How can you tell that a lawyer is lying?

[Kubikus]

His lips are moving.

 

Anyways, here's a thought I just had. Say I make a super neat SDX mod and buy a crapton of the finest assets from the store. Everything is legal. Anybody can download that mod, right?

 

Now, what if someone would mod my mod and provide modified files, but not the files where the assets from the store are located in? Would that be legal?

 

And if so, would it not be a good idea to collect a bunch of cash, make such a mod with a ton of assets, and then modders can mod it, without having to buy the assets?

[Subquake]

Everything is written here: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?59817-TFP-Official-Modding-Forum-Policy

 

But specifically for your question, these parts could give some insight:

1) Copyrighted work should be used only with permission of the original creator. This includes content from other games, from DLCs, music creators, images found on the internet or from other file authors. Even if you are from a country that does not have copyright laws it is expected that you will seek the permission from copyright owners before using their property in your own mod.

All mod authors must disclose any tools or assets in their mod that they have licensed. Such licenses only grant the person who purchased them the right to use those tools and/or assets and they cannot give permission for others to re-use them in their own mods.

2) All files uploaded should have been created by the uploader or used with permission from the original author of the content before uploading the file.

7) If you are using assets and/or tools under a license that you purchased then you are bound by that EULA and should not grant any permissions to others to re-use those assets if that would cause you to breach that EULA. Make sure you understand and abide by all EULA's that cover what you have purchased.

2) All forum users must abide by the Terms of Use of the mods they download. By downloading the mod you are agreeing to the Terms of Use of the mod author.

6) Do not distribute a mod posted here on another website without the mod author's express permission. Mod authors are free to post their mods on other sites, so long as they (i) abide by the conditions set out by those sites, (ii) maintain a link to the mod which can be accessed independent of the other site.

 

As for your idea of buying lots of assets then allowing them to be used for other modders, then you would facilitate copyright infringement yourself, since most asset store licenses forbid you to give any kind of permissions to third parties to reuse the assets, not to mention, that it's against The Fun Pimps rules for modding 7 days to die mostly because of that reason, that you have no rights to give out secondary licenses for assets you buy.

[Kubikus]

The point here is that I am not giving anybody any permission and noone would ever provide those assets for download. None of the rules you quote cover that situation.

 

For example does Starvation have assets from the store. I download Starvation and these assets, and so do you. That's perfectly legal, right? Now I like bigger ammo stacks, and so do you. What if I took Starvation's items.xml, changed the stacksizes, uploaded them to a host and you downloaded them? And whoever else wants bigger stacksizes. I would mod the mod, but since I only provide the xml-file, I don't even touch the assets. I don't distribute them or anything.

 

What's the legal situation in that case? Nothing is copied, so what copyright law would be infringed?

[Subquake]

The point here is that I am not giving anybody any permission and noone would ever provide those assets for download. None of the rules you quote cover that situation.

 

For example does Starvation have assets from the store. I download Starvation and these assets, and so do you. That's perfectly legal, right? Now I like bigger ammo stacks, and so do you. What if I took Starvation's items.xml, changed the stacksizes, uploaded them to a host and you downloaded them? And whoever else wants bigger stacksizes. I would mod the mod, but since I only provide the xml-file, I don't even touch the assets. I don't distribute them or anything.

 

What's the legal situation in that case? Nothing is copied, so what copyright law would be infringed?

If you distribute only your changes to the items.xml, but not the original mod, then everything is fine here.

[Kubikus]

If you distribute only your changes to the items.xml, but not the original mod, then everything is fine here.

And if that is actually true, a master mod could be created, with as many assets crammed in as possible (I guess there is a limit), and then others could mod that mod.

[Guppycur]

His lips are moving.

 

Anyways, here's a thought I just had. Say I make a super neat SDX mod and buy a crapton of the finest assets from the store. Everything is legal. Anybody can download that mod, right?

 

Now, what if someone would mod my mod and provide modified files, but not the files where the assets from the store are located in? Would that be legal?

 

And if so, would it not be a good idea to collect a bunch of cash, make such a mod with a ton of assets, and then modders can mod it, without having to buy the assets?

 

The first 14+ or so alpha's of this very game used Unity Store Assets, yet TFP remained copyright holders of the work... food for thought.

[Kubikus]

The first 14+ or so alpha's of this very game used Unity Store Assets, yet TFP remained copyright holders of the work... food for thought.

Hm, I don't really see a connection to my considerations in this thread. It seems you think of my proposal in the other, you know, where I suggested that we should all steal whatever we can find and never look back. Burn down towns in the process. Also a great idea, but a different one.

