Ethics

[mcguirel]

I truly fear this is openning a can of worms which will ultimately be the demise of the DLS as Content Creators will just vow not to contend with the issues that is being discussed in this thread.

How sad this topic has had to come up. It demonstrates the community does not have any respect for those content creators WHO state how they feel their hard work should be utilized in the License.

 

[RRSignal]

Honestly, Brittany, I think it's the other way around; the relative lack of payware compared to other train simulators demonstrates the strength of the DLS. One could argue whether the reason is the respect of the community for CC's wishes or the general confusion over licensing terms - I'm sure it's quite a lot of both.

But I'm gonna keep beating this drum: If you are going to put out a piece of payware, how about just some courtesy and asking permission?

 

[mcguirel]

But I'm gonna keep beating this drum: If you are going to put out a piece of payware, how about just some courtesy and asking permission?

Can not agree more with that statement and I believe one of the many debated tangents of this post is whether there is a stated requirement or a N3V DLS EULA override ( I believe there is not ).

One could argue whether the reason is the respect of the community for CC's wishes or the general confusion over licensing terms?

This is exactly what I was basing my comment on above. It could deter more content creators to find alternative means of distribution, but I can not predict the future and it is only an educated opinion.
I guess I will just remain silent and just be an observer of this post.

 

[leeferr]

I don't know the answer to this as I don't own any payware routes, so I'm just throwing it out there. It appears that the Settle and Carlisle route and the Murchison 2 route are very popular among members on this forum. Do these routes contain any content that have these payware restrictions in their licenses?

Mike

 

[Pencil42]

Well, those two routes are distributed / sold by N3V, so they already have rights to any content on the DLS.

 

[johnwhelan]

Well, those two routes are distributed / sold by N3V, so they already have rights to any content on the DLS.

I think the concern is other payware creators, to some extent N3V I can live with as a necessary evil.

Actually since I have formally requested the content that I don't have the correct licensing for the DLS is removed from the DLS that solves the problem for the future. The first 33 have been identified to N3V and we will see what unfolds.

Cheerio John

 

[leeferr]

Well, those two routes are distributed / sold by N3V, so they already have rights to any content on the DLS.

Now we've entered a 'gray' ethical area. It's okay for N3V to use the content that Johns concerned about, but not the rest of us. It's no longer black and white (or maybe some are more equal than others).

 

[Pencil42]

Now we've entered a 'gray' ethical area. It's okay for N3V to use the content that Johns concerned about, but not the rest of us. It's no longer black and white (or maybe some are more equal than others).

Not at all - the uploader of a piece of content specifically gives N3V permission to use those assets. No specific permissions are given to the public at large. That's why those two routes are bad examples to use for this discussion.

Curtis

 

[mrscsi]

You are just being pedantic now.

A. The freeware route is not gaining any monetary reward from someones FREE content

B. If you want to make money out of the rest of this "so called community". Then do it without freeloading from people who have spent many hours creating FREEWARE content. Without a thought of making money from their own creations.

I could not careless whether the freeware asset is only a reference in a kuid list. The intent is to make monetary gain by selling a route, with the least possible effort required. By blatantly using freeware content.

IKB.

But life is all about the minute details

You can't call an apple an orange, not and be looked at as sane anyway. That's what your definition actually does, you're trying to call an apple an orange or a grapefruit instead of calling them all apples because that's what they are.

Because a payware route is not gaining any monetary value from someone's free content. You seem to put little stock in the art of route building, you seem to think that they are freeloading off the backs of real content creators who spend hours, hours…

That kind of thinking is going to fracture the community, maybe it should be fractured, maybe it should be shattered.

Because there are people that spend years not hours, creating routes and now you're trying to tell them they have to give it away. Just who do you think you are?

Just who do you think you are? You're somebody who put a asset on a free server and begged people to use it, and now after someone uses it you're wanting to say "oh no you can't use it" well too late you've already hit accept on the rules for the DLS.

Nobody is selling anybody else's assets. That's the part that you obviously can't grasp, your hostility and disdain for route builders calling them "freeloaders" shows your utter ignorance and arrogance, if no one wanted routes, or needed routes, you'd be right

But without realistic routes you'd be running one he your banana vans around one of John's buildings and that just would be no fun:hehe:

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

But life is all about the minute details

You can't call an apple an orange, not and be looked at as sane anyway. That's what your definition actually does, you're trying to call an apple an orange or a grapefruit instead of calling them all apples because that's what they are.

Because a payware route is not gaining any monetary value from someone's free content. You seem to put little stock in the art of route building, you seem to think that they are freeloading off the backs of real content creators who spend hours, hours…

That kind of thinking is going to fracture the community, maybe it should be fractured, maybe it should be shattered.

