Ethics

[johnwhelan]

I have a license in my config.txt also, just to specify that you can do whatever you want with my assets. If someone wants to try and sell them - more power to them. Although, given that they are already available for free, they'd have to be a better salesperson than I am ;-)

Curtis

Different issue, I didn't create all the textures and don't hold copyright on them which means for some items I'm unable to license them for payware. It would need the copyright owner's permission to use them in payware.

I have changed the license on one asset I do own copyright of the textures to allow its use in payware.

Cheerio John

 

[johnwhelan]

I'm viewing all this with great interest as I have around 600 items I've made for my route so far, which will eventually get uploaded somewhere.

I do feel that there is a lot of over reaction going on though, without route builders payware or freeware there would be no need for any assets and without assets, again payware or freeware there wouldn't be any routes.

You need each other for the system to work, a creator is really no more important than a route builder, both are skills that take a considerable amount of time and research if done properly and creators of either should take in to consideration others wishes or concerns and maybe agree to compromise in some way.

Where did you get the textures for your creations? What license do they have? Trainzpro routes might well be a more appropriate place than the DLS depending on the license on the textures.

Cheerio John

 

[johnwhelan]

John
I can understand what your concern is and I respect it. I just don't happen to agree with your line of logic regarding this since the assets are only referenced by the route and not embeddend in it. We'll never agree on that and friends can certainly agree to disagree.

I think the bottom line is that you'll see fewer and fewer quality routes in the end. After all, content is created for the sole purpose to be used in a route and the more routes that the asset is used in, the more exposure that your talent receives. More and more, members are expecting higher quality routes. This is very time consuming and can take months and even years to complete. I'm not sure why that individual should be denied the use of content because he wants a little pay for his time and effort in assembling all of the pieces and parts into the quality route that everyone wants. If I have to go through and read every single config for every asset that I use in a route just to make sure that it's license doesn't prohibit its use in a payware route, then the route is probably not going to get released. If the route gets done at all, it's going to be for my own pleasure. It seems that's the only safe thing to do to keep peace in the family around here.

Issues such as this could bode ill for the future of route creation.

Thanks for listening

Mike

I'm not asking for payment to allow the asset to be used in payware routes, I simply don't have the correct license to permit it.

Cheerio John

 

[clam1952]

Where did you get the textures for your creations? What license do they have? Trainzpro routes might well be a more appropriate place than the DLS depending on the license on the textures.

Cheerio John

Mostly from sources that actually allow unrestricted use, they do exist if you search long enough, plus photographs, that is mine and ones from family members and friends, some I made from scratch using PSP / Photoshop, some creative commons and even found a couple of open source. I was fairly up on licensing restrictions on textures having done a bit of game development in a previous existence. Of course there is always the chance I missed something somewhere, there are those sites that "borrow" stuff from elsewhere, pays to check for embedded copyright notices just in case.

 

[mrscsi]

You have obviously never been a user of MSTS or RW then. Where the ownership of some payware is required to run a lot of freeware routes.

IKB.

Wrong, I own both.

I have quite a bit of payware for Trainz.

My astonishment is simple, if someone puts an asset on the DLS for the community of registered users who have access to the DLS because they are registered users of the game, why are people getting so upset if someone somewhere creates a route using those assets and then sells it?

Now again I'll reiterate, if a route creator is downloading assets from the DLS and packaging them with his route, that's wrong and shouldn't have happened.

But if all the route producer is doing is creating the route, aligning built-in and DLS assets along that route (in accordance with DLS rules by the way) then exports that route into a CDP file that contains nothing but a kuid and coordinates. THEN THAT commodity can be bought and sold without anyone having a right to say anything about it.

Once it's bought by an individual and imported into Trainz and if that individual is a registered user of Trainz and thus has access to the DLS by virtue of that registration then that route that they have purchased that is now their route, has just as much right as any freeware route to pull dependencies from the DLS.

Because the commodity that we are talking about is a CDP file that contains no assets, just a list of kuids and coordinates. That's all a route file contains.

And once an end-user owns a particular route by virtue of paying for it or creating it or downloading it, the DLS treats all of them the same as it should.

Because again the original poster seems to believe that people are making money off of his creations, I believe that's a fallacy. If I were to create a prototypical route and take time placing assets that are either built-in or on the DLS on that route, then I troubleshoot that route and beta test that route and build sessions for that route, and then I test it some more. After I'm sure that everything is working I put it up for sale, now I'm not selling John's assets. It's just isn't happening his assets are on the DLS were they've always been.

