SPORBUST's Locos

[deneban]

Originally Posted by deneban
If the asset is getting its mesh from within then it was "moved" from when the asset got its mesh from an external source. I am not afraid to say "copied" either because there is no legal significance to how many copies of a publicly released mesh are on someones hard drive or in how many assets it is copied into.

We are not talking about what is on someone's hard drive. We are talking about what N3V allows you to include in a upload through the DLS cleanup.

That is why I added the clause "...or in how many assets it is copied into."

If someone wants to move a mesh from the paintshed source into their reskin and make the other required adjustments they are perfectly entitled to do that. It's what they then do with that repaired asset that is being discussed.

I don't see how that relates to my quote, in fact the expected relevant responses are not present in your reply:

a) acknowledging "ok you agreed with the term copied."

b) Legal equivalency claim, but since you haven't, that must mean you agree that "there is no legal significance to how many copies of a publicly released mesh are on someones hard drive or in how many assets it is copied into."

It'd be nice if some continuity were afforded instead of just picking out new clauses to target in the next reply.

It is an addendum because it is in addition to the terms that every user has already agreed to, and applies only to that action of uploading. I have suggested several times that the restriction might be unintended. But until it's removed or modified, it should be complied with. You cannot just unilaterally decide that it no longer applies.

An addendum, by definition, must come chronologically later then what it is addending, and has no significance without the body its addending. What you are calling an addendum is neither chronologically later and has relevance without DLS Cleanup, thereby failing two characteristics of addenda. In any event I am not arguing with your statement, I am just arguing re the paintshed mesh inclusion case.

The simple case is that changing a paintshed reskin to a standalone asset that requires no reference to the original mesh source because that mesh has now been copied into the asset is clearly a 'fundamental' change. But even if it wasn't, the only reason for going that extra step in the repair is to remove warnings, which is not part of the approved repairs for a DLS Cleanup item.

Please demonstrate "the only reason for going that extra step in the repair is to remove warnings, which is not part of the approved repairs for a DLS Cleanup item." Where does it say warnings should not be corrected by DLS Cleanup?

The legal test that a DLS Repair Claimant did or did not violate a license comes down to what damages were incurred by the damaged party as a result of a licensing violation. In the Paintshed mesh case, DLS Cleanup Damages would have to be self-inflicted: N3V owns the asset being repaired, the aliased mesh, the repaired asset with the mesh merged into the asset, and has accepted the repair and merger. There is no licensing violation if only a single party, the license holder, was acting!!

 

[KingConrail76]

Butterflies are NOT Caterpillars. They may, or may NOT, become Butterflies in the future, but are NOT, at this point, BUTTERFLIES. Everyone knows warnings are not errors, we don't need guidance on that.

A Caterpillar is more a Butterfly than a Caterpillar is nothing.

A Warning is more an Error than a Warning is a normal condition.

Would any judicator find a repairer legally irresponsible for going beyond removing errors to the extent of removing warnings? No. If I am removing butterflies, it is prudent to remove the caterpillars too. The repairer was acting responsibly in his/her repair charter.



If you are so, so, correct, and want to shout in the forum, you need to back up your statement with a licensing agreement or a published instruction afforded to the DLS Cleanup claimant. (Please do not respond with a thread citation or a quotation from an individual, as that legally does not hold water.)

My argument was PEVs conversion of sporbust Paintshed-derived assets to stand-alone assets, stated in post #5, is not against licensing conditions as claimed by BuilderBob in post #9.

The legal test that a DLS Repair Claimant did or did not violate a license has nothing to do with the word of an N3V member, tribal knowledge of the community, or even what a warning means, but rather, what damages were incurred by the damaged party as a result of a licensing violation.

DLS Cleanup Damages would have to be self-inflicted: N3V owns the asset being repaired, the aliased mesh, the repaired asset with the mesh merged into the asset, and has accepted the repair and merger. There is no licensing violation if only a single party was acting.

The repair claimant cannot be held accountable because he/she is not the approving authority for the repaired asset.



Don't need to be, but if they are made "not aliased," can the repairer be held accountable for eliminating that warning? The repairer has the legal benefit of the doubt that he/she was acting in good faith to clear a substandard condition, and no judicator in the world would entertain the subtle differentiation between a warning and error as a basis to find fault with the repairer.

LOLZ...It is so easy to ruffle your feathers...

But seriously, you can stop now, because seeing you argue with everyone in nearly every thread on the forums is getting tiresome.
--Until YOU can site one single instance of anyone filing a lawsuit against anyone else, over Trainz content copyright infringement, you need to put your "Trainz Lawz" books away, and start playing with your trains again.

 

[nicky9499]

But seriously, you can stop now, because seeing you argue with everyone in nearly every thread on the forums is getting tiresome.
--Until YOU can cite one single instance of anyone filing a lawsuit against anyone else, over Trainz content copyright infringement, you need to put your "Trainz Lawz" books away, and start playing with your trains again.

 

[deneban]

LOLZ...It is so easy to ruffle your feathers...

Just as I suspected, all the UPPERCASE claims in your prior post could not be substantiated, I accept your concession of your claim, a concession highlighted by now throwing personal commentary.

But seriously, you can stop now, because seeing you argue with everyone in nearly every thread on the forums is getting tiresome.

Its tiresome to those who don't grasp the points and concepts, and to those they can unsubscribe. For the balance, although you apparently don't appreciate it, many good and interesting points were brought out from both sides, and I believe it has been enlightening for both sides. And at the end of the day, us content providers have to interpret Trainz rules without affording a lawyer.

--Until YOU can site one single instance of anyone filing a lawsuit against anyone else, over Trainz content copyright infringement, you need to put your "Trainz Lawz" books away,

...And that shows you have not grasped the thread, and no idea what my position is. Once again you making an emotional demand without knowing what to get excited about. There can be no copyright infringement lawsuit for a Paintshed mesh inclusion, only a single party is responsible, the one and only license holder. To have a lawsuit, you need at least two parties.

Secondly, it is the opposing side that needs to cite your above "anyone filing a lawsuit" request. I am the side stating there is no legal case, so now please charge them with that responsibility. it is the opposing side that is barking the legal cautions, and was telling PEV he did or potentially did something wrong. I have been dismissing that with logical deductions.

and start playing with your trains again.

I was "playing" until I saw someone all but attacked a fellow content provider with an unsubstantiated accusation of license misuse. Also, with your above demonstrated misinterpretation of the thread, I have decided you should be the last person that should tell me what to do.

 

[deneban]

I'll start clapping too when he understands the thread and which side opened the Trainz LawZ Bookz.

 

[deneban]

I have uploaded a tenth anniversary repair to sporbust's Southern Pacific Dash 9 (kuid2:113556:51040:1).

In this case, the aliased mesh was not from Auran' Paintshed collection, but by a third party that gave permission to sporbust to reskin. Here is a case where the aliasing must remain intact through the repair, as the mesh is copyrighted and not released for general use.