Because there are people that spend years not hours, creating routes and now you're trying to tell them they have to give it away. Just who do you think you are?

Just who do you think you are? You're somebody who put a asset on a free server and begged people to use it, and now after someone uses it you're wanting to say "oh no you can't use it" well too late you've already hit accept on the rules for the DLS.

Nobody is selling anybody else's assets. That's the part that you obviously can't grasp, your hostility and disdain for route builders calling them "freeloaders" shows your utter ignorance and arrogance, if no one wanted routes, or needed routes, you'd be right

But without realistic routes you'd be running one he your banana vans around one of John's buildings and that just would be no fun:hehe:

I am a route builder myself and i wouldn't dream of selling it, if it contained freeware.

I would at least have the decency to either learn how to make the required assets myself, or team up with someone to get them made and split the profits.

Don't call me ignorant or arrogant, you don't know me. Personal attacks also contravene the forum COC.

You seem to be very free with other peoples property, it must be the way your parents brought you up.

As to the pathetic attempt at humour, about the banana van and John's building. I didn't make my first post in this thread, in support of my own interests. I made it in support of John's point of view and because i believe him to be right.

I don't actually have any assets on the DLS, anything on there under my kuid, was originally upload years ago on behalf of John.

IKB.

 

[mrscsi]

I am a route builder myself and i wouldn't dream of selling it, if it contained freeware.

I would at least have the decency to either learn how to make the required assets myself, or team up with someone to get them made and split the profits.

Don't call me ignorant or arrogant, you don't know me. Personal attacks also contravene the forum COC.

You seem to be very free with other peoples property, it must be the way your parents brought you up.

As to the pathetic attempt at humour, about the banana van and John's building. I didn't make my first post in this thread, in support of my own interests. I made it in support of John's point of view and because i believe him to be right.

I don't actually have any assets on the DLS, anything on there under my kuid, was originally upload years ago on behalf of John.

IKB.

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.

 

[leeferr]

Not at all - the uploader of a piece of content specifically gives N3V permission to use those assets. No specific permissions are given to the public at large. That's why those two routes are bad examples to use for this discussion.

Curtis

As I first said, I don't own any payware routes, so I just picked two that I had heard of. Pick one or two of your own choosing is you'd like. 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. If someone out there has actually done that, I'd love to hear from you. My point about John's perceived problem is that I doubt that he realized when he uploaded the items that they might be used in a payware route sold by N3V. He says that he can live with it as a necessary evil. Well, if he's going to stick to his opinion about certain textures not being authorized for payware, what's changed that it's an issue that he can now live with as far as N3V is concerned. I'm not trying to attack you here John, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just trying to sort it all out because ethics are never 'black and white'.

Mike

 

[johnwhelan]

Because there are people that spend years not hours, creating routes and now you're trying to tell them they have to give it away. Just who do you think you are?

Just who do you think you are? You're somebody who put a asset on a free server and begged people to use it, and now after someone uses it you're wanting to say "oh no you can't use it" well too late you've already hit accept on the rules for the DLS.

My latest coach has in fact taken well over a to create as my beta testers are able to confirm. My content has been uploaded to the DLS over a number of years, during that time the upload rules have change, the players have changed on the Auran and N3V side and the interpretations have also changed. We have two licenses in conflict that attached to the asset and N3V's current license and I do not have the authority to meet N3V'S current interpreted requirements. They have brought to my attention that DLS content should now be licensed in such a way to permit it to be included in payware and I have brought this to their attention that I am unable to do this.

From the quite large number of assets on the DLS that do include restrictive licenses in their assets I think we can conclude that the accepted understanding of content creators was that they do retain some rights and the comment from WindWalkr and Zec do seem to indicate that this generally accepted view from content creators is no longer the case.

Note we are not talking only scenery objects here I quote AJ_Fox http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=794296&postcount=69

This one is from <kuid2:44090:15040:1> which was uploaded on Date: 16th Jan 2007 to the DLS. There are many others from other content creators.

license "IMPORTANT READ CAREFULLY: This License Agreement (AGREEMENT) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Paul Hobbs (THE AUTHOR) for the installation and use of the content, which may include online or electronic documentation, associated media and printed materials (PRODUCT). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this AGREEMENT. If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, do not install or use the PRODUCT.

All files contained within the PRODUCT remain the property of THE AUTHOR.

The AGREEMENT grants you permission to use the PRODUCT for your own personal private use, but NO permission is granted to modify, distribute, sell or re-sell the PRODUCT, in part or in full, unless written permission has been obtained from THE AUTHOR.