I'm selling all the work that I put into that route putting it together. And the end-user is paying me for doing all the work that they either didn't want to or couldn't do themselves.

That is the bottom line, no one is profiting off of other people's work and it's absolutely ludicrous to charge someone is, using a payware route as an example.

A much better case would've been made if he said that someone had taken one of his assets off the DLS and combined it with other assets or modified his asset in some way and is now selling that as payware. That argument I would've said was correct, it would be both unethical and probably illegal to do something like that.

But to merely put together a route like any other user is able to do in Trainz, and then decide to sell that route and you're somehow being called unethical or a thief I think is boneheaded. If the original poster didn't want anybody and everybody who is authorized by the virtue of being a registered user to have access to his work, he shouldn't have put it on the DLS.

 

[leeferr]

....I simply don't have the correct license to permit it.

That is the logic that I don't happen to agree with. But as I said, friends can agree to disagree and on that point, I disagree.

Hasta luego
Mike

 

[mrscsi]

I'm not asking for payment to allow the asset to be used in payware routes, I simply don't have the correct license to permit it.

Cheerio John

But John, how can you determine or the DLS determine or differentiate between a freeware route and a payware route? They are the exact same thing, identical in construction and content.

Now why I say that is simple, because when the end-user purchases the CDP for the payware route they are not getting your copyrighted textures, they are not included in that particular CDP file.

The only thing in that CDP file is a kuid and that same kuid exists in a freeware route. How are you going to determine whether or not someone sold that CDP of that route prior to them utilizing your content on the DLS?

Because you keep saying that you have textures that aren't licensed for payware, by virtue of you putting them on the DLS as freeware, you've upheld your license. If the route builder suddenly took control of that asset and said you must pay for access to it, you'd have an argument. But nothing is changing with access to your content. The content is still freeware it is not suddenly payware if someone puts it in a route and sells that route.

That's where I think your arguments falling short.

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

Wrong, I own both.

I have quite a bit of payware for Trainz.

My astonishment is simple, if someone puts an asset on the DLS for the community of registered users who have access to the DLS because they are registered users of the game, why are people getting so upset if someone somewhere creates a route using those assets and then sells it?

Now again I'll reiterate, if a route creator is downloading assets from the DLS and packaging them with his route, that's wrong and shouldn't have happened.

But if all the route producer is doing is creating the route, aligning built-in and DLS assets along that route (in accordance with DLS rules by the way) then exports that route into a CDP file that contains nothing but a kuid and coordinates. THEN THAT commodity can be bought and sold without anyone having a right to say anything about it.

Once it's bought by an individual and imported into Trainz and if that individual is a registered user of Trainz and thus has access to the DLS by virtue of that registration then that route that they have purchased that is now their route, has just as much right as any freeware route to pull dependencies from the DLS.

Because the commodity that we are talking about is a CDP file that contains no assets, just a list of kuids and coordinates. That's all a route file contains.

And once an end-user owns a particular route by virtue of paying for it or creating it or downloading it, the DLS treats all of them the same as it should.

Because again the original poster seems to believe that people are making money off of his creations, I believe that's a fallacy. If I were to create a prototypical route and take time placing assets that are either built-in or on the DLS on that route, then I troubleshoot that route and beta test that route and build sessions for that route, and then I test it some more. After I'm sure that everything is working I put it up for sale, now I'm not selling John's assets. It's just isn't happening his assets are on the DLS were they've always been.

I'm selling all the work that I put into that route putting it together. And the end-user is paying me for doing all the work that they either didn't want to or couldn't do themselves.

That is the bottom line, no one is profiting off of other people's work and it's absolutely ludicrous to charge someone is, using a payware route as an example.

A much better case would've been made if he said that someone had taken one of his assets off the DLS and combined it with other assets or modified his asset in some way and is now selling that as payware. That argument I would've said was correct, it would be both unethical and probably illegal to do something like that.

But to merely put together a route like any other user is able to do in Trainz, and then decide to sell that route and you're somehow being called unethical or a thief I think is boneheaded. If the original poster didn't want anybody and everybody who is authorized by the virtue of being a registered user to have access to his work, he shouldn't have put it on the DLS.

Of course they are profiting from using freeware. It allows the creator of the payware route to be lazy. If he wants to charge people for his or her creation, then that route should contain ONLY what he has created to use in the said route.