 

 

Here, I am suggesting to discuss a collaboration of modders. Y'all might actually consider it, even if the idea comes from the community's designated black sheep. I suggest that we, because it includes myself, who is not into the whole SDX stuff - yet™ -, collect money among ourselves. Tons. Collect the cash and then have someone buy assets from the store. If it's a sound plan, it should even be considered to found some kind of organisation or company, that does not belong just to one person, so there is not just one person who has to bear all the responsibility.

 

And then those who know how to SDX create a master-mod. As far as I understand it, there is one or a few files in an SDX mod that contains assets - I'm particularly talking about models, like creatures, npcs, buildings, vehicles, decoration, workstations, weapons, tools and such. That master-mod, ideally, should already use these models, as an examplatory tutorial of how to use them, so people who have no knowledge beyond XML-modding can easily learn how to include these models in their mod.

 

Then, everybody, modder or not, could download the master-mod once from the person or organisation who legally owns it.

 

And then modders could provide modded files for that master-mod, that, however, do not contain the assets. Like I described in #3 of this thread. If it is legal with xml-files, it should be legal with any file, except the one(s) that contain the licensed assets. In that case, the assets are never downloaded from anybody who does not legally own them. And that way, every modder could have perfectly legal access to high quality assets.

 

Of course, this sounds somewhat like a trick. A dodge? Like abusing a loophole in the legal system. This might not be legal and my idea naive. But then again, how many modders actually spend considerable sums at the store? I honestly don't know. So practically, this might end up putting a lot more money into asset creators' pockets than if every modder has to purchase their stuff individually. Because if you had to spend fiddy bucks for just a few things, you're kinda thinking "meh, that's not worth it". If you spend the same fiddy bucks, but get access to a whole array of stuff, you'd be a lot more inspired. So ethically I don't see a problem with it.

 

Of course Vol. II, I don't know the technicalities, like how many assets you can actually put into one master mod. In the store, many packs alone have large file-sizes, so maybe it's not really working. Then again, maybe it's possible to make different master mods to meet different needs, but I don't know how licensing works. Can you use an asset you bought in only one project or multiple?

[DUST2DEATH]

but I don't know how licensing works.

 

So you just wrote 2 novels about why we should all do something and be forgiving, but you dont know how this works?

 

[Kubikus]

So you just wrote 2 novels about why we should all do something and be forgiving, but you dont know how this works?

 

What's actually a bummer is that you literally have no clue what the hell I'm talking about in this thread. No clue whatsoever. I promise. You think of something from another thread, that you might as well not understand.

 

So I suggest you take a deep breath. Maybe two. Then try to forget that I wrote what's layed out in this thread. Free yourself from your petty prejudice. Read what's written. Don't read into it. Read it a couple of times, maybe. Then think about it for a while. Maybe you need a day or two, who knows.

 

If you still believe it has anything to do with your remark, post again, and I will walk you through it calmly and patiently. Like you had a condition that makes it hard for you to understand things.

[DUST2DEATH]

 

Here, I am suggesting to discuss a collaboration of modders. Y'all might actually consider it, even if the idea comes from the community's designated black sheep. I suggest that we, because it includes myself, who is not into the whole SDX stuff - yet™ -, collect money among ourselves. Tons. Collect the cash and then have someone buy assets from the store. If it's a sound plan, it should even be considered to found some kind of organisation or company, that does not belong just to one person, so there is not just one person who has to bear all the responsibility.

..............

but I don't know how licensing works.

 

yep, literally no idea at all.

[Kubikus]

yep, literally no idea at all.

Yep, literally. That's why I literally say I don't.

 

You know something? How about you share it then. Subquake seems to think my idea works.

[DUST2DEATH]

Subquake agreed that you can modify the xml files which isnt licenced content and only distribute the xml file leaving people to download the licenced content from the person whom is licenced.

 

Subquake didnt agree that one person or collective could purchase the licenced content to provide fair use for all.

 

Distinct difference.

[Kubikus]

Subquake agreed that you can modify the xml files which isnt licenced content and only distribute the xml file leaving people to download the licenced content from the person whom is licenced.

And that is 100% exactly what I propose. 100% exactly.

 

Subquake didnt agree that one person or collective could purchase the licenced content to provide fair use for all.

And that is 0% exactly what I propose. 0% exactly.

 

Distinct difference.

I know.

 

So at this point, you as well seem to agree that my proposal is legal. Yet, because I am intelligent and reasonable, I am not convinced. I have already looked for TOS/EULA in the asset store, but did not really find anything. If you know where they are, it would be great if you could provide a link.

