
(a) your use of the Auran Download Station;
(b) you uploading New Works to the Auran Download Station; or
(c) N3V allowing third parties to download your New Works.


5. Limitation of liability
If N3V is ever found to be liable to you, N3V's liability is limited in all circumstance to one of the following options, as selected by N3V:
(a) removal of the New Work in question from the Auran Download Station; or
(b) supply of a similar service to that of the Auran Download Station.


6. General

6.1 No partnership
Nothing contained or implied in this agreement constitutes a party becoming the partner, agent, or legal representative of the other or creates any partnership, agency or trust, and no party has any authority to bind another party in any way.

6.2 Inconsistent law
To the extent permitted by law, this agreement prevails to the extent it is inconsistent with any law.

6.3 Governing law
This License is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Queensland, Australia and by using the Software you submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Queensland, Australia and their courts of appeal.


7. Interpretation
These meanings apply unless the contrary intention appears:

Auran Download Station: means the website and service maintained and run by N3V that allows people to upload New Works and allows other to download them.

Business Day: means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Brisbane, Australia.

New Work: means a computer file (or package of computer files) that can be used in one or more of N3V's or a third party's products to display or edit artistic, musical, literary, cinematographic or other copyrighted works. (For example a 3D model of a train carriage and its associated graphical textures for use in N3V's Trainz product is a New Work).

Planet Auran: means that online web service previously provided by Auran Holdings Pty Ltd ABN 73 081 393 311 but now provided by N3V for the users of its websites (with the main website address being www.auran.com).

Related Entity: has the meaning it has in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cwth).

Representative of a party: means an employee, officer, director or auditor of that party.


8. Contact Details
N3V can be contacted at:

N3V Games Pty Ltd
58 Kingston Drive
Helensvale QLD 4212
Australia
Phone:+61 (7) 5657 7141
Fax: +61 (7) 5657 7191
Copyright 2009 N3V Games Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Vern]

Re indirect inclusion of freeware assets in a payware route, I think I have to come down on John's side with this. Freeware is not free for all and means the author has supplied it at no cost to the end user (excluding subscriptions to a third party site for a file library) and in turn makes no money off it's use. Therefore fair to say no one else should profit from inclusion of an item in a route, even if this is via indirect means and not bundled with the route itself.

At a minimum I would expect a payware route author wanting to make use of such an item would contact the author for permission. At that time, any royalty payment could be agreed, minimum of which I would expect to be a free copy of said route in return. If permission is not given then the route author should not use it.

If an author chooses to do payware then they step up to a whole different level. If you want to make money off selling content then you need to have a business model and support mechanism which includes associates for the supply of items for the route, if you can't build them yourself. Populating a route that references free objects from the DLS and selling the same for money without any consideration for the asset providers invokes very dubious morals and ethics.

 

[handlaidtrack]

This thread has proved to be an interesting read. While I'm not going to specifically argue either side, I have over the past few weeks been thinking about things that are certainly relevant to a discussion on the ethics of payware routes.

Shortly after buying Trainz, I had visions of creating a payware route to make a few bucks. Well, the idea was short-lived and I'm now simply aspiring to put a descent freeware route on the DLS to share with others (stage 1 is well under way at this time). Even so, the same issues crop up. I downloaded the Murchison demo layout, test ran it, and had decided to buy the content pack to complete the route... I would have done so, except I was heading off to Reno for three weeks, and figured I'd do it when I got back... While there, the realization hit me that having payware anywhere in my database would prevent me from sharing my work on the DLS because I would undoubtedly be using some of the same assets (unless of course surveyor warns users when they are about to use a payware asset - I sincerely doubt that).

The net result is that SirGibby (the author of Murchison) lost a sale because of this ethical dilemma, through no fault of his own.

A second thought I had was that anyone wanting to make money from Trainz would be better off producing locomotives than attempting to sell a route. Let me make a comparison here between the Murchison route, and the "Blue Comet" set.
Reading the sales blurbs available from the respective websites, we discover that Murchison represents over 4000 hours of development time, and contains many supporting assets that are not available on the DLS. We also read that the Blue Comet contains a locomotive and 5 passenger cars. The passenger cars are all similar in shape and color, so once the first one is done, the others require a lot less work to produce.
The Blue Comet set sells for about half what the route does, but I very much doubt it represents 2000 hours development time.

With the 1000's of assets needed to make a decent route, using only self-made content is a bit of a tall order, and using only built-in content is going to mean that it is only compatible with a single version of Trainz (I read somewhere that 2012 cut back on built-in content considerably, so anyone spending the last year creating a great route for 2010 is not going to be able to sell it to 2012 users). The more I think about it, the more sceptical I become about anyone who announces their intention to produce a payware route. Even in the above example, the route is supplied free; only the supporting assets are charged for.

So, there's my two-cents worth on this most interesting debate.