It should be an exclusive and unique release, with bespoke assets provided in regards the routes required assets. Custom buildings, trees, terrain textures, track.....etc etc etc.

Your view is symptomatic of society in general, these days. No morals, no manners, no honesty and most of all no ETHICS.

IKB.

 

[aardvark1]

Of course they are profiting from using freeware. It allows the creator of the payware route to be lazy. If he wants to charge people for his or her creation, then that route should contain ONLY what he has created to use in the said route.

It should be an exclusive and unique release, with bespoke assets provided in regards the routes required assets. Custom buildings, trees, terrain textures, track.....etc etc etc.

Your view is symptomatic of society in general, these days. No morals, no manners, no honesty and most of all no ETHICS.

IKB.

So then, how many payware routes, older or new, meet the legal and ethical requirements per the highlighted text in the quote above?

Anyone with the knowledge to answer, please do list them.

If there are any, then should a warning be published in the Payware Forum section stating that only the following route(s) are legal and ethical and do NOT purchase any other route(s) being sold.

Regards,

 

[leeferr]

Of course they are profiting from using freeware. It allows the creator of the payware route to be lazy.....

That is so far from the truth that it's sad. No one is being lazy. If I wanted, I could construct a route and every piece of content in it. The problem is that I don't think anyone would be willing to pay the price for a route and hundreds of pieces of custom content that would be required and if I spent that much time and effort on it, it certainly wouldn't be freeware, at least it wouldn't be on N3Vs DLS where they could change the rules on me tomorrow. What it actually does if give members a quality route for a token amount considering the amount of time required to create and assemble a quality route.

Mike

 

[Retro00064]

<snip>...and if its a kid they have no idea what this stuff means, they just what to play the game and have a great railroad expericence.

I like this. If our youth are sensible enough to not even care about the self-pride and what have you in the world, and enjoy Trainz just to enjoy it, then why can't we? Wouldn't it be cool if we could all forget ourselves just enough to create for and enjoy Trainz just for the fun of it, without even caring about the copyright on our own stuff. If we could forget ourselves and thus our copyrights (and I am of course excluding when e. g. a third-party texture is reused with permission from a Trainz creator), going down to the level of innocent children who enjoy Trainz for the purpose of just enjoying it, without caring about all of this other worldly stuff?

Given that we live in a world of sin (and each and every one of us are sinners), such wrong-doing has, is, and will be happening, no matter what we try to put in a little copyright license to control it. So, wouldn't it be nice if we could just forget ourselves and create for Trainz just because we enjoy it (and might even want what we are creating ourselves), and just because of the joy of seeing others enjoying our work, whether by using it in a route or by finding it a good resource to make or derive their own works from? If we could forget ourselves and all of this copyright and license madness, and just share our work for the pure purpose of sharing it for others to enjoy and reuse our work, without all of these rules that we put in a license that we each have to follow for each other's works, being able to see right-minded people be curteous to us just to be curteous, and not because we required it in our licenses, just simply loving our neighbors as ourselves as we have been commanded, wouldn't it be a lot kinder and nicer around here?

Of course, maybe all of this selflessness would only be possible in a prideless ideal world, not the world of wrong that we live in now.

My rant for today.

Regards.

 

[mrscsi]

Of course they are profiting from using freeware. It allows the creator of the payware route to be lazy. If he wants to charge people for his or her creation, then that route should contain ONLY what he has created to use in the said route.

It should be an exclusive and unique release, with bespoke assets provided in regards the routes required assets. Custom buildings, trees, terrain textures, track.....etc etc etc.

Your view is symptomatic of society in general, these days. No morals, no manners, no honesty and most of all no ETHICS.

IKB.

Actually my view comes from understanding what is and isn't actually in a CDP of a route.

That is strictly what I'm basing my view on. Because I would agree wholeheartedly if a route creator took every asset they used off the DLS and included it in the CDP file of that payware route that would be wrong, that would be stealing, that would be profiting off the backs of content creators.

But that is not the case. A route CDP contains nothing but coordinates and kuids, nothing more. The buying and selling of that particular CDP has nothing to do with anything on the DLS.

This is what I don't think you're grasping. Because that CDP of that route only contains assets that are freely available to those individuals who have ACCESS to the DLS by virtue of being a registered user of the simulation.

