PtW scenarios

SpencerH · August 11, 2003, 09:00

Does anyone know if the players who built the PtW scenarios got paid for their effort?

Lord_Davinator · August 11, 2003, 09:26

as far as I can say: NO... most of those files were free for download

SpencerH · August 11, 2003, 13:06

I ask because I found it strange to see the units I mod-ed on a "secure"

disk and I wondered whether the players who put in a huge amount of effort felt about it.

This isnt a *****, I realize that the original work came from Firaxis/infogreed but given that the stuff is all free I just think it would have been classier if it was all on a (non-safe) second disk.

Panag · August 11, 2003, 13:23

hi ,

nope , .....

should it be like that , ......

have a nice day

vmxa1 · August 11, 2003, 13:58

I am not sure I can say anything for sure, but what I remember reading form some of the people that submitted work, is that it was free.
I would imagine they did it because they like that stuff and it would be a kick to see it on a commercial package.
Many have posted updates to their submissions.
This is not uncommon and you can see it in Heroes expansion disk. In some of the Homm cases, the users agreed to not post their stuff on the net until after the package was out.

Hagbart · August 11, 2003, 14:53

All the extra stuff you get in PTW are user made and submitted to Firaxis who then took a look at it and added it to the PTW cd. Well apart from a few (very few) maps that where made by some of the Firaxis people (not good maps btw).
The maps/mods/scenarios were not originally made to be submitted to Firaxis, but were posted on Apolyton, Civfanatics for free download. Like the map I point to in my signature.

SpencerH · August 12, 2003, 08:58

Talk about psychic powers eh? The day after I post this thread what do we see at poly news .

You'd almost think that the Firaxians read these threads and take our ideas without acknowledgement

Hagbart · August 12, 2003, 15:57

Well... maybe they do

WarpStorm · August 12, 2003, 18:44

Not hardly, on CivFanatics Jeff from Atari said that this was going to happen at least a month or so ago.

I know for a fact that nobody got paid for the PTW mods included.

BTW, if you read your EULA for Civ3, it says that if you post a mod anywhere, Infogrames (now Atari) has the rights to use it in anyway they see fit.

SpencerH · August 12, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Not hardly, on CivFanatics Jeff from Atari said that this was going to happen at least a month or so ago.

I know for a fact that nobody got paid for the PTW mods included.

BTW, if you read your EULA for Civ3, it says that if you post a mod anywhere, Infogrames (now Atari) has the rights to use it in anyway they see fit.

Doesnt change a thing, I was still picking up psychic emanations from those who knew about it.

Fear me. Fear my powers!

As for their EULA, **** em. It still smells for a company to cause many bugs that are still ongoing by virtue of their copy protection crap to appear so loose with others work and ideas.

vmxa1 · August 12, 2003, 19:56

It is kind of like coming up with an idea at your company, using their equipment and time. It is not yours. The mods are made using the editor and units and such that they made.
If you want to be mad at copy protection, blame the people that are stealing software and music. They are driving the whole thing.

SpencerH · August 13, 2003, 07:07

Wrongo. those mods are ours. A good analogy is music sampling. If I use part of your copywrited song in my own song, I may owe you (something) for its use, or you may prevent me from using your work. But, you dont own my song just because I included some of what you created in my creation. So, those of us who have mod-ed the original game or components have certainly infringed on Firaxis copywrite (although it may be argued that such infringement was expected given the inclusion of an editor and the historical precedent from civ2) and they are entitled to compensation for their effort or to stop our use of their material. BUT, they are not entitled to include our mods on their disc as if it is their material either. You'll note that ATARI have been clear that people submitting mods for inclusion with C3C must own the copyright to that material i.e. someone at ATARI knows what they're doing. The EULA is a red herring that could easily be fought by someone who wanted to (and had the money).

Maybe I have a warped perspective, I just found it odd how infogreed handled the mods included with PtW. Personally, I was tickled to see my small unit mods included with such a great scenario.

