See you next week, as an American you and I both know I'm correct…:hehe:
Ethics
- Thread starter johnwhelan
- Start date
- Status
See you next week, as an American you and I both know I'm correct…:hehe:
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
Might be legal Chris, but it is not ethical.
It's making money on the back of freeware.
IKB.
You're failing to get your point across here. In what way is that unethical?
If the payware author is misleading their customers, fair enough that's unethical (as well as probably illegal.)
If the payware author is making one thing, and the customers are taking that and combining it with something else, then how is that unethical on the part of the payware author?
Even if the payware author were to suggest it outright to the customers, how does that make it unethical?
(Note that I'm talking directly about the example in my previous post, the OP's situation is clearly more of a grey area.)
cheers,
chris
I still can't fathom this idea. No one that I know would admit to buying a payware route strictly for the content. They buy the route for the map, whether it be prototypical or whatever but no one I know would buy a map because it had a certain switchbox or certain building or certain tree or certain grass.
So I'm sorry it's not making money on the back of freeware. It would be making money by creating a map and putting all the little pieces together that the end-user either doesn't want to or doesn't have the patience or talent to do.
That's the part of the payware route that the creator is getting paid for not because he used so-and-so's trees or so-and-so's buildings or track.
Because if I was to take and create a flat map and put every asset that John has on the DLS on it, then if I was to export that to a CDP it would not physically contain a single one of his assets.
If I sold that flat map to a registered Trainz user who had access to the DLS and all his assets that are on the DLS, they would be able to open that map up in CMP and they could get all the dependencies.
Now I wouldn't be charging for his assets, I would be charging for my time creating the flat map and putting all his assets on it, not for the assets themselves. If someone bought it who is not a registered user of Trainz they would open that flat map and it would be a flat map with no assets on it. Again it's not making money on the back of freeware.
Because when anybody uploads to the DLS is with the understanding that the "Trainz community" who are registered users can download it and use it in their routes. If they buy a route from payware creators, it is THEIR route, and it's not breaking the rules or not really being unethical if they put that route into their copy of Trainz and using the DLS to pull dependencies. Because nonregistered users can't.
The route that they're buying contains no assets, it contains coordinates and lists of kuids, that's it. So no one is making money off the back of freeware.
Last edited:
And actually to further expound, how would you know if a payware route was using your assets?
You'd have to see a picture of one of your assets maybe in the screenshot, someone would have to tell you, or you would have to buy the payware route and see your asset.
Because you have no way of knowing if Joe blow registered user of Trainz loads up the map of oompa loompa land that he bought from somebody and it pulls your assets is dependencies from the DLS.
You have no way of knowing in reality even what your damages are if any, because when you uploaded your assets to the DLS you agreed that any registered user Trainz with access to the DLS could download them and use them in THEIR routes.
I'll still contend that when money changes hands for a payware route that ownership of that route changes from the creator to the end-user. And it is the end-users route at that point and they're not violating any rules or ethics by downloading dependencies from the DLS if they are authorized to do so by virtue of being registered.
Because the only thing they're not doing is physically placing the assets. That's been done for them, that's the only distinction you can draw between a freeware route and a payware route.
You'd have to see a picture of one of your assets maybe in the screenshot, someone would have to tell you, or you would have to buy the payware route and see your asset.
Because you have no way of knowing if Joe blow registered user of Trainz loads up the map of oompa loompa land that he bought from somebody and it pulls your assets is dependencies from the DLS.
You have no way of knowing in reality even what your damages are if any, because when you uploaded your assets to the DLS you agreed that any registered user Trainz with access to the DLS could download them and use them in THEIR routes.
I'll still contend that when money changes hands for a payware route that ownership of that route changes from the creator to the end-user. And it is the end-users route at that point and they're not violating any rules or ethics by downloading dependencies from the DLS if they are authorized to do so by virtue of being registered.
Because the only thing they're not doing is physically placing the assets. That's been done for them, that's the only distinction you can draw between a freeware route and a payware route.
