Abandonned assets and updating issues

The consensus of the discussion was that the original mesh would not be altered in any way and that the creation and addition of the LOD meshes was within the N3V license for repairing/upgrading content uploaded to the DLS.

This won't happen, because it contradicts several very public statements that have been frequently reconfirmed.

"Note that it is also a myth that "today's warning is tomorrow's error"" and
"You are not permitted to fundamentally change the content beyond what is necessary to make it compatible with the latest versions of Trainz" (emphasis added).

So the LOD issue is always going to remain a warning, and repairing for warnings is never going to be allowed. Going back on both of those commitments would not be acceptable to the community.
 
This won't happen, because it contradicts several very public statements that have been frequently reconfirmed.

"Note that it is also a myth that "today's warning is tomorrow's error"" and
"You are not permitted to fundamentally change the content beyond what is necessary to make it compatible with the latest versions of Trainz" (emphasis added).

So the LOD issue is always going to remain a warning, and repairing for warnings is never going to be allowed. Going back on both of those commitments would not be acceptable to the community.


Might want to go to this announcement/thread and start reading:

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...rtant-Download-Station-Content-Repair-Updates
 
Perhaps a mod can move these later posts to another thread. We are seriously off course here.

I'm going to "out" myself here and inform you I'm actually the CRG Coordinator. Later in the week I will make a more general statement to the community.

I thought n8phu's post #30 was very interesting and there are aspects of his situation that may have to be dealt with as a special case and full consultation. There is also the option of n8phu joining the CRG. In general, I suggest the CRG will not be repairing assets for members who are active in the community without their consent. But you need to understand that we cannot wait around for ever waiting for a response. Tony wants to limit the waiting period to a week and you may have noticed the disquiet on that. In any event, the number of assets that require fixing means that nothing will happen quickly.

Just recently I discovered that use of the obsolete table by anyone other than the original author is banned by N3V. If you think about it then you should understand why. It could wreak havoc.

I didn't know about the bumping of asset versions to 127 either by N3V or anyone. Although I can see why some might do that to prevent others updating them. Those assets might go in the "too hard basket" for later consideration.

On the LOD issue: The CRG has discussed this quite a lot although not recently. One option is to just add a very low level boxy mesh to the asset. This meets the LOD requirements, even for TANE, and reduces load on the rendered scene.
 

Why? There's nothing there about changing warnings into errors, or allowing more comprehensive changes to assets than are already allowed.

The suggestion is that the procedure will change, and that other changes, where required to remove the error, will be possible (such as creating a 'work-alike' asset to replace a missing dependency), but none of that alters what repairers are allowed to do to the original asset. It can't, because that is dictated by the licence granted to N3V when the asset was uploaded.
 
I've been away from the forums for quite a while, so forgive my ignorance, but what is CRG, and why does it seem the general consensus is that "We'd rather disrespect the Law and/or the Original Author whom we can not contact, rather than do without what they graciously gave us so generously" ?

From my point of view, if you can't use some old asset because it is not up to current standards, and the Original Creator is, for whatever reason, unavailable or unwilling, you simply replace the asset with something else, or do without. I am so sick and tired of these "entitlement" arguments. You are not entitled to anything. No one owes you a life long commitment that a particular asset will continue to be "up to date", and quite honestly, it's disgusting to me the attitude that I see from not only younger generations, but some older folks who don't seem to have the respect for the people who provided you things for free, that took days or weeks to create, that they did a few years ago.

I removed all my content from Train-Sim dot com a few years ago, because there were too many "gimme gimme" kids ... Now it seems that even the die-hards, the older generations, and N3V themselves, have become the same gimme-pigs.
-- A committee has actually determined and agreed that it is OKAY to reverse engineer someone else's hard work, and then redistribute that work, because they are no longer active on these forums?? And this community is OKAY with that ?? <<( shocked )>>

I think I also read somewhere above, that someone brought up the Copyright Law vs. Copyright Enforcement, saying that Copyright does not matter, because it can't be enforced unless it is registered ...
1. I think you are mistaken, and confusing Copyright with Trademark. In the USA, Trademarks have to be Registered. To my knowledge, Copyright does not have to be registered in order for it to be enforced.
2. If you are implying that a Creator's Copyright should, or could, be ignored, because it would be difficult to enforce, or because it would be too expensive for the average hobbyist to go to Court to have enforced, you sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
3. While it is true, that the majority of content creators are just hobbyist, and do lack the funds or ambition to take the matter to court on their own, we don't have to, because Copyright Infringement is a Crime in the USA, so all we have to do is make a formal complaint, evidencing our claim to the intellectual property, and the District Attorney will do the work and funding of prosecuting any offender .. Regardless of your "opinion" on the matter.
 
1. I think you are mistaken, and confusing Copyright with Trademark. In the USA, Trademarks have to be Registered. To my knowledge, Copyright does not have to be registered in order for it to be enforced.

[h=3]When Does Copyright Take Effect?[/h] Copyright is automatically vested the moment a work is fixed in any tangible medium.

[h=3]Copyright Registration[/h]
[h=6]Myth[/h]
If it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted.

[h=6]Reality[/h]
Works created in the U.S. after April 1, 1989 do not require a copyright notice.



It is not necessary to register a work with the U.S. Copyright Office in order for a work to be protected under copyright law. However, registration does afford certain advantages in the event that the copyright of a work is challenged in court.


[h=3]Copyright Notices[/h] It is no longer necessary to include a copyright notice on a work. The work is still considered to be protected by copyright even if it does not have a notice. However, if you are distributing your works to the public, you may wish to include a notice to prevent others from incorrectly thinking that the work is not subject to copyright.
Copyright notices should contain three items:

  • The word “copyright,” or the symbol © or the abbreviation “Copr.” with the year of first publication.
  • The year of first publication.
  • The owner of the copyright.
Further Resources:




From here: http://scholarlycommunications.wustl.edu/copyright/general.html
 
Why? There's nothing there about changing warnings into errors, or allowing more comprehensive changes to assets than are already allowed.