As for software piracy, I agree that it is a problem. But let me point out that I, like many others, started playing games such as civ with pirated versions. Later on, we purchased follow on games (hell, I even purchased the original after civ2 was out). Why do you think that MS whined about piracy in the early years but didnt use copy protection for their material? Because we used it! Our piracy and use of the OS's and Office suite, when there were still decent alternatives, built the MS monopoly.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2003, 12:24

It is always amusing to see people justify their misdeeds. No matter how you slice it, you stole from them.
I agree the EULA may be overturned in court, but anything can be over turned in court.

SpencerH · August 13, 2003, 13:45

I bow before your innocence and purity. I'm sure you've paid for everything on your PC prior to using it.

TheArsenal · August 13, 2003, 13:53

Spencer H:

To put it as simply as possible, the sampling analogy is not a valid one. This assumes the intellectual property governing music and literature, and the proprietary rights of use of elements of the game, are the same. They are not. Music can be used by means of simple and fair compensation. Not so for things like Civ series.

A better example is the patent and copyright elements used by drug makers. A drug is exclusive property of the drug maker, and so are all elements making it up as it creates the whole. Let's, for example, say Viagra, which is manufactured by Pfieffer. It is wholly protected against "free competition". Not only can you not manufacture and market Viagra, but if you create a drug based upon specific composition of Viagra - say you add something to it - and Pfeiffer can prove it, they can stop you. Or claim ownership of the drug you make as long as Viagra is under protection.

You as a licensed user have no rights to any protected elements of the game. By the very nature of creating mods using nothing but the elements of the game, you are creating property which rightfully belongs to Atari. If you threw a fit, you may be able to prevent them from using a mod you created - and I doubt this seriously - but in no way could you claim you should be compensated or stake any ownership claims whatsoever. It's just how it works.

SpencerH · August 13, 2003, 16:26

I dont see that the drug analogy is better since I, as the end user of the drug that I paid for, actually own it. I dont just license it, as I currently do with programs.

Are you suggesting with the drug analogy that there should be a 5-10-20yr limitation on MS's monopoly of DOS for example. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear it.

It seems to me that EULA protections of programs are an absurd variant of the laws that cover other intellectual properties (such as music). No one could argue that the disc that the program is printed on has real value, whereas the drug itself (as well as the creative process) has value. Given the limited tech knowledge of our legislators, its no wonder that such bizzare aberations have been allowed. With time, however, I think the current laws will change as more tech savy people enter govt.

TheArsenal · August 13, 2003, 17:11

I'm really not sure what you're saying. There are several issues being blended and confused here. And again, I simplify: how you come into possession of an intellectually protected item, whether by license, like the game, or by purchase, like the pill, or even if by theft, matters not in the slightest. The other issue confused here is that protection methods for all types of intellectual property are the same. They are not.

As far as the drug analogy goes I am suggesting nothing whatsoever. Nor am I trying to write law. I am simply explaining why you do not own the rights to the mod and why your music analogy did not apply. Whether the protection is absurd or not, or how these issues are sorted in the future, are entirely different matters of opinion and of no concern to me. I am simply explaining the law to you.

Often when people are at odds with a legal concept they don't like, or they feel is stupid, they confuse what they see as being "morally" right against the ability of the (legal) concept to stand up against legal tests and challenges. Not the same thing. Even if you are "right". The following phrase may not make sense on the face, but it helps get the mind around what I mean:

"It's not just a bad idea, it's the law". Take it to heart.

And: my absolute last post that has nothing to do with game play.

Panag · August 13, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
It is kind of like coming up with an idea at your company, using their equipment and time. It is not yours. The mods are made using the editor and units and such that they made.
If you want to be mad at copy protection, blame the people that are stealing software and music. They are driving the whole thing.

hi ,

okay , but what about free mods and scens , .......

ones you upload them in order to be downloaded by others for free you have lost all the rights you had , .......

have a nice day

SpencerH · August 13, 2003, 17:56

Thanks for the expert opinion.