NSWGR_46Class
Just call my Captain Rude
Ok I am going to push the boundries on this just that cm more. I do not even see the need for PW routes at all.
And yes I have routes on the DLS that I have spent years on, making sure that its as true to location as possible. Many hours of driving round taking photos, purchased research materials but I see no need to charge for this.
I did it as I enjoyed it.
I then put my routes on the DLS as its a great way to archive a copy and its just a bonus if anybody else downloads and runs it.
If anybody managers to make a million (insert local currency) out of a PW route drop me a line its about them I might stand up and take notice. There is no great mystery to making routes its just a matter of having a go.
And to quote my old man when I asked him why at 75 he still changes the oil in his own car....'there is no greater a fool than a man who pays someone to do something that he could have done himself'.....
And yes I have routes on the DLS that I have spent years on, making sure that its as true to location as possible. Many hours of driving round taking photos, purchased research materials but I see no need to charge for this.
I did it as I enjoyed it.
I then put my routes on the DLS as its a great way to archive a copy and its just a bonus if anybody else downloads and runs it.
If anybody managers to make a million (insert local currency) out of a PW route drop me a line its about them I might stand up and take notice. There is no great mystery to making routes its just a matter of having a go.
And to quote my old man when I asked him why at 75 he still changes the oil in his own car....'there is no greater a fool than a man who pays someone to do something that he could have done himself'.....
Last edited:
Over 100 replies - wow!
A creator may include in his/her DLS asset a 'License' which prohibits use on Payware routes. This 'License' has no legal weight, you can use the content on a payware route because the creator cannot in fact 'prohibit' it's use in such a way - he/she waved that right by the act of uploading to the DLS.
But is it's use in a payware route 'Ethical'? That depends I guess on what you mean by 'ethical'. To many it seems that 'ethical' = 'legal' which it doesn't, but if you see it that way I guess you consider it ethical.
Perhaps a better sense of the question in the OP would be to substitute the word 'Respectful' for the word 'Ethical' and ask: Is it 'respectful' to use an asset in a way which ignores the original creator's wishes?
I suspect that is a bit harder to argue against....
Andy
A creator may include in his/her DLS asset a 'License' which prohibits use on Payware routes. This 'License' has no legal weight, you can use the content on a payware route because the creator cannot in fact 'prohibit' it's use in such a way - he/she waved that right by the act of uploading to the DLS.
But is it's use in a payware route 'Ethical'? That depends I guess on what you mean by 'ethical'. To many it seems that 'ethical' = 'legal' which it doesn't, but if you see it that way I guess you consider it ethical.
Perhaps a better sense of the question in the OP would be to substitute the word 'Respectful' for the word 'Ethical' and ask: Is it 'respectful' to use an asset in a way which ignores the original creator's wishes?
I suspect that is a bit harder to argue against....
Andy
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
A fair question. Just to muddy the waters a bit further:
* Is it still disrespectful if the content creator never saw the license?
* Is it still disrespectful if the prevalent culture expects that free content can be freely used?
I'm not answering either of these, just posting them as food for thought.
chris
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
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.
NSWGR_46Class
Just call my Captain Rude
Now that is a fair question years ago, I had someone upset with me as I had reskined his item when the license said that he did not want this to happen, but by cloning an item in CMP and then editing the texture I had no need to open the config and read his notes.
I say if it free, its yours to do whatever except one thing sell it as payware and make money off of somebody elses work.
True true if they didn't see the license 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'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.
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.
The discussion seems to be going round in circles, however if we extend the issue beyond just Trainz it may give a better perspective. Can you imagine the uproar if a Railworks or MSTS payware route creator put out a route, but then stated in order for it to work, "You need to download xxx track system from the file library at UKTS or TS. However that's okay because we are not shipping it with the route, nor do we need to bother asking permission either."
There would likely be outrage that a payware developer could act in such a fashion and they risk their business being ostracised by the community.
