Cross List : They Are Hacking The Maps Again
Confused
Wait. What? Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12904Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester
Wait. What? Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12904Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">intelectual property and you</div> they are debating weatehr they can edit your map with ripent serer side in the <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=47493&st=0' target='_blank'>genral discussion</a>. join the debate
Comments
Nothing can be done about it.
we can sue them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ripents allows them to change any property of any entity in your map -- anything you type into the properties editor, they can change.
Say you have a button that opens a door. They could theoretically make the door toggle instead of shutting automatically, change the door's speed, remove the door and button entirely, or move the door and button to a different spot on your map. They could even use your door and button model to create extra doors.
They could theoretically move around hives, the starting command chair, and spawn points to change your map's effective layout.
They could also theoretically move around your lights and send the map through RAD to change the lighting, but that's not likely to happen without the support of an editor.
-----------------------------------
FANoelson:
If somebody asked me, I'd probably be fine with ripent changes to one of my maps, but I guess I'm a freak since I don't want people to take something I spent months (sometimes years) working on and change it without permission, possibly ruining its balance or playability in the process. I'd definately want people to know that my work had been changed by somebody else in case the changes made a bad impression.
amckern
ns_hera_x2 was done with Merkaba's permission, so it's not really relevant to the property rights debate.
The problem that started the thread linked in the first post was server admins stripping out entities to make maps perform better--things like taking out all the particle systems, sprites, and ambient sounds to lower the CPU and network requirements.
EDIT: grammar & readability
It's cool. Just don't take it too far I say, don't go all Ripent Crazy adding like 20 hives.
~ DarkATi
you can black list servers but that wont matter that much usually servers that do this are populated by 2 types of players
1 educated players that are looking for that in a server so they wil go no matter what.
2 noobs that have no clue and probbaly have never even heard of this forum so no list will help you with them.
as far as i know no one has the right to do this or edit a map unless it is truely property of valve ie released by sierra. this is why i was abe to do this to gearbox maps and even though gearbox didnt want it to happen. Any other maps you are editing your are suppose to have permision from the author but it gets more complicated cause there are different way to "hack" the maps if you select a way that doesnt actually alter the bsp ie hacking the engine or dll your arent technically violating any mappers property then you have an issue with the coders.
as far as everything else ask yourself really are you going to sue someone come on a person who makes no profit off a map sueing someone who makes no profit off a server. give me a break.
If you want to do somethign about it you have to ask yourself really are you doing the right thing or not some games need stability they need people to be able to go into games and play the same thing always. other games need flexibility NS presses the limits of HL and so its laggy on many computers every little bit helps some gameing companies and mappers who are lookign to get hired by a gaming company dont keep in mind the players who have a not so hot computer or arent that good at the game. You have to admit alot of the NS maps were designed just like this. press the game as far as it can go visually and hope to catch the eye of gaming companies then you might get hired.
Now if you decide that your game needs to have a uniform set of rules and look much in the same dirrectiuon that CS is going then this is what you may try. make it so metamod cant hook your mod. make all default and popular custom maps with a hardcoded entity list that is the last thing called so that no one can ripent a map , use metamod or any other hook to alter your map. and while your at it you should lock in or hard code just about every other setting. then sit back and watch see if you made the right decision if you did your servers will drop players then start picking back up and grow. if your wrong they will drop and stay low for quite some time. If yuo did perfect your servers will see no drop and then grow.
I am not saying i support the decision of people to edit maps for every 20 edits only 1 may have actually done anythign good for the game. and in the case of a mod like NS that is still actively supporting and balencing the game it will probbaly be less. I too have had people edit my maps in a way that went directly against my intended gameplay design for a particular map which is far worse then jsut editing for increase in performance. imagine if soemone decided to move hives around to make make one team weaker or what not. I just let them do it in fact i gave the one guy who asked permision even though i thought his **** was really noobish. I did it just cause hey at least he asked.
so my advice is dont stress yorself out just make a decision are you going to try to stop it in the code or not if not jsut let it go, if you want to then get coding.
one note on blacklist i personally dont see any problem with that if your admins can be fair. dont consider it a black list consider it a information list of edited servers or if you want to be really politically correct jsut list servers that are not edited say these are NS certified pure servers or soethign. But there is one major problem with that can you really be fair? it only takes a little bit of bias and you end up with a place like planethalflife where not being on the list of good buddies with someone inside means your basically on a unwritten blacklist where you cant get support of any type.