I'm not confused that the laws are different for different types of intellectual property (although you've highlighted that fact well), I'm just annoyed about it.

So now we know that (I assume based on american law) ATARI owns all the mods made by everyone and dont have to ask the mod creators for their permission to put them on a disk that ATARI then sells.

But they put the editor in with the game.

Cunning that.

WarpStorm · August 13, 2003, 17:56

First off this has nothing to do with copy protection. It has to do with legally binding contracts.

Quote:

END-USER VARIATIONS: So long as You fully comply, at all times, with this License, Infogrames Interactive grants to You a limited, personal, revocable, non-exclusive right to: (i) use the Software's toolset feature to create Your own Civilization III: Play the World modules ("Modules"), and (ii) create Your own modifications to work with the Software (e.g., custom data files not created using the toolset) (the "User Conversions", and together with the Modules, the "Variations"). Your rights to create Variations are subject to the following restrictions: (1) Your Variations must only work with the full commercial version of the software game Civilization III: Play the World; (2) Your Variations must not contain modifications to any executable file; (3) Your Variations must not contain any libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene, or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties, or contain any viruses, trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots, or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information; and (4) You may not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play or timesharing basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute Your Variations (including, without limitation, hosting pay-per-play servers, hosting pay-per-download web-sites for Variations including sites that charge for bandwidth use, and independently selling Variations online, at retail, mail order, etc.). We may take any action with respect to your Variations if we believe it may create liability for us or may cause us to lose (in whole or in part) the services of our ISPs or other suppliers.
Without limiting the foregoing, You expressly acknowledge and agree that in no event shall You have the right or license to make any modification (whether using the toolkit or otherwise) to any portion of the Software for the purpose of creating any data file, executable, or other derivative work that is intended to operate in a stand-alone mode, with any pre-release or beta version of Civilization III or Civilization III: Play the World, or any software program other than Civilization III: Play the World. You acknowledge that Infogrames Interactive owns all right, title and interest in and to any and all Variations.

DISTRIBUTION AND SERVING OF MODULES AND USER CONVERSIONS: So long as You fully comply at all times with this License, Infogrames Interactive grants to You the limited, personal, revocable, non-exclusive right to: (i) distribute Your Modules or User Conversions by means of providing a copy of the actual Module or User Conversion code to other users (e.g., via ftp, email, disc copies, etc.) (collectively "Distribute"); and (ii) to allow other users to play Your Modules by means of hosting Your own Civilization III: Play the World server whereby You retain sole possession of Your Module (collectively "Serve") (Serving User Converions is not possible).

INFOGRAMES' USE OF VARIATIONS: If You Distribute, or permit others to Distribute, Your Variations, You acknowledge that such Distribution by You shall in no way limit Infogrames Interactive's right to use and distribute such Variations by any means, and to make such modifications thereto as Infogrames Interactive deems are necessary to package, combine, and otherwise distribute such Variations. Infogrames Interactive will make a reasonable effort to provide credit to You in the event it uses or distributes Your Variations, but You acknowledge that identifying You and/or other Variation creators may be difficult, and any failure by Infogrames Interactive to provide credit to any person shall not be a breach of this License and shall in no way limit Infogrames Interactive's rights to use and distribute any Variation.

REVOCATION OF RIGHTS: Infogrames Interactive may at any time and in its sole discretion revoke Your right to make Your Variations publicly available (whether You are Distributing or Serving), provided that Infogrames Interactive shall not revoke Your right to Distribute a Variation if Infogrames Interactive is, at the time of such revocation, using or distributing such Variation.