The suggestion is that the procedure will change, and that other changes, where required to remove the error, will be possible (such as creating a 'work-alike' asset to replace a missing dependency), but none of that alters what repairers are allowed to do to the original asset. It can't, because that is dictated by the licence granted to N3V when the asset was uploaded.


Just as a heads up as to what is planned.
 
I've been away from the forums for quite a while, so forgive my ignorance, but what is CRG, and why does it seem the general consensus is that "We'd rather disrespect the Law and/or the Original Author whom we can not contact, rather than do without what they graciously gave us so generously" ?

...

Please read Tony Hilliam's posts here that explains the the purpose of the Content Repair Group (CRG) before making any conclusions.
 
I'm in agreement with Kingconrail76.

This topic been raised a few times in the past, and I remember a comment by a content creator years ago that when he dies his meshes die with him......still makes me smile.
If it's old content make a new or similar version to the latest standards, how hard can it be? After all we are forever being told that the newer creating programs are much better and quicker.....just get on with it.

Life's too short to have to go back on content that may have been made years ago, I'd much rather be looking at making new objects.

Chris.
 
A committee has actually determined and agreed that it is OKAY to reverse engineer someone else's hard work, and then redistribute that work, because they are no longer active on these forums?? And this community is OKAY with that ??
It has apparently been discussed but AFAIK not decided. And the community is most definitely not OK with that.
 
Well at least the council did agree to send Frodo Baggins to Modor to get rid of the ring so we can be thankful for that i feel.
Cheers Mick.:hehe:
 
When Does Copyright Take Effect?

Copyright is automatically vested the moment a work is fixed in any tangible medium.

(Remainder removed)...
All of this is very true, but it might be moot. Of course, my response might only "stir the pot," but copyright privileges are somewhat redefined when a content creator (in this case) is creating content specific to an application or host. By the very act of releasing content publicly, you may surrender certain rights of ownership.

An example of surrendering rights of ownership would be when you generate works for hire. As an employee for IBM, all my work was owned by IBM, and they retained all ownership and rights to my work when I left.

Now, I am NOT saying that we are all slaves of N3V, or working for hire, but we are creating content specifically used by their software. I would expect that N3V retains certains rights and privileges to content created for their system (such as the right to declare what rights they have to your content!).

Case in point would be most Internet hosting sites, especially music sites, that retain the right to display and distribute the content you upload to their liking, not yours. And, if you don't like it, then you don't upload...
 
A committee has actually determined and agreed that it is OKAY to reverse engineer someone else's hard work, and then redistribute that work, because they are no longer active on these forums?? And this community is OKAY with that ?? <<( shocked )

This shows how quickly these stories can get out of hand - just like "Chinese whispers". From my recollection of the conversation and arguments where this was raised, NO committee was involved. It was a CONVERSATION between two members of the Pioneer Council on whether or not it would be POSSIBLE to do this to create LODs (which would NOT ALTER the original work in any way) and whether or not it would violate any of N3V rules. I do not know if anything was actually done or not - but I doubt it from the reaction it generated.
 
I would expect that N3V retains certains rights and privileges to content created for their system (such as the right to declare what rights they have to your content!).
No. N3V has no rights in respect of content created using their format (eg, .im files, config.txt) in the same way that Microsoft has no rights in respect of a novel that was saved to a RTF file, or Corel has in respect of an image saved in a PSP file, or ADOBE for a PDF, or...
 
Last edited:
No. N3V has no rights in respect of content created using their format (eg, .im files, config.txt) in the same way that Microsoft has no rights in respect of a novel that was saved to a RTF file, or Corel has in respect of an image saved in a PSP file, or ADOBE for a PDF, or...
I think you missed my point. I am not saying that file formats are the determining factor; it is the hosting...

The discussion concerning N3V's "right" to modify assets uploaded to the DLS is what I am addressing here. I would argue that they certainly can claim that right within the scope of international law. Now, whether it would be wise for them to do certain things that would anger the community is a wholly different matter.
 
I think you missed my point. I am not saying that file formats are the determining factor; it is the hosting...
You said 'content created for their system'. That would be content created in order to be used in Trainz, which means that it follows a very specific file format. If you actually meant to say 'content uploaded to their system' then their rights concerning that content are clearly stated in the licence agreement that the content creator agrees to at the time of uploading. It does not include reverse engineering the item (in exactly the same way that your licence to use N3V product does not include the right to reverse engineer it).
 
Okay. Yes, Microsoft would own every document you write in .doc, .rtf, or .docx format, if they wanted to. You are bound by the license agreement, whatever it is. In fact, I use for free an otherwise very expensive graphics software tool for CAD drawings under the restriction that everything I generate is for personal use only--I cannot sell anything I generate, ever.
Restricting what you can do with works covered by a license agreement is an entirely different concept than owning those works. You are confusing copyright with licensing - they are two separate issues. To suggest that MS (or anyone) can ever own works created using their software, whatever their license might say, is just nonsense.
 
Hi All --

Very interesting discussion ....

However, I am thinking here ... with all of this copyright issue emerging out of folks brains', have anyone of you ever known anyone in these forums that actually in the real world went to an attorney, dropped a couple of thousand dollars just to ask in a formal letter request to N3V to release all of their works from the DLS, or action will be taken? ... Has anyone ever registered their work with the copyright office in their perspective countries?

I am just curious! :wave:

Ish
 
Back
Top