[DUST2DEATH]

I suggest that we, because it includes myself, who is not into the whole SDX stuff - yet™ -, collect money among ourselves. Tons. Collect the cash and then have someone buy assets from the store. If it's a sound plan, it should even be considered to found some kind of organisation or company, that does not belong just to one person, so there is not just one person who has to bear all the responsibility.

 

 

 

And that is 0% exactly what I propose. 0% exactly.

 

I know.

You did propose it, right there.

 

So at this point, you as well seem to agree that my proposal is legal. Yet, because I am intelligent and reasonable, I am not convinced. I have already looked for TOS/EULA in the asset store, but did not really find anything. If you know where they are, it would be great if you could provide a link.

 

There isnt one catch all licence. The licence depends on the content.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

 

as one example.

[Guppycur]

@kub

 

We already have a coilition of modders... You just don't know about it (not a slam, just a truth). The coalition helped develop the very rules that exist, to a degree. The coilition is VERY much against sharing assets without permission.

 

The coalition does in fact share assets, in the way the individual assets's tos allows, they DO share ideas, collaborate on projects and respect one another's works.

 

It's a beautiful thing, and amazing work is produced. No toxicity, and the spirit of sharing is celebrated by those collaborations...

 

Because people respect each other's work. Period. It would not work otherwise...

 

Every argument you make is clearly for arguments sake, and that's clear.

[Kubikus]

You did propose it, right there.

Nnnnnnope. That does not say that I propose that the one (organisation) who purchased the assets should provide fair use for all. Because obviously that person can't. Only the owner of the asset could, but obviously won't.

 

There isnt one catch all licence. The licence depends on the content.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

 

as one example.

I still believe you don't know what I'm talking about. lol I don't think that the creative common license applies to assets you buy from the asset store. Assets from the asset store are commercial products. CC licenses might be the right ones to use for mods, that have no commercial purpose. In the store, there will be licenses like "you can use these assets for your game, bla bla bla".

 

Games, however, can be modded. For example, as Guppy said, did 7dtd use assets from the store until A14. And while I obviously could not have taken these assets from 7dtd to use them as I please, I could mod 7dtd. That is using these assets. And that, my friend, is what I'm talking about. That these commercial assets are being purchased, made into a mod that can be modded further by others, without ever touching the asset-files.

 

For example this pack:

 

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/characters/animals/animals-full-pack-5032

 

And then a master-mod is created that is using all of these animals. It is legal for the guy/organisation who purchased the asset to provide that mod (that includes the assets) for download. And then everybody could provide their own xml-files or modified .dlls and modified everythings except for those files that contain the assets for that master mod.

 

That is the point here. Nothing else.

 

We already have a coilition of modders... You just don't know about it (not a slam, just a truth).

 

Of course I know it.

 

The coalition helped develop the very rules that exist, to a degree. The coilition is VERY much against sharing assets without permission.

 

Again, you obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Otherwise you would not make this comment. I'm not talking about sharing assets without permission. And I never did talk about, except when I clearly spoke against it.

 

The coalition does in fact share assets, in the way the individual assets's tos allows,

 

Hm.. I have found something here:

 

https://protofactor.biz/end-user-license-agreement/

 

It is the EULA of that animal pack. It does not cover what I'm talking about. It really seems legal.

 

they DO share ideas, collaborate on projects and respect one another's works.

 

It's a beautiful thing, and amazing work is produced. No toxicity, and the spirit of sharing is celebrated by those collaborations...

 

Because people respect each other's work. Period. It would not work otherwise...

 

Every argument you make is clearly for arguments sake, and that's clear.

 

What arguments are you even talking about, enemy for life? Y'all might consider to pull your heads out of whereever they're currently stuck. Just, you know, a suggestion, of course you're free to do whatever you want.

 

My argument is a question. Wether the thing I talk about is actually legal. And it looks much like it is. So if you manage that pulling thing with the head, think about my idea again. That "master mod" I'm talking about. Beautiful things could come from it.

[Guppycur]

If you keep having to tell people "you don't know what I'm talking about", then perhaps you should be more clear in your arguments.

[Kubikus]

If you keep having to tell people "you don't know what I'm talking about", then perhaps you should be more clear in your arguments.

Feel free to let me know, what is unclear in my post, and how it is unclear. I think I've been extremely clear.

 

My personal theory is that some people are highly motivated to prove me wrong. My history with such people and the personal remarks they sprinkle their replies with indicates that. And since I can't be proven wrong by using what I actually say, they make things up.

[Guppycur]

My personal theory is that you like to convince yourself of a lot of things, simply enjoy arguing, and when you lose you batten down the hatches and dig in deeper, likely because of a bbs history or some other experience where you're usually the smartest one in the room.