It's not free to the whole world, nothing has changed regarding access to those assets on the DLS, I could build 1 million routes with everything on the DLS on them and sell them and it wouldn't change the status of any of those assets on the DLS. They are still going to be freely available to anybody with access by virtue of being a registered user of the simulation.

The only thing I'm creating and selling is a concise list of those assets and placement coordinates. That is NOT somehow profiting off of anybody else's work.

Now of course I've never created payware route, hadn't really given it a lot of thought.

But this thread actually does give me some thoughts about obtaining a commercial license for TransDem and putting together some payware routes.

Because I'll guarantee if I do it, I will welcome any content creator who wishes to step up to the plate and try to sue me to just do it.

I don't think they'll get far, I think they'll be paying my legal fees as well as court costs, and they might just find themselves being countersued for defamation.

Because if I create a payware route and put it in CDP form and it does not physically contain a single one of their assets, in my opinion they can pound sand. Because I'm not violating any freeware licensing agreements because I'm not changing access to those assets on the DLS.

If someone buys one of my routes who doesn't have access to the DLS by virtue of being a registered user of the simulation, guess what? They can load it up and none of those assets will show up on the map. There again a payware route created by me would not be violating any freeware agreements or supposed licenses. Simply because I am not changing or controlling the access to those assets from what the content creators have already agreed to.

 

[bassist118]

From reading some of the posts in this thread I get the feeling that us Route Builders are at the bottom of the pecking order.... I have several routes on the go at the moment some of which I've been working on since 2007.... Tonnes and tonnes of hard work have gone into all my routes, now it seems like I'm a free loader because I download assets for my routes rather than spending thousands of extra hours creating assets for them... What am I meant to do, ignore the kids, get social services on my case and then get stopped from seeing the kids...

I am registered with my local authority as being blind (I have a severe eyesight disorder called Nystagmus) so work isn't exactly easy to come across... The amount of time I've been told I can't use a computer at interviews (which I obviously can't, obviously I can't use the internet or type or spell or use English properly).... Building routes is hard enough with my eyesight (go to bed with migraines quite often) but I enjoy it I find it soothing, educational and imaginative...

Now because I can't see well enough to create assets (trust me I've tried but all the buttons etc are extremely small in Blender or G-max) I'm a free loader... This kind of predigests I expect from employers but not the general public.... If anyone can point my to where it says you need to produce assets if buying the game then I'll hold my hands up and apologize for ranting... I have great respect for content creators and route builders alike but isn't a route also an asset?????????

Thanks for letting me get that out of my system :hehe::hehe:

Andy

 

[ZecMurphy]

I have items going back to 2004 which were uploaded under different license agreements some with a company called Auran that has since gone bankrupt. The licenses have changed, the players have changed, the interpretations have changed.

Perhaps we need to have a different DLS clean up.

Cheerio John

Actually, John, this part of the license has been in use for many years, not just since N3V took over. From my own experience (prior to working on the helpdesk), and from similar discussions (well, discussions on the terms and conditions for the DLS), the section that allows N3V (or Auran, as it was then) to use the content for sale has been in there since at least 2005. I'm reasonably sure it was in effect earlier than this, as the discussion was ongoing back then as well. Unfortunately, I really only became involved in Trainz in about 2004 (had owned UTC, but never became involved with the community till after TRS2004 was released).

The main issue, when it comes to the DLS, is that many people simply ignore the Terms and Conditions, or don't regularly check them when uploading (personally, I check it every 4-5 uploads, mainly so that I can use it as a 'checklist' for my models to ensure that they do 'fit' into the T&C).

 

[Beattie]

I like this. If our youth are sensible enough to not even care about the self-pride and what have you in the world, and enjoy Trainz just to enjoy it, then why can't we? Wouldn't it be cool if we could all <snip>forget ourselves just enough to create for and enjoy Trainz just for the fun of it, without even caring about the copyright on our own stuff. If we could forget ourselves and thus our copyrights (and I am of course excluding when e. g. a third-party texture is reused with permission from a Trainz creator), going down to the level of innocent children who enjoy Trainz for the purpose of just enjoying it, without caring about all of this.

Of course, maybe all of this selflessness would only be possible in a prideless ideal world, not the world of wrong that we live in now.

My rant for today.

Regards.