Disclaimer
--------------
This PRODUCT and any support from THE AUTHOR are provided 'as is' and without warranty, express or implied. You use the PRODUCT at your own risk, THE AUTHOR and AURAN (the producers of Trainz) will not be liable for data loss, damages, loss of profits or any other kind of loss while using or misusing this PRODUCT.

If you do not agree with the terms of this license you must delete all files contained in this PRODUCT from your storage devices.

Copyright © 2005, THE AUTHOR
All Rights Reserved.
MODELS AND TEXTURES COPYRIGHT © 2005 PAUL HOBBS

EMAIL: paul.hobbs@web.de"

Cheerio John

 

[leeferr]

snip....The AGREEMENT grants you permission to use the PRODUCT for your own personal private use, but NO permission is granted to modify, distribute, sell or re-sell the PRODUCT, in part or in full, unless written permission has been obtained from THE AUTHOR.....snip

This is where we part differences of opinion I guess. A payware route creator (or a freeware route creator for that fact) is not doing any of those things. The route creator is NOT modifying, distributing, selling or re-selling the product. Once the route is finished, you can download the route, but you don't have the completed route until you download the content from the DLS (or a third pary). If the route creator was distributing the content in question, then there wouldn't be any need to download it separately. When you purchase a route, you haven't purchased the content in question. You still have to go elsewhere to download it if you want a completed route, so the route creator has not collected any money for the distribution of any content. So you're really confusing me when you tell us that a payware route creator is distributing the content when you actually have to download the content separately if you want it.

Mike

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi All

This is aimed particularly at John, who has been stating the rules have changed.

They have not... The Terms and Conditions for uploading to the DLS have not changed for some time, apart from being updated to cover the change from Auran to N3V last year.

The section where permission is granted to us (N3V/Auran) to use the item in a commercial product (e.g. built-in content in a Trainz release, included in an add-on pack, etc) has been in the Terms and Conditions section for many years (it's been in there since at least 2005, and I'm reasonably sure it was there prior to the release of TRS2004 - I know there were discussions on this exact area since the time I became more involved in the community in 2004/5).

In fact, the entire terms and conditions have remained basically the same since at least 2005/6.

Remember, you are the one who agreed to those Terms and Conditions when uploading. And this includes all of the terms and conditions, which I strongly urge all users to read before uploading.


Now, in regards to Paul's 'license', I don't see where he prohibits the use of the asset in payware, so long as the asset itself is not redistributed or sold. Seeing as a payware route doesn't actually contain the asset (just a coordinate for the asset, and the kuid number to tell Trainz where to place the asset) it doesn't actually include the asset, nor does it redistribute it. It simply references the asset (in the same way that I can reference the mesh of another asset using the mesh-asset tag).

 

[mrscsi]

My latest coach has in fact taken well over a to create as my beta testers are able to confirm. My content has been uploaded to the DLS over a number of years, during that time the upload rules have change, the players have changed on the Auran and N3V side and the interpretations have also changed. We have two licenses in conflict that attached to the asset and N3V's current license and I do not have the authority to meet N3V'S current interpreted requirements. They have brought to my attention that DLS content should now be licensed in such a way to permit it to be included in payware and I have brought this to their attention that I am unable to do this.

From the quite large number of assets on the DLS that do include restrictive licenses in their assets I think we can conclude that the accepted understanding of content creators was that they do retain some rights and the comment from WindWalkr and Zec do seem to indicate that this generally accepted view from content creators is no longer the case.

Note we are not talking only scenery objects here I quote AJ_Fox http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=794296&postcount=69

This one is from <kuid2:44090:15040:1> which was uploaded on Date: 16th Jan 2007 to the DLS. There are many others from other content creators.

license "IMPORTANT READ CAREFULLY: This License Agreement (AGREEMENT) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Paul Hobbs (THE AUTHOR) for the installation and use of the content, which may include online or electronic documentation, associated media and printed materials (PRODUCT). By installing, copying, or otherwise using the PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this AGREEMENT. If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, do not install or use the PRODUCT.

All files contained within the PRODUCT remain the property of THE AUTHOR.

The AGREEMENT grants you permission to use the PRODUCT for your own personal private use, but NO permission is granted to modify, distribute, sell or re-sell the PRODUCT, in part or in full, unless written permission has been obtained from THE AUTHOR.

Disclaimer
--------------
This PRODUCT and any support from THE AUTHOR are provided 'as is' and without warranty, express or implied. You use the PRODUCT at your own risk, THE AUTHOR and AURAN (the producers of Trainz) will not be liable for data loss, damages, loss of profits or any other kind of loss while using or misusing this PRODUCT.