I see what you are doing as impolite and illegal.
laws don't really apply to what were doing here but we can make people follow our rules.
it has always been known that entities were editable, post compile. so adressing this earlier would have been wise.
Fascinating. Your legally qualified source for that information?
The United States has had copyright law explicitly extended to include original digital works.
Here is what copyright covers:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, <b>in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.</b> Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
<b>(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;</b>
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 106A gives the copyright holder the explicit right to prevent modification of his work that is <b>independant of rights associated with distribution</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and <b>independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106</b>, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
<b>(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and</b>
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 113(d), for the curious (I've pasted Section 107 below)--it doesn't apply to NS maps since it was designed for physical structures attached to buildings:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(d)(1) In a case in which —
(A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), and
(B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal, then the rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall not apply.
(2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), the author's rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall apply unless —
(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 501 outlines infringement of copyright:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 <b>or of the author as provided in section 106A(a)</b>, or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the part that can get you sued.
Some people are debating the applicability of the fair use clause (Section 107):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are server owners claiming to critique the maps they modify? Are they news reporters? Do they use the maps for their academic pursuits?
Going down the list of qualifications, (1) - imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that your server is there for educational purposes... (3) - the entire work (after modification) is in use, and (4) - the modified work impacts public perceptions of both the author and the map itself, causing potential damage to the market value of NS as a whole.
The language of the document couldn't be more clear -- Section 106A gives copyright holders the right to demand that their works remain unmodified even after they have been distributed.
i retract the "laws don't really apply to what were doing here" statement. however i just simply meant it the lightest sense that we usually (probably always) don't have to take someone to court.
what you want done to your map is what should be done to it.
sorry. i'm sure i made a fool of myself <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
No offense to you, XPCagey or Ollj, but considering the maps being altered werent even created by them, why should they have any say? Or why should anyone's opinion on the matter supercede your own as to how things are dealt with...Thats what laws are for. Setting up guidelines would be a waste of time. Common sence should dictate these matters, and luckily in the case of copyrights, common sense and the law coincide pretty well.
Ask permission...I dont think there is a single mapper who would deny permission. Stripping entities has merit, as NS is pretty intensive and any boost to performance is pretty much nescesary. But! NS and its devs/mapmakers and community members are all actively looking for ways to resolve these issues, by optimizing what they can, redefining guidelines, enforcing limits and submiting bug reports and sugestions and so on...I think its reasonable to assume that servers operators should do so also. Most do, but these servers looking for a quick fix are counterproductive. Right now the only way NS will improve is through Feedback, and if you are playing modified versions of NS, its maps etc. the feedback is useless. What works in the modded maps doesnt nescesarilly help define what works in the real map.
Also, as far as escalating these matters to the point of a lawsuit... This kind of "small time" copyright infringment is high and escalating in cyberspace, and because of the potential market, more and more lawyers are making these kinds of small cases thier feild of expertise. Ive already heard about a few of these small cases...noone wins any substantial amount of money, just peace of mind and lawyers fees. Dont be suprized if these kinds of disputes begin actually going to court in the next few years.
Fascinating. Your legally qualified source for that information?
The United States has had copyright law explicitly extended to include original digital works.
Here is what copyright covers:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, <b>in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.</b> Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
<b>(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;</b>
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 106A gives the copyright holder the explicit right to prevent modification of his work that is <b>independant of rights associated with distribution</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and <b>independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106</b>, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
<b>(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and</b>
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 113(d), for the curious (I've pasted Section 107 below)--it doesn't apply to NS maps since it was designed for physical structures attached to buildings:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(d)(1) In a case in which —
(A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), and
(B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal, then the rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall not apply.
(2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), the author's rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall apply unless —
(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 501 outlines infringement of copyright:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 <b>or of the author as provided in section 106A(a)</b>, or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the part that can get you sued.
Some people are debating the applicability of the fair use clause (Section 107):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are server owners claiming to critique the maps they modify? Are they news reporters? Do they use the maps for their academic pursuits?
Going down the list of qualifications, (1) - imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that your server is there for educational purposes... (3) - the entire work (after modification) is in use, and (4) - the modified work impacts public perceptions of both the author and the map itself, causing potential damage to the market value of NS as a whole.
