We have a copyist posting content to the DLS that is not theirs.

[Vern]

Before venting here I need to explain that I am strictly against stealing someone's creations for any possible purpose.
But c'mon guys, I think some of you are getting a little overboard here. I mean...encryting or 'protecting' assets because one kid doesn't understand (yet) what his actions mean? That will change the core purpose of Trainz. What if I want to merge two layouts for my own use? What if I want to reskin something for my own use? Those things would be impossible. What if I want to download a route to strip some of it, add some of my own stuff to it and want to test it so I can upload it to DLS AFTER having asked the original creator if he allows it? That would be impossible too.
Kids like the one this thread is about need to get a severe virtual wristslap from N3V with a warning. Does he continue, enforce a (temporary) ban to show this isn't a joke. Does he do it again after the temp ban? Change it to a perm ban. N3V can do much with this, but preventing something like config.txt or any other part of a freeware asset to be edited will make a lot of people abandon Trainz, including me. For obvious reasons.

It's not just a one off though. we have seen it in the past on an almost factory level with some of the Russian users (was it Bort85?) who care nothing for anyone's rights and probably don't even own a legally obtained copy of the programme. As I noted earlier, it's naïve to think we are still in the heady days of 2002 - 2003 when it was great fun and everyone was working together to further the common good. As the sim got bigger, it drew the rough crowd (so to speak). Freeware does not = free for all. A route or rolling stock author puts hours if not months or even years of hard work into their creation, to find on sharing it for the community to enjoy someone decides to re-issue it as their own work.

As regards reskins or updating a route, well obviously there has to be some leeway but perhaps that starts with actually getting permission from the original author? If not then my answer would be, tough - enjoy it as the creator intended or move on to something else.

 

[nicky9499]

Why not a compromise? The original author can encrypt or whatever, but if lets say someone asks nicely for an unencrypted cdp for a personal reskin or edit I don't see why that cannot be done. I totally support preservation of a content creator's rights but some of you frankly take things a bit too far packing up their toys, throwing out the bathwater - baby and all - in a silly tantrum over some misunderstanding or some trivial disagreement.

Sit down like adults and discuss nicely it's not that hard to play nice.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi All
Apologies for the slightly delayed post.

The content in question has been removed from the Download Station. We have also contacted the user in question to explain why the content was removed, and that they require permission to release modified content. Based on the information in their account, and a reply from their family, it appears that this is a young user who did not realise he was doing the wrong thing.

Regards

 

[Saieditor]

Two factor identification is a good idea, and unique KUID's are a good idea.

However, the way CM is set up at the moment, any asset can be exported or cloned.

I have sold software before and I have had registration and authentication woes in my time. It's a never ending chase with brute force being used by some clowns.

Maybe we could have a locker for defined submissions, and to get the clones, reskins out, the original authors have to validate with their unique KUID - two factor thingy.

Perhaps we can put a locker in the way, where a reskin, clone, or identified copy can be put in a holding space for the original author to approve release.

This is likely to be cumbersome and costly. However, I'd be fully prepared to pay such cost distributed over the cost of an FCT.

Why? Because I respect the good work done here by content creators, and I am prepared to pay the cost of blocking the kiddies making pointless problems for all of us.

 

[RW912]

Vern, I do agree with you with most of what you stand for, I honestly do. But consider this: If someone (here I mean someone who is mature enough to know he is doing something illegal but doesn't care) wants to 'steal' content, any sort of protection can be circumvented, be it with scripting or whatever way they find, just read some of the forums about online multiplayer shooting games, there are even groups who are specialized in distributing programs to cheat for a fee and they are extremely professional. (Copy) protecting things is always a losing battle, the company or user who takes it upon themselves to go that route will be always need to adjust their security measures to try and keep up with the cheaters and they will never be able to stay ahead of the culprits. Just think of the virus scene, it's a good example. In this case, as Zec explained ( thank you for the heads up, Zec ) it was a kid who didn't know it was illegal. And he probably has learned something now which is a good thing, I hope he will benefit from this lesson in his future.
Sometimes we just have to swallow to keep the world a better place and have fun. Again, I am not totally against every way of 'dealing' with thieves but when the good ones ( and we are still the majority ) have to suffer because of the actions of a few bad ones, I think we will be heading down a path no one wants.

 

[cressjl]

...Again, I am not totally against every way of 'dealing' with thieves but when the good ones ( and we are still the majority ) have to suffer because of the actions of a few bad ones, I think we will be heading down a path no one wants.

Is that like the whole class having to suffer because of one bad student? I never liked those teachers who did that!

I really think that N3V ought to take an Open Source stand for their DLS. After all, key components of assets are already in a somewhat protected form anyway (e.g., meshes). Such license terms also do not eliminate the requirement for common courtesy and acknowledging sources, even though it eliminates the need for permissions. Such licensing can also greatly restrict what can be done commercially (i.e., payware), and would continue to control piracy. Uploading to the DLS would imply the acknowledging and accepting of these terms.

Accepting Open Source licensing terms would test the true intentions of those who spout off that they spend untold hours of creation time for the "enjoyment" of the community. Really? I hope we do.

 

[hiawathamr]

Attention everyone
Mods, please excuse this as this is important.

I was in Trainz talking to my friend and he said Gramma is back to its tricks uploading content (possible illegal??) to the DLS.
I want to let you all know that he is back
Some are
~Hatfield Valley Southern Western County Region
~Tales On Springfield Railroad Region
~~Tweetsie Railroad Region

 

[n8phu]

Attention everyone
Mods, please excuse this as this is important.

I was in Trainz talking to my friend and he said Gramma is back to its tricks uploading content (possible illegal??) to the DLS.
I want to let you all know that he is back
Some are
~Hatfield Valley Southern Western County Region
~Tales On Springfield Railroad Region
~~Tweetsie Railroad Region

Again?

N3V explained to him and his parents about his.... He must be looking for a permanent ban.

 

[hiawathamr]

Again?

N3V explained to him and his parents about his.... He must be looking for a permanent ban.

Could be, I just don't understand why he wants to do it again except to get in trouble again

 

[maruffijd]

彼自身の死の責任を負うことになります。 (Responsible for his own death he will be.)

 

[Red_Rattler]

I believe his (or her) family has been given a letter about this & asked him/her to stop. Since he has done it again, after this, perhaps a "Letter of Demand" needs to be sent.

 

[THOMAS2000]

Hi, excuse me but it would appear to me that i may have (unwittingly) done something similar The asset in question is a Southeastern Class 375 EMU. I sourced it from this website- website. http://scratchlightstrainzsite.weebly.com/electrostars.html
Now,i did a touch up job and the DMSO and reskinned the MSO (as it was in very bad shape). The author says 'Everything on this page is freeware and can be reskinned freely by anyone who wishes to and uploaded to the download station without permission, however, please let me know if you upload it elsewhere.' I took that as a positive and uploaded it to my website. Reading through this thread, i ask- is that the right thing to do- or should i contact him about it?

 

[RRSignal]

Based on the the license, for uploading to YOUR own website, yes, you do have to contact him. If you had uploaded it to the DLS, no, you would not have. It doesn't sound like he cares if you upload elsewhere, but just wants to know about it.

 

[pcas1986]

Hi, excuse me but it would appear to me that i may have (unwittingly) done something similar ...

It clearly states that you should, so the right thing to do is to remove it from your website first and then ask the author for permission to host it on your website.

 

[THOMAS2000]

Thanks for the advice. Will do