If you do not agree with the terms of this license you must delete all files contained in this PRODUCT from your storage devices.

Copyright © 2005, THE AUTHOR
All Rights Reserved.
MODELS AND TEXTURES COPYRIGHT © 2005 PAUL HOBBS

EMAIL: paul.hobbs@web.de"

Cheerio John

Okay

So how is including a kuid to that asset and coordinates were that asset should be placed in a CDP file that one may or may not sell to someone else who is eligible by virtue of registration of the simulation to access that asset from the DLS "FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE" violating anything written above?

Because if I sold Joe blow a route CDP that contained the kuid number and coordinates for the above asset, I'm not selling him the asset, I'm not distributing the asset, I'm not doing anything with the asset other than listing it in a CDP file along with a set of coordinates.

Now if Joe blow being a registered user the simulation were to then load that up in his version of Trainz and he had access to the DLS and to that asset if it appeared on that map would not that be for his own personal use? Would that not be not only ethically but legally and morally correct?

Because I'm not telling him he has to use that asset, I'm not telling him he doesn't have to use that asset, I'm not putting any stipulations on that asset whatsoever I'm merely providing a kuid number and a set of coordinates. As such I am not violating anyone's copyrights or violating any policy set by Auran/N3V.

Because the end-user is who has the use of that asset just like they always have had the use of that asset "FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE."

This is the distinction that I guess you guys can't grasp and I don't know why because it's simple. A route file does not contain any freeware. If some unscrupulous route builder downloads all your stuff from the DLS and puts it into the CDP file, I'm with you, let's hunt him down and hang him.

But if all I do is merely provide a contextual list of assets freely available on the DLS and a set of coordinates where I think they look good on a map and I sell that to an end-user. That's not violating anything, that's not being a freeloader, that's not being unethical, that's merely providing information for a price.

Because an end-user who does not have access can't ever get your assets using that CDP file. Only those end-users who can get them anyway have access to your assets using that CDP file.


It's a distinction that those of you on your side of the argument refuse to acknowledge for some reason. There is absolutely no difference in form, shape or function between a payware route and a freeware route. They are identical in how they work. If it is okay for a freeware route to access your DLS content, there is absolutely no reason why a payware route cannot access your DLS content because they both do the same thing in the same way for the end-users "PERSONAL USE ONLY."


As to your original post, any copyrighted images that you uploaded are not being accessed or disseminated any differently than what they have always been accessed and disseminated. It doesn't matter if it's a payware route or a freeware route, the end-user gets to access the content the exact same way. That's where I think your original argument fell flat, because unless somebody is packaging of those images outside of the DLS and providing them to users who do not have DLS access, your original copyright has not been violated.

 

[mrscsi]

Now I guess the only people who could complain about a payware route CDP violating any type of copyright would be Auran/N3V, I'm not sure if they've copyrighted kuids but if they have then they would have a legitimate complaint against any payware route creator that referenced DLS content.

Because kuid numbers are the only thing being distributed in a payware route CDP that references DLS content.

How about it Zec? Are potential payware route builder's in violation for distributing kuid numbers?:hehe:

 

[meatloaf747]

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...

 

[mrscsi]

Slighty 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 kuid 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.
Now as I understand things, as a result of this 500+ (approx) assets/kuids had to be removed from the 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 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, I'll sue you" After not hearing back from about two thirds of the creators I tryed 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 throgh 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...

As long as he is not personally putting every asset into the CDP file he's not violating anything.

He didn't have to remove any kuid's from his route unless he wanted to. Because merely placing a kuid reference in a CDP file so that registered users of the simulation who have access to the DLS can use that access to place that asset in a certain spot on a map IS NOT in violation of anything.

Content creators it seems like to me anyway are trying to exert some sort of control that they do not have the power to exert. They'll spout off about freeware, when whether it's accessed by a payware route or a freeware route by an end-user who has authorized access to the DLS is no different. There's nothing being violated but yet they seem to feel somehow cheated by someone who goes out and puts together a list of kuid's and coordinates.

Maybe they feel inferior, maybe they feel duped for putting the asset on the DLS to begin with, I don't know? But as long as a payware route is not packaging or distributing their content, there's really not a whole lot they can say or do about it. Now I'm sorry that I am not stroking anybody's egos, but I'm not going to sit back and let people call other people freeloaders, unethical, immoral, and in some cases thieves simply because their egos have somehow been bruised.

They were adult enough when they pressed that button and accepted the agreement to the DLS. They should be adult enough now to realize that nobody is violating their precious agreements by merely referencing a kuid in a payware route.

 

[meatloaf747]

As long as he is not personally putting every asset into the CDP file he's not violating anything.

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...