Proposed Policy Change - the Modiquette

[Gary Childress]

I wish I could agree, however, the EULA specifically addresses the issue of "user created content". I mean if we disregard the EULA, then maybe we can just pirate the software while we're at it.

 

[Gary Childress]

And by the way:
We are not making money with our mod.
We share the mod (and everything we created ourselves) for free.
But I simply cannot share the music I do not own.

My apologies. I was refering to the part about "user created content" in your case, not the part about "profiting off the software."

 

[raystuttgart]

I decided to leave this forum now.
(All downloads / links of our mod will be deleted also.)

If I am not able to protect copyrighted work for which generous people have given rights of usage to us and am denied even most basic rights about my own work, this is the wrong place for me.

And as I said, I never had any problems in general with sharing my own work ...

 

[embryodead]

I wish I could agree, however, the EULA specifically addresses the issue of "user created content". I mean if we disregard the EULA, then maybe we can just pirate the software while we're at it.

Are you seriously comparing breaking an end-user license agreement with piracy? I disregard the EULA - what legal consequences are waiting for me for this crime? Am I doing something immoral as well?

In the context of user generated content, EULA is a safety measure protecting the company's interests, in case it's needed. It's not something to be enforced top-down. It never was. If you did that, consider that EULA doesn't allow:
- any music that isn't public domain, also if used with permission,
- any 2D or 3D conversions from other games, also if used with permission,
- any buttons, tech icons, wonder splashes from other games or from Google Images, also if used with permission,
- any original work/mod but based on third party IP (i.e. mods based on Star Wars, Star Trek, Middle Earth, Warhammer, Heroes of Might & Magic, Fallout, Dune), also if done with permission
- any Civ content that has not been created by the modder himself or has not been specifically released into public domain if it was made by someone else (that includes cities by Kyriakos, or terrain by Ares).

If EULA was enforced in this way, virtually all big, popular mods for Civ3 and Civ4 would have to be deleted, including Fall From Heaven, which disregards the EULA, yet has been recognized and praised by Firaxis, who then worked closely with Kael on a spin-off version included on BtS disc, free of content copyrighted by 3rd parties.

We've been able to do this for over 10 years, without Civilization publishers claiming our content or sending cease & desist letters to modders. Why all of a sudden you want the modders the enforce the EULA upon themselves when the publisher in question does not, and will not, as that would be shooting itself in the foot for no reason? It was never a problem, it still isn't a problem. We have a copyrights disagreement betwen modders, not with 2K.

 

[Gary Childress]

Piracy is an instance of breaking the EULA. It's in the EULA also.

Don't get me wrong. I really would rather not go by the EULA either. However, I would seriously take a look at it before making site policy decisions...no?

 

[Quinzy]

Only in much the same way that murder is breaking the law, and so is jaywalking. They're both crimes but to different degrees. Ignoring one part of the EULA about modding but not the piracy element is not equivocal. There are degrees of severity.

At any rate, if an EULA stipulated something against EU law that element of the EULA is no longer relevant to me.

 

[Gary Childress]

Only in much the same way that murder is breaking the law, and so is jaywalking. They're both crimes but to different degrees. Ignoring one part of the EULA about modding but not the piracy element is not equivocal. There are degrees of severity.

At any rate, if an EULA stipulated something against EU law that element of the EULA is no longer relevant to me.

I'm not sure what items in the EULA carry what severity but me selling my Civ III units for say $1.00 a piece doesn't sound very severe to me. I'm not making illegal copies of the game and selling them. So if I freely sell a copy of my unit to someone on condition that they are not allowed to distribute it freely to others so I can make more profit and yet they do so, do I have a right to enforce my wishes when I've already infringed upon the original EULA in the first place?

I mean if I make a copy of Raystuttgart's mod and distribute it to others, can he come along and forbid me from it and enforce it, even though his withholding it may be against the EULA? I mean if EULA's mean nothing then surely any rules I create about the units I sell are null and void also...or no?

EDIT: Suppose I DLd a copy of Raystuttgart's mod a few days ago? He's taking it down now. So I put it up on the website because I'm just that way? What recourse does Raystuttgart have to prevent me from doing so? What about his composer friend? If they already violated the EULA, then what is more severe about me violating the their wishes? Furthermore, is it really a "big deal" if I post Raystuttgart's stuff without his permission? I'm not profiting off it.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Quite frankly, Gary, if we all followed that line of reasoning, then what exactly is the point of any of us modders creating anything at all? The more I read the way "the community" considers our work, the more I'm beginning to think that there is no point in my devoting my time for "the community".