WarpStorm · August 13, 2003, 18:01

Addendum. There is a way to share your work without giving it away

Quote:

(ii) to allow other users to play Your Modules by means of hosting Your own Civilization III: Play the World server whereby You retain sole possession of Your Module

Panag · August 13, 2003, 18:08

hi ,

okay , but here comes the catch , actually two , ....

one ; if a law is unlawfull it does not count , so in other words they can write what they want , if it aint legal it does not count , and often there are such cases , ...... infogrames had them last year , ......

two ; these laws may not count in your part of the world , ........ (!)

the UK and the US have a completely different law system then any country where napoleon passed ( europe ) , he left behind a different set where he went and till this day it still forms the basic law in those countries , ......

have a nice day

TheArsenal · August 13, 2003, 18:16

Sigh. You've made a liar out of me by saying I was out of this.

Not to nit pick but it has everything to do with protection. It is ownership of these rights that allow them to set the terms license in the first place. Even without this sentence "You acknowledge that Infogrames Interactive owns all right, title and interest in and to any and all Variations" they would clearly be able to exercise this right of ownership.

Done. No this time, really.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2003, 18:45

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I bow before your innocence and purity. I'm sure you've paid for everything on your PC prior to using it.

Even for XP PRO. I bought and paid for it from the vendor, at something like 120.00. I am now sorry, I did not pay for the CD version as well.
But even if that were not so, would it all of sudden mean, it is ok to steal? It would make me a hypocrite and a theif, but not excuse it for others.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
one ; if a law is unlawfull it does not count , so in other words they can write what they want , if it aint legal it does not count , and often there are such cases , ...... infogrames had them last year , ......

two ; these laws may not count in your part of the world , ........ (!)

the UK and the US have a completely different law system then any country where napoleon passed ( europe ) , he left behind a different set where he went and till this day it still forms the basic law in those countries , ......

One ignores the law at their own peril. People do that all the time, until someone catches them. If your point is that this agreement could be challenged and over tunred. Yes it could and may be, but until then, it is binding. Lots of people have paid big time for ignoring agreements.
I can not address laws in other countries, but to say that in the end, if a given country will not protect copyrights and such, they will find doing business to be difficult. Other countries and companies will be unwilling to risk it. This has been a problem for the far east.

WarpStorm · August 13, 2003, 18:57

It's not that uncommon. Everything on my PC is either free (legitimately so, by the copyright owners) or paid for. As all of my income comes from my IPs, I feel morally obligated to pay others for their works.

SpencerH · August 13, 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Even for XP PRO. I bought and paid for it from the vendor, at something like 120.00. I am now sorry, I did not pay for the CD version as well.
But even if that were not so, would it all of sudden mean, it is ok to steal? It would make me a hypocrite and a theif, but not excuse it for others.

Well I would ask whether using an object prior to paying for it is stealing? I dont think it is. If I keep it and dont pay for it, thats another matter.

EDIT: you may have misinterpreted my use of the phrase "our use of ...."

That wasnt the royal 'our', I was refering to the effect of pirating by the public (in general) 15 years ago.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

Well I would ask whether using an object prior to paying for it is stealing? I dont think it is. If I keep it and dont pay for it, thats another matter.

I would say that if you have possension of an object with out permission, weither to use it and return or to keep it, that would be stealing. I don't think the publishers of games will have a cavalier attitude towards use of their products. They sometime create demo for that purpose other times not.

In many cases use of an object reduces it vlaue, often to zero. Such as food and clothing. In any case if one does not have permission, then it is narcissistic to use it anyway. I could have included childish, but kids are already narcissistic.

SpencerH · August 14, 2003, 07:38

Not all games have demos. So you dont accept paying for a game or other program, trying it out, then taking it back to the store?

vmxa1 · August 14, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Not all games have demos. So you dont accept paying for a game or other program, trying it out, then taking it back to the store?

Pay attention, if you get it from the store and return it you had permission, didn't you? Owning it covers having pemission. If the store has a return policy that allows that, no problems.

I don't think many will allow that any more, though. Too many burners out there.