This locomotive

MSGSapper made a Plasser and Theurer Grinder that's on the DLS. ChrisRacer also has a Loram Rail Grinder which is similar.
 
I know I have seen some locos similar to this on the DLS, created by one of or last passing community members ... searching for his name

Vinnybarb
 
The UK, BR Class 59 and Class 66 have a similar front end and there are quite a few to choose from on the DLS. Peter
 
I am in a quandary as to what I should or could do with this Plasser as I downloaded it from a now defunct Czech website. There were two versions of this and one had a panto-graph (or was supposed to have. Both were broken as someone had taken a knife and fork to the configs. Cannot tell if it was sabotage or the author started to update them and gave up. He cannot be contacted as the websites (2) are now dead.

I managed to get this one working (VTC ASP 400-1) but the electric one had an .im error with the animated part. With a lot of frigging about I managed get the bogeys and fix various other bits to get a working model. It has a diesel engine and will actually run but does not do anything animated. I binned the DCC version as it was a total mess.

It would be good to share this but I would need to upload it under my own number and credit the original author but would that be acceptable. As I said, it would be a shame to lose the asset but I cannot find a way to contact the author. Maybe if it could be uploaded then it could be re skinned as well, I don't know. The original author, by the way, was Vojtiki (237211)

The big machine in my other picture "Unimat" is in two parts and that need a good sorting out as well. There were also some odd and interesting work trains. I will post a picture later of these.

Any thoughts anyone??

Regards
Doug

 
Last edited:
[Why shouldn't you upload it with your kuid number providing you acknowledge and credit the original creator in the config? That seems to be done quite a lot. Even champions like Ben Neal allow it as long as Ben is credited as the creator of the asset. You have tried to find him? He doesn't reply. Its not your fault that the creator is dead or of doesn't reply.
 
Thank you for that Nimec. I was concerned about treading on any toes and there are always the rivet-counters who get a bit "odd" if you do something like that. I think I may well upload it but it will get a paint job first, probably some generic rail company initials - unless I do a few versions for UK - US and etc. Had an offer of a reskin already so we shall see what can be done. If anyone has any ideas for a logo then just speak up. Anything will be considered.

Doug
 
Thank you for that Nimec. I was concerned about treading on any toes and there are always the rivet-counters who get a bit "odd" if you do something like that. I think I may well upload it but it will get a paint job first, probably some generic rail company initials - unless I do a few versions for UK - US and etc. Had an offer of a reskin already so we shall see what can be done. If anyone has any ideas for a logo then just speak up. Anything will be considered.

Doug
This has always been an interesting dilemma, for sure. Not to throw this thread into the copyright fight ring...:o

One must wonder, though, how some assets that are so poorly constructed or back-level can be staunchly defended when the amount of work required to make them usable is so great that they serve as little more than "inspiration." Just about every songwriter must admit having been inspired by some song along the way, and the violation of copyright is at times very hard to discern (does anyone hold the copyright on the 12-bar blues?).

I was considering purchasing a locomotive encyclopedia until I read the stern warnings about using their detailed drawings...I was afraid of violating copyright" by even looking at them. Seriously! They went as far as warning the reader to not model anything from their drawings. If this were true, then they surely are violating the "copyright" of the designers of the engines in the first place!

My answer to this dilemma, sadly, is that I upload nothing, distribute nothing, share nothing. This doesn't help the community at all, but it keeps me treading softly...
 
Interesting in what you said there Joel and it looks like we are like-minded in that respect. The items in question here were 1.3 and had errors and bits missing. It was more than a few hours for a "quick fix" to get them all sorted out. As I started out by saying then I feel it would be better to share them with everyone that wanted them and for no financial gain to myself. There has just been a long drawn out "conversation" regarding old assets and copyright and licences etc and I gave up reading when I found people were just repeating themselves.

We then have a stream of people looking for old assets on the forum only to find they are no longer available. We have people complaining there is not enough stuff being uploaded for Tane. You cannot win whatever you do. It does not look like N3V want to get involved, which is fair enough I suppose.

