How can you tell that a lawyer is lying?

[KhaineGB]

- - - Updated - - -

 

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?

 

You say it's plausible, but it's really not. Unity Pro licences are not cheap and on a "per person" basis. ($125/month per person, fyi)

 

Anyone can mod a mod that is using assets. You CANNOT then redistribute those assets if you are not the original mod author because that would be breaking the EULA.

 

And yes, I have seen the TOS and EULA because I bought unity store assets for my mod. SpeedTree had the worst EULA because it was way more restrictive than just the standard Unity one. The general rule is anything you buy and is tied to your account can be used in any project YOU make.

 

So you can edit the raw asset however you like, package it up and distribute it. In the case of 7DTD, this means getting the positioning right and then packaging it up as a UNITY3D file at the very least. If someone else then takes that and reuses it in their mod, or alters your mod and redistributes those assets, they can have the work removed via various legal means, but DMCA is usually the most common.

 

So there's your answer based on the EULA and TOS I have personally agreed to when purchasing assets from the Unity Store for inclusion into my mod. Anyone could take Darkness Falls and mod it for their own personal use, even if they chuck it on a server for their mates. They would not be able to modify and redistribute it with certain assets (I have a TOS for my mod with my paid-for assets listed as something folks are not allowed to use), but they could redistribute it with the free ones or JUST XML tweaks (so a patch to the base mod).

 

EDIT - This is from the Asset Store FAQ regarding distribution of assets. Modding is considered OK because we package up the asset rather than distributing it in raw form (just like how TFP package up their assets in a resources.asset file for distribution).

 

Can I Redistribute Assets That I’ve Licensed?

 

I have purchased/ downloaded assets and would like to distribute or resell these.

 

No. All asset use must be embedded components of electronic games or digital media. Physical materials are permitted when they are marketing materials relating to the project.

[Exxodous]

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

 

+1..

[Kubikus]

You say it's plausible, but it's really not. Unity Pro licences are not cheap and on a "per person" basis. ($125/month per person, fyi)

 

I find it plausible that you cannot just buy an asset, for example if you are a bigger studio/company, and then have countless employees using that asset for countless projects. If that worked, we could found some kind of company, 7 Days Modding Inc., buy an asset and then have 50 different modders use it in their mod. As assets are currently used in different mods, provided for download every time.

 

Anyone can mod a mod that is using assets. You CANNOT then redistribute those assets if you are not the original mod author because that would be breaking the EULA.

 

So my proposal is sound and legal in your opinion?

 

And yes, I have seen the TOS and EULA because I bought unity store assets for my mod. SpeedTree had the worst EULA because it was way more restrictive than just the standard Unity one. The general rule is anything you buy and is tied to your account can be used in any project YOU make.

 

That sounds great, because in case there are - and I assume there are - upper limits of the number of assets you can cram into one mod, multiple mods can be created. Again: By that one person/company who bought the asset. So we could have several packages, maybe one that has all kinds of animals and vehicles and workstations, the next one is more medieval-themed, another, that I would like to have, could be in the spirit of DOOM, with a lot of monsters. You could, if there is no restriction on the number of projects, even create packages on demand.

 

So you can edit the raw asset however you like, package it up and distribute it. In the case of 7DTD, this means getting the positioning right and then packaging it up as a UNITY3D file at the very least. If someone else then takes that and reuses it in their mod, or alters your mod and redistributes those assets, they can have the work removed via various legal means, but DMCA is usually the most common.

 

So there's your answer based on the EULA and TOS I have personally agreed to when purchasing assets from the Unity Store for inclusion into my mod. Anyone could take Darkness Falls and mod it for their own personal use, even if they chuck it on a server for their mates. They would not be able to modify and redistribute it with certain assets (I have a TOS for my mod with my paid-for assets listed as something folks are not allowed to use), but they could redistribute it with the free ones or JUST XML tweaks (so a patch to the base mod).