The language of the document couldn't be more clear -- Section 106A gives copyright holders the right to demand that their works remain unmodified even after they have been distributed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You DON'T want to get in an argument about copyrights with Cagey, he will tear you down... I know.
~ DarkATi
I don't know if HL has the same copyrights as a lot of other people, but don't the copyrights fall under Valve themselves? A lot of newer games (again, HL may not include this) have the clause of 'any add-ons and modifications become the property of blah-blah-blah.' I remember a lot of complaints about this when the games starting putting in these clauses, and I think a main reason was because of all the companies that starting making a business out of downloading all the Doom maps on the net and repackaging them
Bottom line: If Flayra saw entity-removal as being a major no-no, I'm sure he would A) Make a public statement about it or B) Implement some kind of validation for server ops to ensure the maps are not edited on the server or client side (to cover all bases). Maybe he's working towards this, but I haven't seen any word from him about it.
I say: Leave the maps alone. As a server op, you have the right to run the game and its maps or not, but I don't think you have the right to change them. This goes for plugins too, which could touch off a whole new argument. If a NS map slows down your server and players, don't include it. Done!
Fascinating. Your legally qualified source for that information?
The United States has had copyright law explicitly extended to include original digital works.
Here is what copyright covers:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, <b>in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.</b> Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
<b>(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;</b>
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 106A gives the copyright holder the explicit right to prevent modification of his work that is <b>independant of rights associated with distribution</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and <b>independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106</b>, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
<b>(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and</b>
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 113(d), for the curious (I've pasted Section 107 below)--it doesn't apply to NS maps since it was designed for physical structures attached to buildings:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(d)(1) In a case in which —
(A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), and
(B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal, then the rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall not apply.
(2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A(a)(3), the author's rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall apply unless —
(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Section 501 outlines infringement of copyright:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 <b>or of the author as provided in section 106A(a)</b>, or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the part that can get you sued.
Some people are debating the applicability of the fair use clause (Section 107):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are server owners claiming to critique the maps they modify? Are they news reporters? Do they use the maps for their academic pursuits?
Going down the list of qualifications, (1) - imagine trying to convince a judge or jury that your server is there for educational purposes... (3) - the entire work (after modification) is in use, and (4) - the modified work impacts public perceptions of both the author and the map itself, causing potential damage to the market value of NS as a whole.
The language of the document couldn't be more clear -- Section 106A gives copyright holders the right to demand that their works remain unmodified even after they have been distributed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You DON'T want to get in an argument about copyrights with Cagey, he will tear you down... I know.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i was quick to fold. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I don't know if HL has the same copyrights as a lot of other people, but don't the copyrights fall under Valve themselves? A lot of newer games (again, HL may not include this) have the clause of 'any add-ons and modifications become the property of blah-blah-blah.' I remember a lot of complaints about this when the games starting putting in these clauses, and I think a main reason was because of all the companies that starting making a business out of downloading all the Doom maps on the net and repackaging them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not a flame <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Here's the Valve SDK EULA's section on who has what rights:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1.1 License Grant. Valve hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, terminable, worldwide, nontransferable license to:
(a) use, reproduce and modify the SDK in source code form, solely to develop a Mod; and
(b) reproduce, distribute and license the Mod in object code form, solely to licensed end users of Half-Life, without charge.
1.2 Updates. Valve may from time to time, in its sole discretion, provide updates, error corrections, and future versions of the SDK to Licensee. Upon delivery, such updates, error corrections and future versions shall be deemed part of the SDK, as applicable, under this Agreement.
1.3 Reservation of Rights. Valve reserves all rights not explicitly granted herein.
1.4 Indemnity. Licensee hereby agrees that it is solely responsible for any and all Mods and Licensee's creation, distribution, and promotion thereof. Licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Valve, its officers, directors, employees and agents against any and all claims, damages, losses, or liabilities whatsoever arising out of Licensee's creation, distribution, or promotion of the Mod.
1.5 Trademarks. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not grant Licensee any right to use any trademarks or trade names of Valve, Sierra On-Line, Inc., or their licensors. All such marks shall remain the property of the respective owner.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My impression given the fact that Valve holds the Licensee solely responsible for content in the event of a lawsuit (section 1.4) is that Valve doesn't want to deal with legal ownership of items that might cause problems with third party copyrights.