Taking up your point about the detailed drawings in the book then, as you rightly point out, why produce such a book with such a collection of drawings in finite detail just to look at??

Doug
 
...
Taking up your point about the detailed drawings in the book then, as you rightly point out, why produce such a book with such a collection of drawings in finite detail just to look at??

Doug
That's why I returned the book to the shelf and walked away!

I will say that copyright laws do not distinguish between profiting or not profiting from a work. Software pirates often freely distribute software, which is considered a theft of opportunity, in that the originator suffered the loss of being able to profit from his work (that is now in the public domain, so to speak, without his consent).

For Trainz, I see the point of protecting payware, as well as the wishes of those who retain all rights in their config.txt files. In general, however, I think much kerfuffle has been made over fixing broken freeware to again distribute freely.

I wish that N3V would make it mandatory in the registration process for each user to declare a general default distribution license for his or her work, encouraging all users to declare an open source stand as much as possible if they have no intention of selling for profit. In this manner, we all could enjoy the creative process, using all our little building blocks as we see fit, without having to throw a tantrum when someone else grabs our favorite little red one.

At the same time, I am not advocating the abandonment of courtesy and asking permissions, just the laying down of the "copyright hammer" that is swung so freely around here.
 
'At the same time, I am not advocating the abandonment of courtesy and asking permissions, just the laying down of the "copyright hammer" that is swung so freely around here.'

Good points. A problem with trainz is that there are some people out there who, even at the hint of someone improving someone else's error ridden or outdate work, jump straight in and scream copyright issues as if they have taken on the self appointed role of guardians of the dead or long departed trainzers. They generally seem to be from a country that has draconian copyright laws. The comment above by whitepass is a good example.

If it is pay ware one can understand the issue and surely it should be a value judgement whether or not to upload it after improving it, providing the 'improver' can demonstrate all attempts have been made to contact the original author/creator. If you can argue and demonstrate that, then no one should have an issue. It is not the right of other trainzers to interfere saying he cant, unless they are in contact with the original creator. Its not their business.

If it was freeware but had a copyright tag then the attempt to contact the original creator remains the same but surely there should be no concerns about it if all reasonable attempts to do so were unsuccessful. I doubt if any court [ outside the USA ] would rule otherwise. Ask yourself, have all possible avenues been attempted to contact the creator? If so then I don't believe any court would rule against you.
This holier-than-thou attitude that some have, is probably to be expected in such a diverse community as trainz, but many seem to just 'open their mouth and let the wind blow their tongue around' so to speak.

e.g some time ago on this forum a person asked about updating the cowboys 2006 payware UP 9000s to TANE standard, he got cried down by those trainzers who do stupid, telling him that he couldn't do that as they were copyright and payware. Those interfering upright guardians of other peoples morals were obviously not aware that the cowboy had previously posted that he had no problem if someone updated them as long as he was still credited with the asset. He couldn't do it he said, and gave his reasons.

N3V needs to have a policy on it based on Australian law. My lawyer friend says that in such cases as these it would be unlikely to be a problem if all reasonable attempts were made to contact the original creator and if credit was still given to that creator. Some of you will be like me and have assets that have been updated by other than the creator and have the by line in the config file 'Modified or updated by .....

In reality if this cant happen then trainz is finished. In my experience anyway copyright only becomes an issue if someone reproduces it for financial gain.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Joel regarding common courtesy and seeking permission and this is really where this conversation has ended up. If you remember there was a repair programme as Tony found there were so many assets with issues in one form or another and as far as he was concerned then it was acceptable to try and recover as many as possible for the future benefit of trainz and the users. Even as I write this there are people on the forum asking for (even demanding) help with missing and faulty assets. The usual response normally follows where a number of people step in to try and resolve the issues. Good, that is what it is all about. There is also a notification from Spiffy to say that the repair programme is ending etc etc.

