lord9 - again

[oknotsen]

I am also aware of global warming. Bla bla bla in other words "we can't be arsed to do anything about it".

Difference is that if "global warming" was yours and put on the DLS by me, you as the original creator can formally complain to N3V and they will do something about it.

Now if there was only a system that could prevent something like this. In other words: Some way to Manage someone's Digital Rights .

 

[shaneturner12]

The problem is - the method that could well prevent it would affect legitimate users as well (disabling cloning and/or using DRM).

Shane

 

[ZecMurphy]

Good Morning All
As has been outlined previously, we can only accept reports from the original creator. There is a very simple reason for this, only the uploader and the original creator know with absolute certainty (well, as close as possible anyway) that the content was uploaded without permission.

For anyone else, it's really just guesswork. You think the content was uploaded without permission. Note, we require the creator to contact us directly, as we do require some information from them. This also ensure that we actually receive the report. The helpdesk can be contacted via the following link: http://support.trainzportal.com/

We do not believe it appropriate to allow people to have content removed from the DLS simply because they think it was uploaded without permission. We've seen many cases in the community where claims have been made about 'stolen' artwork/content when this was actually not true. If we took the steps being outlined in this thread, well we'd have lost a lot of good people. Actually, we'd have banned more good creators than those doing things illegally, possibly including some who make large amounts of content in the community

Instead, all we ask is that the original creator contact us directly. There are some situations where this may not be possible (e.g. where the creator has passed away), but these particular ones are taken on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that if a creator contacts us directly, we generally have the content removed within a few days (possibly a week) after contact. This includes us doing some investigation to verify the claim... For large amounts of content (anything beyond about 20 items), it may take a little longer due to the time involved in removing them...

Where several creators contact us to report a single user, we have previously taken the step of removing all of the content uploaded by that user and then banning the account. The same may occur for repeat offenders. But, again, we will not do this based on guesswork, or people 'thinking' the uploads were done without permission.

Regards

 

[pware]

I had started on a response to this thread which, paradoxically, would support the opposing views of both Lataxe and JCitron but, after a fair bit of research I was forced to admit defeat - the topic and arguments are far too complex.

I think that a lot of the argument is over terminology - plagiarism, freeware vs "free" software, public domain, copyright and intellectual property are some of the minefields that defeated my understanding of the problem and, no doubt, keep lawyers rolling in cash out in the real world. No, it is not a simple case of "they copied Fred's work so they should be banned".

One part of the problem is that the Trainz DLS crosses international boundaries and the laws that protect copyright and intellectual property in one jurisdiction do not apply in others. No doubt someone will point out that the DLS will be governed by the laws that apply where it is hosted (somewhere in Texas I believe) but this will not stop Lord9 and others from posting their copies on 3rd party web sites hosted in countries where the laws are different.

In my humble opinion what Lord9 and others are doing is plagiarism, an intellectual and academic crime, not a legal one. A simple acknowledgement of the work by the original creator in the assets description may go some way towards resolving that. One of the issues that I wrestled with was the legal status of the "license" tag in an assets config.txt file - again bring in the lawyers.

While N3V will not have any control over 3rd party web sites, it can control its own. Wikipedia, that often maligned source of all wisdom, has very clear cut guidelines on plagiarism and copyright in articles presented for its publication but, I would concede, would probably experience the same difficulties as N3V is currently experiencing in weeding out these violations. Perhaps N3V needs to take some time to obtain some legal advice (lawyers can be expensive - as I can attest) and consult with ALL the Trainz community to reach an agreed policy on plagiarism and to establish some consensus on what is and is not possible.

My 2c (plus GST) worth.
Peter Ware

 

[matruck]

Theft is theft simple as that and the more sum of you argue this simple point then it will never stop,

"they copied Fred's work so they should be banned".

They never did the hard yards in creating the content in the first place so they stole it and their own name is now on it = THEFT.
If i go to Rome i do as Romans do i learn their law's/customs so none of this " Oh they come from a different country let's cut them sum slack " = CRAP.
Yeah Zec we have heard your reply that often i'm sure you have it sum where already written down and all you have to do is copy & pasta it over here, I could understand your rule if it were one or two unknown creator's content and it sneaks thru but this is the same content over and over again Profig's Tree's or Dino's or Clams surely sumthing more could be done then to paste up here the same ol same ol.

 

[nathanmallard]

Illegally cloned content cannot be removed until the copyright owner has requested N3V to do so; I'm not sure what the problem is here. It seems like a good system to me, as we can't go around deleting content and naming and shaming people as pirates based on suspicion like we did with BUGOR, can we?
Simple as that

 

[matruck]

You didn't see my name in the BUGOR thread did you ?, Blame sum-one else for that Simple! When it's as clear cut as Dino's/Profig's/Clams then yeah more should be done Simple as that.

 

[pware]

They never did the hard yards in creating the content in the first place ...