Valve does say you can't label your mod as their product (1.5) and they reserve the rights to the content of the SDK (1.3) meaning that you can't go beyond what's spelled out in the agreement without permission. You aren't free to do whatever you want with the SDK (e.g. no sale for profit allowed without a new agreement), but I don't see any clauses that would give permission to others to derive from modified work.
When Valve buys out a mod (like they did with DoD) there would need to be a new contract between the parties changing the rules, since Valve is now responsible for distribution--later in the EULA it says that other agreements can supercede this one, and I'm assuming that's what happens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->best thing for this is if XPCagey is able to develop a tool which will allow external editing or deny permission. Preferably to block out ripent, if it could be done it may take some time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it was possible to do this, I'd definately look into it--unfortunately, the BSP format is tied to the Half-Life engine itself, so I can't change it. The only way to really block editing would be to change the format so that third party programs couldn't see the data properly (encryption or other obfuscation). Since I can't change the current parts of the file format, anything that I add won't keep other programs from reading the entity section as they do now. I could potentially lock maps so my own tools can't modify them without a password, but that wouldn't stop people from using ripents or other programs I didn't develop.
Server side validation against a central authoritative checksum is actually a more likely solution, but I doubt it will be adopted--third party plugins like MetaMod would need to be disabled before you could be sure that a map was playing as it was meant to, and that wouldn't be popular with the server admin set <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Flayra hasn't weighed in on this, and I'm not sure he's going to; from a practical standpoint there's an element of brinksmanship involved in asserting copyright, and I doubt he wants to deal with enforcing his claim over a server running stipped down maps. I think if somebody made a rip-off of Natural Selection using NS art, his reaction would be different--but I'm second guessing his intent, and can't speak with any authority on the subject.
I should post this on the Steam forums, as it shows that Valve basically set itself up to <b>not be able to charge for mods</b>. Then again, i'd just a thousand 'steam iz ***!!!!!!1!' messages as a reply so what's the use. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I should post this on the Steam forums, as it shows that Valve basically set itself up to <b>not be able to charge for mods</b>. Then again, i'd just a thousand 'steam iz ***!!!!!!1!' messages as a reply so what's the use. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the entire EULA before commenting. As Cagey said, later agreements can come into effect that supercede that one.
Also please note that this only applies to the HL1 SDK. Anything to do with HL2 mods isn't covered, and don't forget that once you buy "Counter-Strike retail" you are still able to download and install "Day of Defeat" for free, despite it also being another "retail mod". Basically when you buy a retail mod you are paying a reduced price for a stripped down HL engine which can run mods but can't run the single player HL story. The mod itself bundled in with the engine (ie CS or DOD) is free.
The server admins can do what ever they want. It's their part of the web. Without them, we cant play NS.
I'm not saying it's RIGHT to change someone's map, but hell, this is the same thing as for custom models for say, Counter-Strike. Loads of people are making hackjobs, and it's all fine as long as they give credit. EVEN if the author does not want anyone to change his stuff, it will still happen. That's the Internet for ya!
What if a server admin has haxored your map and put it up for play?
hmm?
Are you going to spend time and maybe even money to track him down and try to sue him?
Wake up and face the facts of the HL community people.
*Disclaimer* Again, i would like to emphasise on the fact that i am impartial to this conflict. I do not condone, nor agree with the actions of those people changing maps on their server.
Yeah, it's just the HL1 SDK, I know. However, if Valve is saying that mods aren't meant to be charged for without their permission, it doesn't make sense to throw a monthly fee on the multiplayer and that's what everyone and their brother is claiming is going to happen. Then again, I don't really see how Valve could charge for a service when all the servers are run by other people anyway (ie, why BF1942 isn't monthly either). You're right though, as they always have the 'we reserve any right to change anything' master clause like everyone else, so they could do really whatever they want.
However, this is another issue entirally.