 

[RRSignal]

[offtopic reply]Well, in defense of Sirgibby, there are easy ways around this. I had planned to do this earlier, but decided to wait until I got TS12 settled in. I will install TS12 twice, into two separate directories - one for my development stuff, one strictly for driving trains including full routes and payware. Not only will this prevent me from accidentally using payware in my routes, but it will also reduce the likelihood I will use hard-to-find freeware items as well. I had partially done this already with TS2010, with one version used exclusively for the DLS Cleanup, another "main" installation with everything else.[/offtopic reply]

Point taken though. I don't want to take sides either and find this really a pointless argument: Content creators cannot realistically enforce their licenses, and I tend to doubt most route creators will make back a reasonable profit versus what they put into it in terms of labor, tools, hosting, etc.

 

[sniper297]

Frankly that's why I never went payware, if there was a lot of money in it I could certainly use the money, but I don't think it would amount to very much.

As for legality, in the example I posted before, if I made a payware urban route with extensive use of DMDrake's buildings, I doubt that any court would have trouble declaring it "derivative works" and therefore actionable.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

Ok here is the question does it work both ways - am I able then use payware assests and then have them on a freeware route.

I would think that if the creator put in his liceance that the asset was not to be used in a pay route that, that would have then covered the use of not being on a payware. Route.

Interesting that N3V state that the laws that are to be applyed are the QLD Laws = which have some of the most intresting copyright laws around.

 

[WindWalkr]

1) Whose law do we stick to - Australian law for the DLS, Canadian law for John's creativity and his uploading of said content to the DLS, me, being British, for hypothetically building a Payware route utilising John's content on it and me selling it around the globe.

Nobody could give a definitive answer, as it's impossible to implement which Law was to be used.

Just because you don't know doesn't mean there isn't an answer. Try taking an issue like this to court and you'll find out pretty quickly.

The DLS ... maybe does have a EULA somewhere, but, whatever it says on it is news to me, and maybe lots of other people also, can Chris show us where it is in full view of the public please.

Here's one copy- http://www.auran.com/trainz/AuranContentCreationandDistributionPolicy.htm

This license is shown in various places, including within CM.

kind regards,

chris

 

[mrscsi]

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.

But the route creators not making money from the freeware content. Because I will propose that if someone buys a payware route solely based on whether or not it contains a reference to a freeware asset, please introduce me to that person I need to take their money:hehe:

People are buying a payware route for the things that aren't on the DLS not the things that are.

 

[aardvark1]

Just because you don't know doesn't mean there isn't an answer. Try taking an issue like this to court and you'll find out pretty quickly.




Here's one copy- http://www.auran.com/trainz/AuranContentCreationandDistributionPolicy.htm

This license is shown in various places, including within CM.

kind regards,

chris

Chris....
The above is posted here.... including phone numbers.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=793385&postcount=29

Have fun,

 

[mrscsi]

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.

If you were to package his buildings up into your CDP file of your route, you would be correct you would owe him something.

As long as all you're doing is assembling pieces on a baseboard map thus creating a detailed reference of coordinates and kuids, and all you're selling is that detailed reference of coordinates and kuids you don't owe anybody anything. Because he's not over your shoulder telling you where to put the buildings on the map.

Now you feel obligated that's a whole different story. But as long as you're just merely creating a list of assets and coordinates and a topographical map all put together in a package that takes advantage of the DLS system for registered users, you can sell that all day long and on the weekends, because you're not selling a single piece of freeware.

Your merely selling a concise list of assets that any registered user can pull off the DLS for free, you're not charging them for that service, just for your time putting together the list of assets and coordinates.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

I think on a PW route as long as you do not included any item that a person has expressed that they do not want on a PW route all is ok.

 

[ShadyCadence]

While I'm not a lawyer or familiar with Australian law, I do know some fundamental principles of law here in the US. You can sue anyone for anything, period. And I'm sure you'll have no shortage of lawyers willing to sue anyone for anything on your behalf. But one of the first things the lawyer is going to ask you is "What harm has befallen you because of this individual's actions?"
Has he obtained money that, in his absence, would have otherwise gone to you?
Is he claiming that your specific creation is his own, or using it as a component in a larger creation? If his "payware product" is your creation on an empty baseboard, you may have a case. The more "other" items he adds to the product, the less of a contribution your item becomes, and as such, the likelihood of your case succeeding diminishes.
Has his inclusion of your creation in his product diminished or tarnished your reputation?
Have you been accused of a crime as a result of his actions?

Without harm being demonstrated, the chance of any civil lawsuit succeeding is very slim at best. The notion that you can give something away, and simultaneously retain control over it is going to be a tough sell, regardless of any license agreement written.

As far as this being a criminal act, if you live in an area that has the time and the resources to prosecute someone for violating the license agreement of something someone gave away for free, run for your life. In most places, I believe littering is considered a more severe crime.

Another thought as far as intellectual property goes, isn't the image of something as much a part of the intellectual property as the product itself? And as such, did we all obtain permission from the various locomotive manufacturers, car manufacturers, railroads, et al, for the use and possible profit from, the images and visages, paint schemes and heralds of said entities in our own little universe?
So in that sense, isn't this entire operation kind of a "criminal" enterprise?
(granted you scratchbuilders are exempt from this)

If the law was as straightforward as most people think it is, we wouldn't need lawyers.