I will go with what you have said regarding payware as it is payware for a reason and should be respected in its own right. Staying with the instance and issue we are discussing then I have pointed out that the originator of the assets in question is (or does not seem to be) contactable. There is a web site where these items can be downloaded but it is a collection of creators with links to each. The links go nowhere and nobody responds to questions. I get the impression that its an "untended" site that is allowed to go its own way. Ask yourself, have all possible avenues been attempted to contact the creator? If so then I don't believe any court would rule against you.I have tried to get a response from the creator but there is nobody at home. What to do then? carry on and upload a credited asset or chuck it in the bin? John Citron and I had an interesting conversation not long ago with someone making an issue about updating assets. If you are reading this John then you may remember the comment to him "we either fix the assets as best we can with sticky tape and bits of string - or go without".

With the passing of time then the people who make all the copyright fuss are the ones posting that something is broken or missing and they need help!! You couldn't make it up could you? You have commented on a few scenarios where attempting to update or improve assets gets shouted down.

At the time of writing this I notice that we have had 582 views so it is interesting that it is obviously a hot spud and nobody wants to touch it. To be honest then I think it is time for someone from N3V to come and comment and perhaps clarify the situation once and for all. I repaired the assets for myself but am ready to upload them and share them with anyone who wants them. It is not a problem for me and I will make nothing out of it apart from gratification that others can have the benefit from the assets. I am sitting her now wondering what the hell I have done wrong?

Regards

Doug

 
Last edited:
Well, Doug, from what I have seen around here, the whole "fuss" is exactly that and nothing more. Here are my observations:

1. Pirating and then uploading assets as if they are your own will get one banned from some time by N3V, the pirated assets will be removed, and the pirate will get pilloried, lambasted, and shunned by the community. Legal action could result on the grounds of copyright violation, but it would not usually be worth the effort unless the offended could prove that significant financial loss resulted from the piracy.

2. Fixing, modifying, and uploading payware assets in any way, if even possible, will result in immediate treatment as in item 1.

3. If you fix, modify and upload freeware assets from an active user without permission, then you get much of the treatment as in item 1, but not as severely. Stating your intentions in the public forum will guarantee some amount of being pilloried, lambasted, and shunned by some in the community.

4. Releasing routes and sessions with assets from others without full permissions ends up somewhere in the grey area. Usually, such a person is outed by one of the asset creators, who makes known to the community that his/her asset was used without permission. The shunning will result to the extent listed in item 3. I'm not sure whether or not N3V will step in and take action or not, as long as the route is freeware. This is probably a case-by-case issue...

5. Then, there is fixing assets from defunct sites by creators that leave no certain instructions for the maintenance and use of their work. There are the few that will always make an issue about copyrights, and so forth, but it is more or less squabbling in the playground sandbox.
 
You got 3 out of 5 right, 4 and 5 are wrong.
4-You do not need permission to use content from the DLS in a route or session, if you did no one would ever make a route or session.
5-this is steeling.
 
Seems like you have laid it out Joel much along the lines of the way it goes. It goes that way because it has been steered that way over time but has nothing at all to do with the way it should be. That is the difference. I agree with what you have said and note the context and terminology. I don't think you could put it another way really and it speaks for itself. I really don't need to go over it again.

It is a bit like the EU in an odd sort of way. That is run by unelected people who like to dictate to the rest and there will be sanctions of a sort if you disobey. Being ostracized by a bunch of pontificating nobody's who would like to be somebody's does not really bother me at all. I now have to consider if I wish to remain a member of this "club" or not.

Whitepass - You are a prime example. Who are you to decide how many of the 5 statements Joel made are right or wrong? You may think that way and that is up to you but it is not carved in stone is it? He actually got 4 out of 5 right (by your estimation) as he was not implying in number 4 anything to do with USING content - He was talking about uploading. Read the point again. In 5 then "steeling" <sic> is a matter of conjecture as for no material gain, financial or otherwise so where is the gain? Making sure that content remains available for others to use is hardly stealing or theft or fraud or deception and etc etc.

As with most things, there will always be those who like to pop kids balloons because they never had a childhood themselves.

Regards

Doug
 
Last edited:
Back
Top