I don't see the point of moving all the entities around, but I wouldn't go so far as suing or threatening or really even caring. I suppose that as a mapmaker I'd be annoyed to see people moving things because it essentially is claiming that you got it wrong, but it's all a matter of opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--BlackPanther+Sep 28 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlackPanther @ Sep 28 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying it's RIGHT to change someone's map, but hell, this is the same thing as for custom models for say, Counter-Strike. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In every way that matters to this thread, they are completely different. Valve, the current owner of the Counter-Strike artwork, has stated that mod makers are free to replace the models in Counter-Strike, exempting them from any concern over copyright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Loads of people are making hackjobs, and it's all fine as long as they give credit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just finished saying that you aren't claiming it's right (did you mean morally? legally?) to change a map, but here you say it's fine with credit. I've already posted the section of the US legal code that says you're wrong in the legal sense (and is the final word on the subject for US-based Natural Selection subject to international treaties), so I won't repeat myself here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EVEN if the author does not want anyone to change his stuff, it will still happen. That's the Internet for ya!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're only stating the obvious. We wouldn't need a court system otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you going to spend time and maybe even money to track him down and try to sue him?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you mean a general "you", most bandwidth providers will help with stopping copyright violation to avoid being sued themselves, so once the company or school hosting the server has been found the work is mostly done. It might take a few hours of work in the absence of a DNS mapping for a numeric IP, but if someone was really upset over their map's treatment, spending half an evening to take action might not seem like a big sacrifice.
I think a cease-and-desist letter to the bandwidth provider would be a simple solution, but Parasite has already noted in this thead that there are copyright lawyers who are changing their practices to do most of their business in small suits.
I've already answered that question on a personal level on the first page of this thread, and I believe my own decision (that I don't project onto other people) is reasonable. I also updated and released a new copy of Ripent that doesn't break with the increased map limits the "p" series allows, so I obviously don't think that the ability to modify bsp files is itself a problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wake up and face the facts of the HL community people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post criticizes people's opinions on the enforceability of law, but the majority of the discussion has been applicability. You are projecting your own value judgement (that suing is too much effort) on every map author that will eventually make that choice; that's one hell of an assumption. You're also attempting to finish an argument by stating a personal opinion multiple times--stating your position doesn't close a debate.
Finally, if people here didn't realize that server operators would hack maps without permission, could you explain why this thread exists?
Yeah, it's just the HL1 SDK, I know. However, if Valve is saying that mods aren't meant to be charged for without their permission, it doesn't make sense to throw a monthly fee on the multiplayer and that's what everyone and their brother is claiming is going to happen. Then again, I don't really see how Valve could charge for a service when all the servers are run by other people anyway (ie, why BF1942 isn't monthly either). You're right though, as they always have the 'we reserve any right to change anything' master clause like everyone else, so they could do really whatever they want.
However, this is another issue entirally.
I don't see the point of moving all the entities around, but I wouldn't go so far as suing or threatening or really even caring. I suppose that as a mapmaker I'd be annoyed to see people moving things because it essentially is claiming that you got it wrong, but it's all a matter of opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve has made very clear what thier intentions are with the subscription service, and if you want to make an argument....do some research. "What everyone and their brother is claiming" is not a very credible source for a debate. A simple search on these forums would probably turn up a valid discussion on the subject.
Another flaw in your argument is that the Valve is not the "End User" and as such the "END USER LISCENCE AGREEMENT"(EULA) can not possibly apply to them.
Also...I just read what Black Panther had to say and found it quite amusing as well...Im sure I will just repeat thing XPCagey already said but still...
First off...comments like "Deal with it, thats the internet for ya!" (paraphrasing) make me laugh. The following isnt aimed at you PB, but just a general statement. The internet is NOT above the law. We see this kind of behaviour all over the internet too. Its ironic that some kid can sit in his apartment in Seattle, WA...in the US and seriously beleive he has no accountability as a US citizen simply because servers are located in other countries, or the internet is universal or whatever excuse people may use. You can NOT be a citizen of the internet...it isnt the wild west...In the real world, where you actually live...laws and rules still apply, in the real world <b>and</b> on the internet.
Also, you keep saying things like (again, paraphrasing)..."if they wanna hack the maps they can, theres nothing you can do about because its a waste of time and money to try" Actually not. The service providers can easily be included and held accountable in any lawsuit that may take place (however unlikely) and I can guarentee, they will protect thier reputation over a few servers bringing in money. Theres always someone higher you can go to. Go over thier heads...thats the first thing a lawyer would tell you if you were considering taking legal action. Fact is, it wont likely take any more <i>money</i> than the cost of a few phone calls to thier service providers...and that wont take more than a few minutes...maybe hours. Certianly nowhere near the time, effort and cost that a lawsuit would take.