 

Problem is, that needs to evolve into some humility at some point, because the world is a big place and you won't always BE the smartest one in the room, but you're not there yet.

 

/been there done that since 1971

 

(And before any mods decide this is flame warring, I assure you MY posts are in good fun, and I'd wager rolands 3 whiskers kub's are too).

 

Night homie.

[Kubikus]

My personal theory is that you like to convince yourself of a lot of things, simply enjoy arguing, and when you lose you batten down the hatches and dig in deeper, likely because of a bbs history or some other experience where you're usually the smartest one in the room.

 

Problem is, that needs to evolve into some humility at some point, because the world is a big place and you won't always BE the smartest one in the room, but you're not there yet.

 

/been there done that since 1971

 

(And before any mods decide this is flame warring, I assure you MY posts are in good fun, and I'd wager rolands 3 whiskers kub's are too).

 

Night homie.

See, for me that's strong evidence my theory is correct. You think I think I'm the smartest person ever and so on. And you don't like that. So you try to prove me wrong. But not with what I say, but with things you make up. Like that I would be for stealing assets, breaking rules, using other's stuff without permission. Your latest angle is that I'm unaware of everything. I'd ("even") believe that you don't notice you make things up and twist what I say, cuz I'm also a bit of a psychologist and know that the mind works in mysterious ways. But look, I asked what's unclear in my post. What did you not understand, Guppy? There is nothing, right? If you actually read it, without the prejudice, it's actually very clear, isn't it.

 

And btw. Since we're talking. You don't believe it (- yet™ -) but I could be on the top 1% of the most humble people you know. But.. I know it's not obvious, as this very statement demonstrates. lol

[KhaineGB]

The only way your idea would work is that the "coalition" you propose would have to become Unity Pro members with applicable licences per seat.

 

That's the only way the unity store EULA permits the purchase of 1 asset to be shared amongst multiple people. Anything else is copyright infringement.

[Guppycur]

Well no; you're the one who keeps saying people don't get what you're saying, so the burden of figuring out what is unclear is on you.

 

I'm quite convinced you don't KNOW what you're saying, because of the aforementioned lack of awarene... Oh hell let's just call it ignorance on the subject matter...

 

...and if you were a psychologist of any sort, you would have been taught to look at yourself objectively, and to approach subjects without prejudices, which clearly you do not, so I'm not buying that implication.

 

Either way, you have been wrong at every turn, and I'm confident you will continue to be wrong, AND I don't convince myself that "I've won" simply because I'm the last person shouting, so I'll let you wiggle a bit more.

[Guppycur]

The only way your idea would work is that the "coalition" you propose would have to become Unity Pro members with applicable licences per seat.

 

That's the only way the unity store EULA permits the purchase of 1 asset to be shared amongst multiple people. Anything else is copyright infringement.

 

Shh! Facts be gone! =)

[Kubikus]

Well no; you're the one who keeps saying people don't get what you're saying, so the burden of figuring out what is unclear is on you.

 

And I already told you what I figured out, and I am actually pretty damn sure that most people understand what I mean by now. Even you. And now y'all can think about the actual idea, detached from the person who brought it up, and see if it is legal, if it is practical, and if it should be done.

 

I'm quite convinced you don't KNOW what you're saying, because of the aforementioned lack of awarene... Oh hell let's just call it ignorance on the subject matter...

 

Of course I am ignorant on the subject matter. That is why I am asking, not making statements.

 

...and if you were a psychologist of any sort, you would have been taught to look at yourself objectively, and to approach subjects without prejudices, which clearly you do not, so I'm not buying that implication.

 

Either way, you have been wrong at every turn, and I'm confident you will continue to be wrong, AND I don't convince myself that "I've won" simply because I'm the last person shouting, so I'll let you wiggle a bit more.

+

Shh! Facts be gone! =)

It's really just a string of innuendos without any substance. Highly unimpressive.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

The only way your idea would work is that the "coalition" you propose would have to become Unity Pro members with applicable licences per seat.

 

That's the only way the unity store EULA permits the purchase of 1 asset to be shared amongst multiple people. Anything else is copyright infringement.

That seems plausible in regard to the "found an organisation"-part of my idea.

 

But what about the modding-a-mod part? Again, think of it as 7 days to die using assets. If you can mod a game that is using assets legally, you should be able to mod a mod that is using assets legally.

 

 

I'd generally ask that further replies actually come from a base of knowledge, not opinon. Have you seen something in EULAs or TOSs that speaks against or for this?

[DUST2DEATH]

You can mod a mod legally, already established.

You cant redistribute those assets *YOU* arent licenced for.