Yes very true our world right now is getting worse with more jerks everyday.
Sometimes I wonder if the adults forget what it is like to be a kid and dream of running a steam locomotive down the tracks, to tell you the truth I wondef why not forget payware. Now I know you spent a lot of time but, what about the people that can't build trains and the only train they want is payware. I think for a game charging just seems wrong for the kids. If the company was making the things sure makes sense but for anybody to build a tranand to make a killing is wrong.

You have a job for a reason to get money why ruin games with nothing but paying.

This was a big talk so anyways just my 2cents.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

I bearcat do here by state that I will not purchase or publish any PW routes for the trainz software that is unless they are for scientific research purposes.

 

[mrscsi]

I bearcat do here by state that I will not purchase or publish any PW routes for the trainz software that is unless they are for scientific research purposes.

So does this mean I can count you out of being a potential customer? I was counting on you being my only customer:hehe:

 

[Maddox61]

A voice from the new guy.

I just strated with Trainz about a week ago. Shoot, I'm so new, I still don't know how to create the content yet for myself, let alone upload it to auran.

However, I have read this entire thread and this is one of the most bussiest two way streets I have ever ran across.

First, I must agree with John. As a US citizen, our copy right laws here are very strict. If I simply add a persons image to my website I can be sued for copyright infringements. It appears that John is simply stating that it is not ethical, and should be prohibited without consent. Seems fair to me!

Yet, on the other hand, according to the Distibution Policy line 2.1 (a)
N3V reserves the right to distribute the assets as free ware or payware. It is at there discretion. Therefore, unfortunately, any copyright licences or royalty claims have been forfeited and the only one that would have a leg to stand on would be N3V for selling the content that they have been granted full rights to. And if N3V is employing some of these people to create routs fo them. Well, again, the rights have been waived according to the policy.

This still does not make it ethical. Though, ethical is to being human, as the law is to being simply a documentation.

 

[mrscsi]

A voice from the new guy.

I just strated with Trainz about a week ago. Shoot, I'm so new, I still don't know how to create the content yet for myself, let alone upload it to auran.

However, I have read this entire thread and this is one of the most bussiest two way streets I have ever ran across.

First, I must agree with John. As a US citizen, our copy right laws here are very strict. If I simply add a persons image to my website I can be sued for copyright infringements. It appears that John is simply stating that it is not ethical, and should be prohibited without consent. Seems fair to me!

Yet, on the other hand, according to the Distibution Policy line 2.1 (a)
N3V reserves the right to distribute the assets as free ware or payware. It is at there discretion. Therefore, unfortunately, any copyright licences or royalty claims have been forfeited and the only one that would have a leg to stand on would be N3V for selling the content that they have been granted full rights to. And if N3V is employing some of these people to create routs fo them. Well, again, the rights have been waived according to the policy.

This still does not make it ethical. Though, ethical is to being human, as the law is to being simply a documentation.

Okay but since your new I guess you can't tell me really how having an asset in a payware route versus a freeware route any different?

Those images that John used that he put on the DLS freely are still intact and being used as they were intended regardless of which type of route is accessing them.

This is what I find completely astonishing about this entire thread. People are trying to make a distinction and lay down some kind of judgment against the potential route maker saying that their content is not to be used in a payware route, when they really don't have any say in the matter.

In other words they're trying to usurp some kind of control that doesn't exist.

Because it doesn't matter if it's a payware route or a freeware route John's images are being accessed identically by the same people and only the same people.

Irregardless of the type of route, his assets are only being distributed in accordance with an agreement that he agreed to when he uploaded them to the DLS. They are not being distributed any differently but he seems to want to exert some kind of control that I find actually out of his purview.

If someone is willing to make a route and someone is willing to buy a route that's an issue between two people the buyer and the seller. If the buyer doesn't have access to the DLS as a registered user of the simulation, they don't get access to his assets, if they are a registered user of the simulation and have access to the DLS, they've always had access to his assets under his original license and nothing has changed.

 

[Gandalf0444]

Slightly different subject, but how can anyone in a license forbid you from customizing there objects(not to distribute mind you) for your own personnel use, however they B**** and moan if they see it altered...

SORRY Ever hear of fair use? It is on my machine I can do very well what the hell I want with it. It is FREEWARE. What are you going to do sue me for lost profits? Or for taking something free and changing it for myself?

Sorry but that is by far out of anyone's jurisdiction to even be allowed to put that into a license, freeware OR payware..

Payware is even worse. I bought it I can do what the hell I want with it(short of redistributing it)