Proposal: UI Lockout for DRM-Protected Content in Content Manager

[jwyant01]

If Content Manager already blocks actions like cloning, exporting, or editing DRM-locked built-in/payware assets, then the UI should reflect that by graying out the following options:

Clone
Export to CDP
Open for Editing
Open in Explorer
Edit Config File Text
Edit Primary Script
Edit Asset in Surveyor
View Errors and Warnings (yes, even this—if you can’t edit it, why review its errors?)

The following options should remain active:​

Preview Asset
List Dependencies
List Dependencies Recursively
List Dependants
List Asset Versions
List Assets in New Window
Add to Pick List
If the system says “you can’t,” then the UI should say it too. Anything less is misleading.

This isn’t about restricting users—it’s about respecting creators and enforcing the boundaries that already exist. When the UI presents options that silently fail or throw vague errors, it:

• Creates confusion
• Undermines DRM enforcement
• Breaks multiplayer integrity

That’s not a feature. That’s a failure to follow through.

Calling it “working as intended” is a cop-out. This isn’t about rewriting DRM—it’s about aligning the interface with the rules it’s supposed to enforce. That’s not a massive overhaul. That’s basic UX hygiene.
Some have said it’s up to content creators to decide whether their assets can be opened for editing—via packaging or encryption. That’s fine in theory.

But if the system already blocks cloning and exporting DRM-locked content, and the UI still shows those options as active, then the platform itself is sending mixed signals.

Even if payware encrypted content can be cloned or exported, it’s unusable. So why present those options at all?

If the backend enforces the lock, the frontend should reflect it. Anything else is lazy implementation.

My final thoughts is this. If you purchase content from sites like Jointed Rail or RRMods, the listed options should not be grayed out once installed to your database. This includes any freeware content that exists outside the DRM protection system used for built-in/payware assets.

This proposal isn’t about limiting creativity—it’s about clarifying boundaries, protecting creators, and making Trainz more intuitive and consistent for everyone.


The items I'm suggesting to be locked out from being edited since they are built-in assets are as follows:
Built-in locomotives
Rolling stock
Scenery assets (buildings, trees, signals, etc.)
Payware content

The things that shouldn't be locked out are:

• Built-in rules and scripts like Driver Setup, Navigation Display, Schedule Library, etc.
• These are system-level logic assets, often meant to be extended, studied, or used as templates.
• Allowing users to open these (read-only or in a sandboxed view) supports:
  • Learning how to script
  • Creating custom rules or behaviors
  • Expanding the ecosystem without compromising original assets

 

[grazlash]

I'm all for things that make the game better, but this would be a waste of a programmers time that could be better spent building a new skybox for an example.

 

[pware]

If Content Manager already blocks actions like cloning, exporting, or editing DRM-locked built-in/payware assets

Content Manager currently allows you to clone and edit payware (DLC) assets, provided they have not been locked by the content creator, and you can also clone and edit built-in assets.

View Errors and Warnings (yes, even this—if you can’t edit it, why review its errors?)

If any asset regardless of where it has come from (DLS, DLC, Built-in, etc) contains errors then you should be able to view those errors so they can be, at the very least, reported to N3V QA. Since you can clone most or all of these assets then viewing the errors could help you fix them.

 

[wreeder]

I think this is a "worth considering" suggestion. It should be in the Suggestion forum BTW. I'm not sure what you mean by "Edit in Surveyor". What you can change in Surveyor are the properties of an asset and those changes are in the session file itself not to the asset so it doesn't make any difference to the status of the asset. Perhaps, click the Report link at the bottom of your post to ask the mods to move the thread to the Suggestion forum. Often time the mods will push a worthwhile suggestion up to the team.

 

[sw1500]

What you can change in Surveyor are the properties of an asset and those changes are in the session file itself not to the asset so it doesn't make any difference to the status of the asset.

Actually, some DLC routes are so locked that you can't even create a session for them. I have tried to make a session for Coal Country, and it will not save just the session. Instead, it forces me to save a new route and session.

 

[JCitron]

Actually, some DLC routes are so locked that you can't even create a session for them. I have tried to make a session for Coal Country, and it will not save just the session. Instead, it forces me to save a new route and session.

That's actually a good thing. I've taken a session and did a Save-as. This created a new session and a copy of the route as intended. I was then able to edit the session how I wanted and had all the configurations already set up.

Some have said it’s up to content creators to decide whether their assets can be opened for editing—via packaging or encryption. That’s fine in theory.

Tony Hilliam, the CEO and president of N3V told us this, not some have said. The option is there when packaging a route for distribution through the store. It's up to the content creator to determine if the route will be locked or not.

I inquired about merging and was told that's impossible due to the route being locked. My answer to that was to restrict the use of the content. The merged content, including the portion from the route could be flagged with a container and some tags placed in the config.txt file indicating that there is DLC included with the route. If the route is uploaded, or a portion of this merged route is uploaded, then anyone who downloads this segment or merged route will still require the original be installed on the system. I was ignored after that with no other answer or response.

