Illegal uploads to the DLS. [solved]

J

JCitron

Trainzing since 12-2003
We have a content uploader uploading content to the DLS under his own username, which belongs to others.

Sklerozz, UID 583741, uploaded Jointed Rail buildings:

<kuid:583741:100427> skl_JR Brunswick Logistics
<kuid:583741:100429> skl_JR Generic Warehouse 1
<kuid:583741:100428> skl_JR Generic Warehouse (400L300W)
<kuid:583741:100430> skl_JR Midwest Paper Products
<kuid:583741:100431> skl_JR X-Ray Shed
<kuid:583741:100430> skl_JR Midwest Paper Products

And who knows what else by other content-creators.

I notified Mike Cyr (22Alpha) regarding the Jointed Rail assets because those are his creations, except for the Midwest Paper Products because I missed that one.

Here's another noticed on a quick look.

<kuid:583741:100417> skl_brb leeds offices. I can't remember who made this one originally.

Also this user is changing the thumbnails on some assets so they don't match the asset uploaded.

Don't download these because you'll end up with missing assets if he gets banned and content pulled by the helpdesk.
 
JCitron said:
<kuid:583741:100417> skl_brb leeds offices. I can't remember who made this one originally.

Also this user is changing the thumbnails on some assets so they don't match the asset uploaded.

Don't download these because you'll end up with missing assets if he gets banned and content pulled by the helpdesk.
Click to expand...

I'm going to download this one and check the config file. He may have just cloned it and then uploaded it to the DLS and not changed anything in the config file. If he did that, we may find out who originally made it.
 
That's a good idea. I hadn't thought of it and I noticed the JR stuff, which lent me to thinking the rest is questionable.

Marketplace 1, 2, & 3, all with the same thumbnail as a station platform shelter?
 
Original KUID for JR Midwest Paper Products is <kuid:175455:101449>.
Original KUID for brb leeds offices is <kuid2:746685:21069:1>.
 
Smacks of yet more Uploading for Multiplayer. I notice that the user has uploaded an awful lot of stuff, which given John's discovery may well be dodgy as well, why do people persist in doing this when it's likely to result in a ban and a lot of fed up people who suddenly find dependencies have been pulled?
 
Just checked the config file and he didn't make any changes to it. I double checked it by downloading the X-Ray shed and the config file hasn't been altered either. The organization, contact-email, contact-website, and website for 'skl_brb leeds office' all say "http://trainz-objects.weebly.com/". The author listed in the config file says "Burebista". This is more than likely the original author, as the config file lists "Mike Cyr" as the author for the X-Ray shed.
 
Please inform the original creators and ask them to send a ticket to the helpdesk ASAP. The sooner they do so, the faster N3V will look into it, ban the person from the DLS and cancel his/her assets.
The more original authors do so, the faster N3V is likely to act.
 
Hi there! I'm SKLEROZZ who uploaded those assets to the DLS with my kuids. The originals were obtained from open sources, but they do not exist on DLS. I adapted these objects, added LODs. And then I uploaded them to the DLS. II'm not going to use them for commercial gain or in multiplayer. If the authors have a claim, then I ask you to write them here.

My Best Regards!
 
Hi SKLEROZZ...

Unfortunately what you have stated isn't likely to help in this circumstance as claims are normally made directly to N3V who don't look kindly to incidents like that.

Uploading other peoples content without the creators permission (even if modified) is also a big no-no in this community from what I've seen. If the items are faulty then it's best to let the original authors sort their assets out.

Shane
 
I understand. But the fact is that these assets are in the public domain, but the author is not going to finish them.

I left all links to the author in the config. And I think I helped with that, if you can call it that.

If I offended the author with my act, please forgive me.

If the author doesn't mind, ask him to write here.
 
If we have a look at the license for the x-ray shed asset:

"Freeware, for distribution only by N3V/Jointed Rail Produtions, LLC. Reskins are permitted, please credit Jointed Rail for the content. Uploads to the DLS are also allowed, again with credit to Jointed Rail for the original model."

I'm happy to see the attentiveness of the community to what goes up onto n3v's servers for public download, but SKLEROZZ is in the clear on these.
 