 

[Gary Childress]

Quite frankly, Gary, if we all followed that line of reasoning, then what exactly is the point of any of us modders creating anything at all? The more I read the way "the community" considers our work, the more I'm beginning to think that there is no point in my devoting my time for "the community".

Well in a sense if we are abandoning the parts of the EULA we don't like then aren't we already following a line of reasoning that is counter to the rights of modders?

EDIT: As far as the "point of creating anything at all" the point could be to have fun and help others in the community have fun also. Why withhold certain rights to our products?

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

The fact of the matter is as embryo pointed out: Firaxis does not even completely follow its own EULA with regards to modding - to do so would be counterproductive.

What point is there to insist on site policy following something that Firaxis does not even follow 100%?

EDIT: Yes, the "point" is to "have fun" in the process. But it certainly is not "fun" if modders' concerns are disregarded in the process.

 

[Gary Childress]

The fact of the matter is as embryo pointed out: Firaxis does not even completely follow its own EULA with regards to modding - to do so would be counterproductive.

What point is there to insist on site policy following something that Firaxis does not even follow 100%?

EDIT: Yes, the "point" is to "have fun" in the process. But it certainly is not "fun" if modders' concerns are disregarded in the process.

If hypocrisy is the issue, what is the point of following the EULA of a modder when modders don't follow the EULA of the game they are modding? If we are not following EULA's why should anyone follow our EULAs? And if they don't what exaclty are any of us going to do about it? Sue them for using our illegal materials?

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

The argument (on my part at least) is not to go by arbitrary sets of EULAs, but simply keep to our previous and long-held practice of simply going by mutual respect, assuming that mutual respect even exists on this site anymore.

I do not see the point of forcing the matter of the EULAs here.

 

[Padjur]

It would seem to me that there is a miss understanding.
The License agreement for BTS states there should be no "violation or infringement of copyright or or other intellectual property of any third parties"
That means your ok to use copyrighted music if you have permission but no one else can use it, unless they too have permission (I believe that applies to 2K as well).
The essential words are third party, a third party is someone who is not 2K and not the modder.


The purpose of bringing up the License Agreement was to highlight the difficulties in deciding what constitutes the Intellectual property of the second party (the modder) in this rule.
A third parties rights is one thing but a modders "customized game material" such as a piece of c++ code is not at all clear cut.
For example a piece of modified code could quite reasonably be produced by two modders interdependently without any prior knowledge of each others work, who now owns the rights? and how do we adjudicate such disputes and what of

"the essential spirit of this community, to help one another develop and enjoy the Civilization game" ( from modiquette)

is that worth selling down the river so we can argue over who has rights to use what and how?

 

[Gary Childress]

The argument (on my part at least) is not to go by arbitrary sets of EULAs, but simply keep to our previous and long-held practice of simply going by mutual respect, assuming that mutual respect even exists on this site anymore.

I do not see the point of forcing the matter of the EULAs here.

I'm not the one who originally brought up the EULA issue so that is fine by me. I'm happy to go with a modified form of the rule posted in the OP which takes into account the wishes of modders but the EULA was brought up and it seemed like a pertinent issue.

I don't see where mutual respect is in any greater danger now than it ever has been. People here have always had disputes about one thing or another but for the most part we've gotten along I guess.

The issue seems to be over denying others the right to use our products even though they wish to give us credit and even though our product is itself a derivative of someone elses who doesn't have a problem with others using their products. I guess that's what basically stirred this whole thing.

In the final analysis we could go by something like the following maybe:

Any Mod that is developed using CivFanatics resources or is supplied by one of its authors through links in the forums or Downloads database is free to use, within reasonable limits, without permission, as long as credit is given, unless otherwise indicated by its author.

Unless of course the EULA is going to be factored into this.

 

[Takhisis]

This feels like a circular firing squad.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe one can revise/compose a play before the shots are fired then

 

[Robert Surcouf]

Hello everyone,

I don't mean to be disrespectful, or impolite, but I must say I disagree with this change of Policy

Staff is trying to update the policy on use of Mods at CivFanatics. We ask for your feedback on this proposed update and formalization of the Modiquette:

Thank you very much! Most of the feedback is negative on the change of policy to a formal part, so I guess you're simply going to abandon the change of plans, and stick with the good old Modiquette! That would seem the most reasonable solution to me.