The other issue we've come across, which requires N3V to do some backend work on the DLS, is DLS assets end up in the encrypted DLC packages. I proposed a more granular approach to allow content creators to select only the route, session, and proprietary content and not lockdown DLS content. I was told that this is due to the all-inclusive nature of the packaging system and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much concern or impetus to change this and instead when content is locked, that used to be on the DLS, users need to report this to the helpdesk to get this unlocked. We were also told that the content is packaged to create a single download, not requiring a First-Class Ticket to obtain the DLC package.

I agree that scripts shouldn't be encrypted. This has made futureproofing and updating older scripts very difficult for the Content Repair Group who is responsible for updating content on the DLS. With many content creators now passing over the rainbow bridge, and many others who have moved on due to other reasons, having access to the original code is made difficult. The scripts can be decrypted by N3V, however, but that adds an additional step and creates yet another delay to repairing the content.

The other issue with encrypted scripts is that content creators have created their own version of the encrypted scripts. Multiple versions of a similar script then make maintaining content difficult due to the similar nature, and to make matters worse these scripts introduce more errors in the program.

I agree that unusable features should be unavailable, but getting any kind of UI changes done is absolutely worse than fighting red tape. Things are sometimes taken into consideration and may or may never be implemented. We were lucky to have relocatable data folders, UDS, layers, as well as some of the new features now found in S2.0. The recent things, however, took more than two decades to appear.

As was mentioned, you may want to have this thread moved to the Suggestion Boxcar where this thread will receive more eyes including those from N3V. You may be lucky.

 

[skittlekicks]

Why did this just enter my head, "begun the clone war has"? I have always felt that DRM kills creativity, because no one in the world can have something that is't direived from another idea. To me it is the most abused anti-theft tool ever conceived. Just look at how YouTube behaves with DRM/DMCA content and even Fair Use).

Look at the Flintstones. A complete rip off of The Honeymooners, but no one ever sued over it as far as I know. Yet anyone who sees an idea in a payware route might get crapped on by the creator simply for using it.

I have seen only a handful of creators actually make stuff that is original. The rest are just copy cats, uploading versions to the DLS or their own websites. If a creator makes every single asset for a route to be available as a DLC, uses nothing from the DLS, and chooses to charge for it fine totally legit.

This goes back to that lame argument over the free "wheel squeal" asset that irked the creator who called AM a violator of his copyright for using it in his payware route. To which I'd say, did the asset creator physically go out to a rail line, bring recording gear and phyically record the flange squeals off real life trains? Did that person edit, to clean the audio so only that sound is heard? Most likely the sound was pulled from some website or stripped from a YouTube video.

Another example. Did you buy that spruce tree asset, did you model it in a program like Blender? Did you just pull one from the DLS or other 3rd party site? See where I'm getting at?

I'm a life long musician, I don't hold ther patents or copyrights to the seven modes of music. I don't own the rights to palm muting on a guitar. Same for combinations of words or notes played on my bass. If I build a route in Trainz, I could give two craps if someone wanted to change things up, and make it their own. Good for them. Won't stop me from being creative or being a petulant child over "but this mine!!!" Hell sell a route I made if want I'm not driven like that with my creativivty. DRM ALWAYS assumes the worst in people. To the creators of DRM everyone is guilty of theft (Microsoft and Apple I hear Xerox is owed billions from your theft). No innorcents, just immediate guilt.

If you want your stuff protected, then never release it and keep it to yourself.

 

[pware]

I have seen only a handful of creators actually make stuff that is original.

The limitation here is that Trainz is a real world simulator. Users want locos, rolling stock, track, buildings, etc that resemble (even if imperfectly) what they see around them. The vast majority won't accept buildings that float in the sky, cars that fly, rolling stock that does not use wheels, etc. These would not be out of place in a fantasy simulator, but I suspect that in such a simulator those examples would be considered to be "unimaginative". An obvious exception is the Thomas the Tank Engine rolling stock but even here TTTE fans would probably reject any new loco that did not fit the fictional genre - "Skippy" the Aussie Kangaroo locomotive anyone?

While there is a large number of different rolling stock items and liveries from different operators, Trainz users can be very critical of any asset that strays "too far" from reality.

If you are going to make a new loco for Trainz then you would be well advised to stick to original plans, drawings, photographs and operator liveries. Likewise, route creators usually want to select building, trees and other items that resemble those in the region being modeled.

Your music example is a good case study. I am constantly amused by the number of copyright infringements that one musician brings against another - usually because the second musician used the alleged copied segment in a hit song while the first musician could never get a record deal for the "original" piece. I would hate to be on a jury that was forced to listen to endless replays of both versions to decide if a copyright violation had occurred - it would drive me crazy. There are, after all, only a limited number of individual notes that could be played and while they can be used in an almost infinite number of possible combinations (most of which, I suspect, would be painful to listen to) coincidences would be possible.

DRM ALWAYS assumes the worst in people.

For good reason. While the majority of citizens are honest (up to a point) and law-abiding, there is a minority that really does "ruin it for the rest of us". That minority does include corporations - in your example the first mistake made by Xerox was that they never patented their brilliant idea of a graphical user interface in a world where the typed text command line ruled all computer systems. Their second mistake was to invite Apple executives on a full tour without them first signing a non disclosure agreement. Apple saw the wider opportunity that Xerox did not.

DRM certainly has its faults but without it many creators would take your final advice "If you want your stuff protected, then never release it and keep it to yourself".