I have no argument with that, the original creator deserves to be acknowledged for her/his work. I also agree with Zec that they (N3V) must be certain that it has been unethically copied before they can act.

I could understand your rule if it were one or two unknown creator's content and it sneaks thru but this is the same content over and over again ...

Is the same content being uploaded by the same plagiariser or by different individuals? If it is the former then by all means take firmer action against repeat offenders - if that includes banning then so be it. If it is the later then follow the rules and get confirmation from the original creator. It is possible, after all, that no permission was given to "X" and "Y" to copy and upload but it was given to "Z".

 

[leksie]

They are reskinning the Krim also , so mayby they think..................................................

 

[pware]

..... so mayby they think..................................................

That they "think" is probably stretching things a bit too far ..... but the question of whether reskinning a work alters it enough, as far as copyright laws go, for it to be considered a "new work" is one for the lawyers.

 

[JCitron]

I think I found the source of some the downloads...

http://free.cyritrainz.ru/

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://free.cyritrainz.ru/


John

 

[Pendolino]

Gentlemen,

I agree that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but don't you think it is a little suspicious that this proliferation of cloned assets has started since the release of TS12, with multiplayer requiring that all assets used in a MP session are uploaded to the DLS? As far as I remember (I registered my Trainz 1 back in 2002), the occurrence of similar issues before the release of TS12 was very rare: now, it seems to happen almost daily.

The actions of these "rats" (as Pofig labelled them) have already been affecting all of us: as Vern pointed out some posts before, why should a route creator use a nice Russian asset when its legitimacy may be dubious and it can vanish from the DLS? I'm currently updating a freight car under the DLS Cleanup Program: I left out some excellent interactive loads since I have neither time, nor willingness to perform an investigation of a great number of third party websites to assess if they were clones or legitimate copies.

 

[Pencil42]

We don't know what private communications may or may not have occurred between the uploader and the original authors. NV3's position is absolutely correct.

 

[Pofig]

Good Morning All
As has been outlined previously, we can only accept reports from the original creator. There is a very simple reason for this, only the uploader and the original creator know with absolute certainty (well, as close as possible anyway) that the content was uploaded without permission.

For anyone else, it's really just guesswork. You think the content was uploaded without permission. Note, we require the creator to contact us directly, as we do require some information from them. This also ensure that we actually receive the report. The helpdesk can be contacted via the following link: http://support.trainzportal.com/

We do not believe it appropriate to allow people to have content removed from the DLS simply because they think it was uploaded without permission. We've seen many cases in the community where claims have been made about 'stolen' artwork/content when this was actually not true. If we took the steps being outlined in this thread, well we'd have lost a lot of good people. Actually, we'd have banned more good creators than those doing things illegally, possibly including some who make large amounts of content in the community

Instead, all we ask is that the original creator contact us directly. There are some situations where this may not be possible (e.g. where the creator has passed away), but these particular ones are taken on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that if a creator contacts us directly, we generally have the content removed within a few days (possibly a week) after contact. This includes us doing some investigation to verify the claim... For large amounts of content (anything beyond about 20 items), it may take a little longer due to the time involved in removing them...

Where several creators contact us to report a single user, we have previously taken the step of removing all of the content uploaded by that user and then banning the account. The same may occur for repeat offenders. But, again, we will not do this based on guesswork, or people 'thinking' the uploads were done without permission.

Regards

I have already commented on this subject: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...tent-creation-agreement&p=1267330#post1267330

DLS will soon turn into a big tank for debris. Good luck.

 

[oknotsen]

I have already commented on this subject: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...tent-creation-agreement&p=1267330#post1267330

That post is invisible. Did you copy the correct link or did the topic just made hidden?

 

[ZecMurphy]

Good Morning Pofig
As we stated many times to you, if you are not willing to contact us via the means we provide (it is very easy to miss threads on the forums, it happens quite a lot surprisingly!), then there is not much we can do. It's pretty simple to do, and ensures that everything is done fairly. Including ensuring that authors aren't trying to hurt other members by withdrawing permission previously given (this does happen, and somewhat more regularly than might be realised!), as it ensures we investigate and track the report.

We require YOU as the author of your assets to contact us to tell us that they have been uploaded without permission. Anyone else contacting us is guessing they were uploaded without permission. We don't act on guesses... As doing so also means that people can have content removed simply by claiming a legitimate asset was stolen... It's happened quite a bit recently, with several groups/creators claiming other creators stole their artwork.

It should also be noted, as we stated to you, there ARE some assets that have been created by other members as deliberate, direct, replacements for your non DLS content. They look almost identical, with the same naming convention, but are not your assets. We need to also ensure that we are not removing these assets by accident (right now, I don't have a list of these assets unfortunately)...