 

Sounds good. Now, am I the first one to come up with this idea, or is there anything speaking against it..?

[Guppycur]

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

 

If that we're true we wouldn't have wasted pages and pages until we got to the good stuff...

 

I like your umbrella idea.

[KhaineGB]

Ok, so I'm gonna go back to your original post to answer stuff.

 

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?

 

This is allowed under the TOS/EULA. However your assets COULD NOT be included in another mod. If you wanted to provide links to the asset store so people can purchase them? THEN they could use the edited assets you provided as they have purchased their own licence.

 

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?

 

Yes. Someone can modify your XML and provide that as a "patch" or "unofficial" version of the mod as long as they do not include the Unity3D files.

 

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?

 

No, because whoever did that would be the ONLY people with the licence to those assets. They could not be used in other mods.

 

So I don't get what your idea is. It sounds like you basically want to create a super mod for people to be able to use as a base. Basically something full of assets with XML examples. That's fine, but it could not THEN be used in another mod.

 

The exception to this are free assets, because anyone can make a unity account and add them to their own account so they have a "licence."

 

You would be better served to save up a bunch of cash and hire a freelancer 3D modeller, stating you want to create a resource for modders to use, you're willing to pay for the work but the modeller then has to be willing to allow those models to be used by anyone for modding purposes.

[Guppycur]

Hear me out.

 

I buy an asset. I use it in medieval. I can also use it in a 2nd mod I make.

 

What he finally got around to suggesting is one person buys an asset, and his team makes several mods under his umbrella, so that there are several mods coming from one owner that uses the same assets.

 

So, the "guppy coalition", buys the assets, and its subquake team uses them for undead legacy, and its khaine team uses them for darkness falls, but since both are guppy teams, it's ok.

[KhaineGB]

Which goes back to my point of every single person in the guppy team then needing a pro licence in order to use those assets.

 

And thus $125/month per person. (editor extensions are different. Those licences are per person, not per team)

[Kubikus]

Ok, so I'm gonna go back to your original post to answer stuff.

Which is good, cuz everything's really already in that one.

 

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?

 

This is allowed under the TOS/EULA. However your assets COULD NOT be included in another mod.

And they wouldn't be. But they would be referenced by another mod. I provide, legally, because I bought the assets legally, the master mod. People download it from me, thus people download the actual assets from me.

 

And other modders make xml-files and dll-files and files of all kinds, but they never ever touch the files that contain the assets. They only reference the assets in their xml- and dll-files. And both players and modders only download the master-mod from me. Legally.

 

If you wanted to provide links to the asset store so people can purchase them? THEN they could use the edited assets you provided as they have purchased their own licence.

 

Yes. Someone can modify your XML and provide that as a "patch" or "unofficial" version of the mod as long as they do not include the Unity3D files.

And that's the idea. Someone would never include the UnityD files.

 

See post #3 as well, that, in my mind, should already have made everything crystal clear:

 

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?

 

Modders provide modified files for the master mod. But not those that contain the assets. The asset files are not copied by anybody but the guy (or organisation/company) who bought it. Just like noone can touch the assets bought by Starvation, but everybody can download Starvation and everybody could provide XML-files.

 

 

It might be so that you cannot actually provide XML files for starvation, if the corresponding team would not allow to use any of the code the lines they wrote in their xml-files. But the author of the master-mod would allow using the corresponding xmls.

 

 

So I don't get what your idea is. It sounds like you basically want to create a super mod for people to be able to use as a base. Basically something full of assets with XML examples.

Exactly.

 

That's fine, but it could not THEN be used in another mod.

But the assets would not by used IN another mod, but only REFERENCED BY another mod.

[Akzyra]

Why has no one made a concrete example?

I will use the animal pack that was posted:

 

They buy it and just make a barebones implementation where all of them spawn everywhere and in the same amounts.

No balance, no tweaks.

 

Now someone decides to make a realistic version. They confine mobs to certain biomes, make some behave differently, attack each other for example.

He would only release the tweaked XMLs, the "animal pack mod" is to be installed before it.

 

 

(I have no idea what is possible and what not, don't nail me on that please)

[KhaineGB]

Exactly.

 

But the assets would not by used IN another mod, but only REFERENCED BY another mod.

 

But that goes back to MY point.

 

YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THE PAID UNITY STORE ASSETS. (Bold for emphasis).

 

People can mod your mod and distribute a patch to it. They can't make a mod that isn't based off your code, reference your assets and go "Ok, here's the XML but you have to download the Unity3D files to make it work from this guy."

 

Which is why I said it'd be better to hire a freelance 3D artist. A lot easier, definitely legal and platform agnostic.

[Kubikus]

Why has no one made a concrete example?

I will use the animal pack that was posted:

 

They buy it and just make a barebones implementation where all of them spawn everywhere and in the same amounts.

No balance, no tweaks.

 

Now someone decides to make a realistic version. They confine mobs to certain biomes, make some behave differently, attack each other for example.

He would only release the tweaked XMLs, the "animal pack mod" is to be installed before it.

 

 

(I have no idea what is possible and what not, don't nail me on that please)

That's pretty much it. The end-modder provides XML tweaks. Or DLL-tweaks. But only "they" (who buy it) provide the asset files. It's all layed out in the first two posts I made in this thread!11!1111!onethousandsonehundredeleven!!1!

 

Maybe one little clarfication: If you want to make a mod with the animals, you should put money for the pack in the project. Or team up with people who also want it. That's the trick: Modders and players come together and contribute money. One guy/"the organisation" buys the assets. Money givers could of course make concrete orders: Get me that pack over there.

[Prisma501]

Quite a big step from sharing (if possible) to illegal reselling.

 

Cheers

 

-edit- so modders should share everything they created because they don't lose "anything" with doing that. Where is the same argument when making up constructions to not have to pay for payed assets? Its okey for a 3D artist to only be able to sell his artwork once? Rest of the sales will be taken care off by Kubikus team right? Dont forget to pay for it though (for some unclear reason, but sounds like reselling to me). Weird and inconsistent.

[Kubikus]

But that goes back to MY point.

 

YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THE PAID UNITY STORE ASSETS. (Bold for emphasis).

Why not? Next you say:

 

People can mod your mod and distribute a patch to it.

So it can be done?

 

They can't make a mod that isn't based off your code, reference your assets and go "Ok, here's the XML but you have to download the Unity3D files to make it work from this guy."

See, this again sounds like someone would offer Unity3D-files for download to be used in other mods.

 

But there is a game. 7 days to die. Installed. Then the master mod is installed. And then the master mod is being "patched". In other words, different sets of XML-files can be downloaded and copied into the config-folder of the master mod. To have different mods.

 

Just like it had been done with 7 days to die when the game was using assets from the store.

 

I mean, I'm kinda out of angles to explain it again.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Quite a big step from sharing (if possible) to illegal reselling.

 

Cheers

If you have a point, feel free to contribute.

[KhaineGB]

That's because you've explained it in 2 different ways.

 

You need to get your story straight before you try and debate.

 

On the one hand, you're proposing that people should be able to patch your mod and distribute the XML.

 

THAT BIT IS FINE.

 

Then you're also suggesting that the "Mod" is basically just a pile of unity3D assets with XML to reference them for other people to build upon.

 

That bit is NOT ok because the EULA/TOS for the store states you have to deliver a project. Just editing and packaging up unity3D files is on the borderline of "this is not OK" which is why I keep saying you would be better served getting 3D artists to provide assets for this purposes and take the unity store totally out of the equation.

 

That's the bit you really need to get a handle on. It's so much skirting the line between OK and not OK that everything I've read implies it's straight up NOT OK because your suggestion isn't to provide a complete mod, just a repository for folks to then build off.

[Blazer777]

OMG would you guys stop arguing about god damn stupidity already for crying out loud its old news