And one must remember that English isn't always a first language and what's acceptable in one part of the world might not acceptable in another. I believe in "a person is innocent until proven guilty"
 
Therock said:
I'm happy to see the attentiveness of the community to what goes up onto n3v's servers for public download, but SKLEROZZ is in the clear on these.
Click to expand...

I agree. While vigilance is important and must be encouraged, it can go overboard and quickly turn nasty. There have been a few recent examples in these forums.

While N3V are often criticised for taking far too long to remove what is sometimes called "blatant violations of creators rights", they have shown themselves to be fair and consistent at least in the cases I have known about. As N3V have often stated the "blatant violations" can turn out to be "fully authorised copies/clones/reskins" or, even worse, vindictive and baseless claims made for whatever twisted reasons. The original creator of an asset is the only one who can confirm or refute any claims of infringement.

This is not saying that genuine violations do not occur.

On the flip side I have been through the annoying process of having to modify and upload a route and sessions because it contained DLS assets that were not authorised and were pulled from the DLS.
 
pware said:
I agree. While vigilance is important and must be encouraged, it can go overboard and quickly turn nasty. There have been a few recent examples in these forums.

While N3V are often criticised for taking far too long to remove what is sometimes called "blatant violations of creators rights", they have shown themselves to be fair and consistent at least in the cases I have known about. As N3V have often stated the "blatant violations" can turn out to be "fully authorised copies/clones/reskins" or, even worse, vindictive and baseless claims made for whatever twisted reasons. The original creator of an asset is the only one who can confirm or refute any claims of infringement.

This is not saying that genuine violations do not occur.

On the flip side I have been through the annoying process of having to modify and upload a route and sessions because it contained DLS assets that were not authorised and were pulled from the DLS.
Click to expand...

I agree and the original thread here was not done in with malice. The asset-uploader should have credited the original authors rather than just upload the assets as is under his id even if he added his prefix to the asset. and he should also have asked for permission too as stated in the JR license agreement.

I too have been a victim of bad content. Not as a content creator or one that placed assets on the DLS, but on the receiving end. I have run into more assets which are now classed as faulty due to using a fake UID. In TS12 there are some of those assets included in the built-ins as well, which have caused missing assets when content has been transferred to T:ANE, and the assets are not available, but were once available on the DLS.

So in the end I meant no harm to Skelerozz and my apologies are sincere. It's just we need to err on the safe side.
 
JCitron said:
The asset-uploader should have credited the original authors rather than just upload the assets as is under his id even if he added his prefix to the asset. and he should also have asked for permission too as stated in the JR license agreement.
Click to expand...
The original author is credited using the exact terminology from the original. According to the licence there is no requirement for permission.
 
Therock said:
If we have a look at the license for the x-ray shed asset:

"Freeware, for distribution only by N3V/Jointed Rail Produtions, LLC. Reskins are permitted, please credit Jointed Rail for the content. Uploads to the DLS are also allowed, again with credit to Jointed Rail for the original model."

I'm happy to see the attentiveness of the community to what goes up onto n3v's servers for public download, but SKLEROZZ is in the clear on these.
Click to expand...

Yup just checked a bunch of content stuff that came with the Eagle River Route and a lot of it has the same statement above.
 
Dear all! I've read everything you wrote. In turn, I want to say that I was not trying to hurt anyone or benefit from it. Let's not speculate. Your position is clear and understandable to me. I ask the author of the initial assets to write here about this. If he insists on removing them from the DLS, I'll ask him to remove them.

Thanx a lot! My best regards!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Lord 9 uploaded payware assets on the DLS
Replies
14
Views
1K
Dinorius_Redundicus
D
T
  • Locked
Gramma's Illegal JR & HP Trainz Payware Content on DLS (2023)
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
dangavel
D
D
Trust and the issues of online dependant simulators.
Replies
6
Views
780
dleblanc
D
J
Several DLS consist uploads failed due to unknown errors
Replies
14
Views
2K
SailorDan
S
P
Free Haven Model Railroad
Replies
16
Views
5K
RailPilgrim
R
Back
Top