Ultimately freeware assets have been created and distributed primarily for the use of other freeware authors. If you're doing a payware Trainz route that does not give you the right to a carte blanche shopping trip on the DLS to build your route on the back of other people's freely given work. Doesn't matter that the route is only referencing them, without those objects the route would not look the way it does and maybe even be less sellable.
Again at the risk of repeating myself, if an author sees a free asset that would look good in a commercial route you check the config and if permission is not granted by default you get it first.
There would likely be outrage that a payware developer could act in such a fashion and they risk their business being ostracised by the community.
Ultimately freeware assets have been created and distributed primarily for the use of other freeware authors. If you're doing a payware Trainz route that does not give you the right to a carte blanche shopping trip on the DLS to build your route on the back of other people's freely given work. Doesn't matter that the route is only referencing them, without those objects the route would not look the way it does and maybe even be less sellable.
Again at the risk of repeating myself, if an author sees a free asset that would look good in a commercial route you check the config and if permission is not granted by default you get it first.
IsambardKingdomBrunel
Joined June 2001
Hi!
These talks are really interesting...
As a content creator, if I see one of my creation on a layout, I am happy. And I don't care if it was freeware or payware layout.
Modelling is also a hobby, and don't forget - it is a game.
Yes - my models have also licenses in my config files - because I (want to) protect my models from illegal modification. I think this is the point.
But on the other hand - it is just an info (-> the content of my license) for me because - for example - if I make minor updates on my models I can give support...
If I protect my models from usage it would be sooo funny...:hehe:
OK I know that we are individual, but we/you shouldn't be angry if someone ask permission to use a given model on his/her payware layout. You can say No, of course, but think about that it was a very kind gesture from that person, and it is better than he/she wouldn't ask anything.
But even more... in connection with licenses:
Let's assume that I would build a payware layout. I use my own contents AND only builtin contents. Let's assume that there are builtin contents which have restrictions regarding the usage on payware maps in the licenses. What's now? Schizophrenic situation...:hehe:
And there is a lot of builtin content which have this kind of license... Funny...:hehe:
Krisz :wave:
These talks are really interesting...
As a content creator, if I see one of my creation on a layout, I am happy. And I don't care if it was freeware or payware layout.
Modelling is also a hobby, and don't forget - it is a game.
Yes - my models have also licenses in my config files - because I (want to) protect my models from illegal modification. I think this is the point.
But on the other hand - it is just an info (-> the content of my license) for me because - for example - if I make minor updates on my models I can give support...
If I protect my models from usage it would be sooo funny...:hehe:
OK I know that we are individual, but we/you shouldn't be angry if someone ask permission to use a given model on his/her payware layout. You can say No, of course, but think about that it was a very kind gesture from that person, and it is better than he/she wouldn't ask anything.
But even more... in connection with licenses:
Let's assume that I would build a payware layout. I use my own contents AND only builtin contents. Let's assume that there are builtin contents which have restrictions regarding the usage on payware maps in the licenses. What's now? Schizophrenic situation...:hehe:
And there is a lot of builtin content which have this kind of license... Funny...:hehe:
Krisz :wave:
Last edited:
amigacooke
Well-known member
Aren't laws an attempt to impose a set of morals?
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
Curtis
I don't care much for RW and it's all payware policies.
I do have quite a bit of MSTS payware, and yes it was for the content as well as the route. At least with MSTS, you do get your money's worth in my opinion. My last purchase was Sandpatch. For a reasonable price you get a very nice route and appropriate locomotives and rolling stock. They also threw in the B&O Heritage pack for free. A lot of payware for the $25 I paid at the time.
I would have to say I would be upset if I bought a Trainz payware route and had to download 1500 items off the DLS to make it work. If you want to go payware with routes, I think it needs a load of custom content not available anywhere else to be worth it. If not, it's like said above, I can do the same myself. Skill level not withstanding.
Dave......
johnwhelan
Well-known member
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
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked