Blocking code in IC2?


  • There is a huge difference between code and my stuff in my house: code cannot be stolen, just copied, therefore your analogy fails.


    Imagine this: someone comes to your home, likes your decoration and decorates his home in the same way as yours. What are you going to do now? Sue him? Put locks on the door and never let anyone in again? Force people to wear blindfolds inside your home? Or just accept that no one harmed you in any way by using the same interior decoration?


    As I said, most people don't get it. However as a fellow mod author, I do. People treat anything on the computer very lightly, such as stealing. Most people don't care about getting a copy of a cd from a friend, a movie from the internet, or even pirated software. This is illegal activity, no ifs, ands, or buts. This is the same thing. Many mod authors don't like others profiting off of their mods, their hard work for code. Which by the way, can be stolen, by definition, because it is copyrighted material, and protected by user agreements. Therefore your analogy is completely irrelevant. What you are referring to, is an idea. The idea can be copied, such as your analogy, but cannot be stolen. However code is physical, not psychological, and can be stolen. In conclusion, these mod authors work very hard to make a mod that they want to play, and graciously share with the community.

    Lesson 1: Watch over your crops....

  • Your analogy isn't quite correct either, how about this:
    Somebody enters your houses, checks out the decoration you created in long days of craftswork, then uses a magic scan ray to CTRL+C/V it into his own home and then proceeds to sell/free-giveaway it to everyone who's interested. I'm fine with latter one, if the guy at least mentions that the original creator of those decorations is living next-door.

  • U suck bcause <Put in illegal Modpack[Tekkit,Wargay's Pack and so on]here.> is cool and nbody is intrestd in you bcause you suck and U are illegal and wanna kill <Illegal Modpacks> and sengirgregrichy R gay because thy mke malrware virus and suck!



    Ok, you might be able to build an automated Sarcasmsignfactory using Turtles.

  • A better analogy would be an artist creates a painting that gets put up in a museum, then some ****** takes a picture of it on their phone and sends it out to everyone with out saying who painted it.

  • *sigh* Looks like it's happening again.


    If you don't follow a license, it's illegal.
    If you follow the license, it's legal.


    All IC2 is asking for you to do is say, "We have IC2 in our modpack, it was made by the IC2 Dev Team, their website is at industrial-craft.net or forum.industrial-craft.net." and not to use a revenue-generating service. If you put it into your modpack without following those simple steps, then it's illegal.


  • There is a huge difference between code and my stuff in my house: code cannot be stolen, just copied, therefore your analogy fails.


    Imagine this: someone comes to your home, likes your decoration and decorates his home in the same way as yours. What are you going to do now? Sue him? Put locks on the door and never let anyone in again? Force people to wear blindfolds inside your home? Or just accept that no one harmed you in any way by using the same interior decoration?


    Your argument is not comparing apples to apples. A better example would be if the decorations inside your home were carefully created by you, not available anywhere else and unique, but you were willing to give them away on the condition that a small placard would be displayed with them in the recipients home when they display your work stating where they got it from, only to have exact copies of your work show up on QVC for $19.99 + shipping and handling with no mention of your name anywhere.


    I agree with you that copying software should not be considered stealing, but it is copyright infringement. The same thing goes for a mod authors own creations. Their creative work is their own and (at least in the US) automatically has a copyright on it even in the absence of the author stating so. That does give the author certain rights, including the right to control distribution of their work.


    Some people, like me, open source their code and allow modpacks with only a small request (https://github.com/pantheis/Ad…rManagement/wiki/Modpacks), but others, such as the IC2 team, have decided on closed source and have their own rules ([NEW] IC² Policy regarding ModPacks / Redistribution). You can argue which is better but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. What is relevant is that the IC2 team has the legal right to control who, where, when and how their creative work can be consumed and have clearly stated their licensing terms. You can agree or disagree with them, but you do need to follow them if you want to consume their work.


    Decompiling, altering to remove copy protections, recompiling and redistributing their code without permission is against their licensing terms, violates their rights under copyright law, and an argument may even be made that it violates the DMCA (in the US) for bypassing copy protections in the software. The fact that their mod extends Minecraft does not automatically mean they lose control or rights over their creative works.


    I personally don't think adding copy protection type code to a Minecraft mod is worth the effort, nor do I understand a lot of the "no modpacks" or some of the strict rules against modpacks that I've seen, and that's why I've licensed my mods how I have. That said, I do respect other authors rights for deciding how their work can be used and distributed, even if I don't agree with them, and will defend their rights to make those decisions.

  • U suck bcause is cool and nbody is intrestd in you bcause you suck and U are illegal and wanna kill and sengirgregrichy R gay because thy mke malrware virus and suck!



    Ok, you might be able to build an automated Sarcasmsignfactory using Turtles.</illegal></put>

    Thank you for your input but mods don't really hold copyright even if copyright was acquired on a mod fair use would apply to mod packs. The following case establishes why a mod pack falls under fair
    use:
    Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992).


    When Nintendo pursued Game Genie for allowing players to
    customize Nintendo games by editing code, the appellate court held that
    “a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work
    is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use a Game Genie to enhance a
    Nintendo Game cartridge’s audiovisual display in such a way as to make
    the experience more enjoyable.”


    This is a fun ruling for two reasons: 1) The owning party cannot
    dictate how a work is enjoyed, as declared by the courts. 2) Mod packs
    are certainly designed to make the experience of playing modded
    Minecraft "more enjoyable" — and are thus fair use.


  • So I see you saw the recent cpw modder's rights argument (if no, that's one hell of a coincidence you referring to the same case)? And even after all he, Covert, and Flower said you still think user rights should come before modder's rights?

    Is the answer to this question no?


    Quote

    Hey don't take it so hard. Ignorance is part of this generation it seems. -the wise words of XFmax-o-l

  • 1. How does using a pack make playing the game more enjoyable?


    2. The use of packs are allowed as long as the author takes 3 seconds to give the IC2 devs credit.


  • So I see you saw the recent cpw modder's rights argument (if no, that's one hell of a coincidence you referring to the same case)? And even after all he, Covert, and Flower said you still think user rights should come before modder's rights?



    Asking me if after listening to people be wrong, I still think they're wrong is a strange question.

  • I did see the arguement it was pretty good. Players have more rights than modders and players should always come first and no one should put DRM into their mods when the base game doesn't have DRM.


  • So by removing that line of code your pack maker has violated the DMCA.



    And if you want to see REAL DRM see the new always online SimCity.


  • So by removing that line of code your pack maker has violated the DMCA.



    And if you want to see REAL DRM see the new always online SimCity.

    If RichyG ever wants to serve them papers I think they would accept their day in court.

  • Actually, why keep people quoting some random American law?


    1. Minecraft was created and (afaik) copyrighted in Sweden.
    2. I'm German.
    3. The IC server is located in France (if Imer didn't move it somewhere since a few months).


    Whatever law you wanna quote, I doubt the American one's have an influence here.

  • Whatever law you wanna quote, I doubt the American one's have an influence here.


    Word. And besides: if you take the argument of a law-suit then we are talking about enterprise-business. My guess is that if anyone ever brings the situation of a mod-pack using IC2 without credits to court, it will be declined as not worth their time.


    Since I already made a harsh statement to think about, here is a more constructive one:
    How about this: instead of adding DRM-like code to your mod to destroy the "work" of illegal packs because they don't give you proper credit (for whatever that is used), why don't you just include an unobtrusive credit visible inside the game? So everyone knows that the IC2 machines are created by the IC2 team and not by the mod-packer himself, and the players can actually play without having to worry about what rules and laws they might break while doing so.

  • Why should they have to do that, when it takes very little time and/or effort to simply say 'Can we have permission?'


    This ^ this so hard. Seriously most modders are not exactly hard to contact with a small "Can we use your mod in a modpack?", why the hell do people go to such lengths to argue that this is infringing on their rights as a user?

    Is the answer to this question no?


    Quote

    Hey don't take it so hard. Ignorance is part of this generation it seems. -the wise words of XFmax-o-l

  • Keep in mind it's not "Can we use your mod?" but "This mod was created by the IC² Dev Team @ industrial-craft.net".
    They don'T even need to contact us at all ^^ They only need to read the bottom line of the release threads.

  • Well America is really the only country that matters but even if that wasn't the case why harm any end user at all? No one is making any money from this so why put DRM in a mod? If its about respect why can't people understand that some can respect a mod enough to put it in a pack but the maker be a a total ass and doesn't get any? Most modders really aren't worth dealing with. Now I am going to quote something from our forums that I think adds to the discussion


    Quote

    Lets give a real game example. I love Borderlands 2, however I think that Randy Pitchford is a massive jackass after he was making threats over twitter about punishing players who found an exploit because of shitty coding (early Golden Key issue. Golden keys were a limited item to be given out through codes that can be used to open a chest with leveled loot. The way they stored the amount of keys a player was in a clearly marked writable text file in your account folder).

  • Well America is really the only country that matters


    I do not agree with this statement.

    No one is making any money from this so why put DRM in a mod?


    That's the point, IC's copyright's main clause people dislike is exactly THIS point. Not allowed to use AdFly.
    The issue comes up when people try to make money of it.