Again, this is where we need to ensure we are able to investigate, not just remove everything someone things may be uploaded without permission... Which is what a lot seem to be requesting. I mean hey, lets just delete all of the content by, say, Pencil42 because I think it may be uploaded without permission. (Sorry Curtis, just an example, I don't actually think that ). No investigation permitted, no thinking, just remove because someone claims it... Or, would it be better to ensure that it actually was uploaded without permission I'm pretty sure it'd be hard for the 'original creator' of most of that content to do so, considering it IS the uploader...

Regards

 

[Lataxe]

I have already commented on this subject:

DLS will soon turn into a big tank for debris. Good luck.

Since it becomes rather difficult to decipher the many variations of permissions (or lack of them) associated with various Trainz items, I find myself reluctant to post anything to the DLS, particularly those things (such as routes, sessions, consists and other similar groupings) that rely on designs that, in one form or another, are already on the DLS or other Trainz asset website. Who knows what hissy-fits and accusations of theft will be screamed from the forum rooftop, not just by an over-protective author but by all the self-appointed witchfinder generals?

So, in fear of this gang of pitchforking men, I confine my own Trainz creations (such as they are) to my own computer. This may or may not be a loss to the wider Trainz community. In other words, jealous copyrighting is not encouraging some creators of new Trainz stuff but inhibiting them.

I've read and re-read many of the posts from both authors and their would-be defenders concerning alleged "theft" of assets by others. I can understand the ire of those who have payware cloned and disseminated but still can't understand why freeware authors seem to want to give us stuff only to snatch it back if they disapprove of how we use it. Quoting convoluted definitions of freeware (which seem to extract most of the "free" from the notion) still doesn't answer why an author wants to pretend he is giving something when he is not. It seems schizophrenic, in fact - a Jekyl & Hyde behaviour.

I say to freeware authors: if you don't want it to be truly free then make it payware; if you do want it to be free then let it go out in to the world to behave as it wants.

All such authors are, in any case, using the already-extant designs of others in making their assets. As far as I know, a locomotive or a station were designed by the architects of real railways; trees & grass were designed by Mother Nature. Trainz creators just add some more design to make a bit of computer software that copies extant designs. So, are all the railway architects and CAD software designers to have a say about how we may or may not use this "freeware"? Hardly.

Another though..... "Freeware" authors seem to want to jealously guard their fame as a creator of this or that. An understandable human emotion (albeit not one I suffer from myself); but have they not realised that 99.9% of the users of their assets have no idea who they actually are and care even less - even though (like me) these users have a great admiration for the designer's ability with the software and generosity in providing such assets?

If the authors of items posted to the DLS by Lord9 and similar provided their assets via the DLS themselves, Lord9 would not have a motive to clone & post them. He doesn't seem to be seeking fame himself (he has reaped only infamy) but rather to increase the usability of the assets concerned, within Trainz. And isn't this why the author made them? If not, what are they for, the precious things?

Lataxe, genuinely puzzled by the brouhaha.

 

[shaneturner12]

I can understand why certain authors are unable to put their assets on the Download Station. Speedtree authors for example quite often have a license that only allows freeware distribution of their assets - unfortunately, uploading to the Download Station means that the content could be used in payware (a new Trainz version for example) which would break the license agreement. It does mean though that anyone cloning said assets are violating the license agreement as well.

Same with textures. Some textures (especially copyrighted ones from other sources) have restrictions on how they can be distributed.

Shane

 

[Lataxe]

I can understand why certain authors are unable to put their assets on the Download Station. Speedtree authors for example quite often have a license that only allows freeware distribution of their assets - unfortunately, uploading to the Download Station means that the content could be used in payware (a new Trainz version for example) which would break the license agreement. It does mean though that anyone cloning said assets are violating the license agreement as well.

Same with textures. Some textures (especially copyrighted ones from other sources) have restrictions on how they can be distributed.

Shane

I'm sure you're right but this seems a peculiar situation. Are you saying that anyone who has downloaded an asset to the DLS using speedtree tech or some other licensed tech (you mention textures) has broken their license restriction, even if they made it as freeware? If Trainz being payware means that such freeware is effectively no longer freeware when uploaded to the DLS, surely this undermine the whole ethos of Trainz freeware........?

Also, does NV3 as the purveyor of Trainz not hold a speedtree license that allows the use of freeware employing speedtree tech, whoever the author might be?

This whole copyright knot becomes more Gordian by the minute!

Lataxe, even more confused by the can and can't-dos now.

 

[shaneturner12]

N3V do have their own license, yes, but I think it only covers their creations.

In terms of others assets, those who are uploading Speedtrees to the Download Station needs to check that they are permitted to do so under their license with IDV Software (the developer of the Speedtree software) including possible commercial use in payware packs. N3V do make it clear that any assets uploaded to the DLS may be used in payware DLC packs or as built-in content in a newer version of Trainz.

As for textures, that's another thing entirely. Some companies place limitations on how textures from them can be used.

Shane