First of all, Modiquette is more or less a French word, or based on the French word "étiquette". What is an étiquette? It is an informal code, a code of honor, something that an individual or a group chooses to follow.
Changing this into a formal law, means is in no longer an étiquette.
So would you please kindly:
A) Stick with the old étiquette or modiquette
or
B) Change your policy and change the name of your policy. Because frankly this does not have much to do with etiquette. [This part is not an opinion of mine. It is simply the definition of the word. Sorry if I'm blunt...]

I would rather opt for solution A.
Some replies of the moderators and/or those in favor of the policy change seem to me quite biased and tendentious (I'm not sure if it's the correct word. Sorry for my English)...
First of all, as Tom2050 said. Posting and linking are two different things. So the rules cannot legally aplly to links

I read this:

In addition, if you post at this site, what you post is considered to be in the public domain. Should you choose to leave the forum (or behave in a manner that results in your account being banned), any deletion of your account, or the posts you have made (including attachments) is at the sole discretion of the administrators.

I must say this seems correct. And yes, I signed this and would sign it again. However it is quite specific. This concerns posts and attachments only
This does not concern links. So Monaldinio and Kyriakos's initial posts haven't been unanswered.
The last part of the agreements may be problematic. That's precisely why I used the word "biased". When you say the posts are "the sole discretion of the administrators", it is of course correct. But that means that users can't go on a legal fight against administrators. Of course! Especially if one has been baned.
However it does not mean administrators own the posts (especially if some of the attachments are under copyrights). Simply posting on civfanatics something under copyright law, would not make it automatically free to use. This is foolish ! I can't believe someone would actually think that

2K or Firaxis couldn't possibly claim right to all MP3s, however once they are incorporated into a mod that works in the game then it sounds like, at that point, the files come under the jurisdiction of 2K's EULA. So interpreting the EULA is important here.

Sure, but that's the problem, we (neither Me nor Ray nor anyone on the Revolution and Religion team) own the right of that song. Technically 2K could claim it indeed. But, sorry if I seem impolite, Gary Childress, Intellectual Berserker, but that isn't your business! At all ! 2K is 2K, and Civfanatics is Civfanatics.

I am not looking to impose a rule. I would prefer for the modding community to come up with something that they can all live with. It may be that this rule or guideline is that the modder can choose conditions of use, in which case, fine. But however it is done, it must be clear to all.

Great.
Well, what's wrong with the old etiquette. Some people might refuse to share their work. It is frustrating, I get it. Anyone can share my work. I've used may resources of Civfanatics. And I must say I love this forum, and you've been very helpful. I must thank you. and again I must say I'm sorry if I seem blunt...
But, with these new rules, we will not be able to protect René Osmanczyk.

Anyway, If you change the policy, since I disagree, I will probably have to think twice before posting anything here.

Again, in mods there are files with copyrights (e.g. Civ 4 Bts files in C4C mods). Technically speaking, I think that it is forbidden to use such files if you don't have the original game (in this case I mean both games...). So there are copyright issues.

 

[Gary Childress]

But, sorry if I seem impolite, Gary Childress, Intellectual Berserker, but that isn't your business! At all ! 2K is 2K, and Civfanatics is Civfanatics.

I understand that. I didn't bring up the EULA. It sounded like a pertinent issue at first, though, however, it seems that the EULA is not all that important so I was suggesting a different rule which gives modders rights to set whatever limitations they want to their work. Now it is suggested that nothing changes and we just leave the modiquette the way it is. Sounds perfect to me. I say leave it at that so others will stop freaking out.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I dont want to Share my work, so that another Party use it in another Mod!

Wehre is it written that i agree to shrare my work for Free using?!?

But you are the very person who took the Civ4 Alpha Centauri mod, did a few changes to it, and claimed it as entirely your own. What sort of moral ground could you possibly have to say such things?

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Hello everyone,

I don't mean to be disrespectful, or impolite, but I must say I disagree with this change of Policy

I think it would be better if it would remain as an etiquette, too. The etiquette was perfect: the community de facto shared almost everything, but modders still had the prerogative to say whether they wanted to share things or not. However, I don't think it is much of a big deal. Specially considering that this policy probably has no legal effect.