Abandoned Mods

[Nozzer66]

And this entire issue is why I doubt I'll bother 'upgrading'; that and I consider it a waste of time.

[SynthetikHD]

idk. This is what it's really all about guys.

Say if SSE comes out and it breaks Schlongs of Skyrim. I want to update it but say either #1: the mod author has been inactive for years and can't be reached or #2: he is active and he denies me permission to use his mod because he thinks SSE sucks and doesn't want anyone using his perfect mod in SSE or maybe he just says no but gives no reason, etc.

All I want is to have fun in Skyrim so I spend a few hours in the new Creation Kit fixing his mod. It was a long and tedious process to fix his mod, but I did it, and I want other people to experience the joys of Schlongs of Skyrim in the new SSE.

So I upload the fixed mod to Google Drive, giving the original author full credit, and post the fixed mod on the STEP forums for other people to enjoy.

idk about all these claims of copyright and enforceability and rights and terms of service and so on. I just want other people to share in the fun.

So I ask you guys....was what I did really so wrong?
***full disclaimer I have no idea if schlongs of skyrim is a real mod I've just seen it memed on reddit
 
EDIT: Removing post text makes no sense if it is quoted on a following post ... I replaced the missing text in this post to make the topic easier to follow.

Edited June 17, 2016 by z929669

[Nozzer66]

You ignored the wishes of the author. That's what's wrong. If they say they don't want their mod used then that's the end of the story.

[SynthetikHD]

So what you are saying is, in this situation, that having fun in SSE with the Schlongs of Skyrim mod is ethically wrong? Anyone that wants to use a mod in SSE that is broken and the mod author does not update is ethically wrong? Idk, I don't think that's the case.

 

EDIT: Removing post text makes no sense if it is quoted on a following post ... I replaced the missing text in this post to make the topic easier to follow.

Edited June 17, 2016 by z929669

[MonoAccipiter]

But here's the thing....no one here thinks it is unethical. So is it really unethical? Like you said "they would have no problem with someone updating their mods." So how could it be unethical?

Almost everyone here thinks it is unethical. You're mixing our stances. I feel like it is the right thing for me to share my mods with other authors because I, like Wrye, believe in making the best possible modding experience together - as a community. That does not mean I think it is ethical to force that stance on others. First of all that would require me to follow an imperative that suggests such ethical ideals can be applied in broad strokes to literally any other situation (i.e. think of the categorical imperative which suggests you should only act according to a maxim you would welcome as an universal law). Then secondly it requires that stance to trump the question of whether it is right to force that stance on somebody else (e.g if we continue using the categorical imperative as an example I would also have to accept that someone else forced their ideals on me whether or not I agree with said ideals). Hence, the difference between arguing for a certain ethical mindset does no equate implying that such a mindset should be forced on anyone.

 

In considering your example with SoS, I think most people here arguing for the cathedral view would agree that disrespecting that author's wishes is wrong, while still being able to point out that if said author had followed that view, we would most likely have ended up with something more people could enjoy.

 

EDIT: Tech, can you move my post, please. I did not see yours until after I posted this.

Edited June 17, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Neovalen]

So what you are saying is, in this situation, that having fun in SSE with the Schlongs of Skyrim mod is ethically wrong? Anyone that wants to use a mod in SSE that is broken and the mod author does not update is ethically wrong? Idk, I don't think that's the case.

I would say it's not wrong for personal use. However it is wrong if you share it.

[hishutup]

You ignored the wishes of the author. That's what's wrong. If they say they don't want their mod used then that's the end of the story.

At some point the work done will go to waste because it is no longer safe to use. There are people that do want to see a mod to continue to thrive.

Thats why I take care of Realistic Boat Bobbing. I was asked by ganda to update it and maintain it.

I updated it by removing the USKP requirement to move to USLEEP

I then removed WT because people no longer have access to it but it is still there for people that do.

 

I dont think this sort of thing is against any authors wishes even if he didnt ask.

[Nozzer66]

So what you are saying is, in this situation, that having fun in SSE with the Schlongs of Skyrim mod is ethically wrong? Anyone that wants to use a mod in SSE that is broken and the mod author does not update is ethically wrong? Idk, I don't think that's the case.

Not what I said at all. That's a strawman argument.

At some point the work done will go to waste because it is no longer safe to use. There are people that do want to see a mod to continue to thrive.

Thats why I take care of Realistic Boat Bobbing. I was asked by ganda to update it and maintain it.

I updated it by removing the USKP requirement to move to USLEEP

I then removed WT because people no longer have access to it but it is still there for people that do.

 

I dont think this sort of thing is against any authors wishes even if he didnt ask.

Abandoned Mods are a different story. In Synthetik's case he's saying he asked, got told no and did it anyway. 

[SynthetikHD]

. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by SynthetikHD

[Nozzer66]

In the situation you mention above where the author has said no, then yes, everyone who wants to use it needs to do it personally and releasing it publicly is unethical.

[Nebulous112]

idk. This is what it's really all about guys.

 

Say if SSE comes out and it breaks Schlongs of Skyrim. I want to update it but say either #1: the mod author has been inactive for years and can't be reached or #2: he is active and he denies me permission to use his mod because he thinks SSE sucks and doesn't want anyone using his perfect mod in SSE or maybe he just says no but gives no reason, etc.

 

All I want is to have fun in Skyrim so I spend a few hours in the new Creation Kit fixing his mod. It was a long and tedious process to fix his mod, but I did it, and I want other people to experience the joys of Schlongs of Skyrim in the new SSE.

 

So I upload the fixed mod to Google Drive, giving the original author full credit, and post the fixed mod on the STEP forums for other people to enjoy.

 

idk about all these claims of copyright and enforceability and rights and terms of service and so on. I just want other people to share in the fun.

 

So I ask you guys....was what I did really so wrong?

***full disclaimer I have no idea if schlongs of skyrim is a real mod I've just seen it memed on reddit

The point is that it doesn't matter what I think. When it comes to redistribution, it only matters what the author thinks.

 

What do I, personally think? In situation #1, it is gray. Not horribly wrong, by any means, but definitely not "right" either.

 

In situation #2, it is definitely wrong. No gray there, just black. The author expressly denied you permission, and you went ahead and redistributed the mod anyway.

 

However, if you had just made a video or a document saying what you did to make the mod work, and redistributed that - absolutely no issue. Not a hint of gray, totally white.

 

And that is similar to what I hope is possible with the abandoned non-SKSE mods. That as users, we can just load them in the CK, save them, and voila: they function in SSE. Or use a script in xEdit as Kesta and Tech mentioned. Hopefully it will be that simple...

[hishutup]

What if instead of releasing a brand new mod with a new mod page under one's name, a user was allowed to create spin offs of a mod which will inherit any permissions from the parent outside of the spin off.

This would allow users to update mods, the author can keep his modpage in tact and have traffic directed through his page and not be responsible for any spin off.

 

I think this would work.

[SynthetikHD]

Sigh, idk I'm still not sure if I agree with most of you. This will probably be my last post on this because I can't keep up responding to everyone.
 
I just want to say that I don't think that a mod author saying that they don't want their work redistributed really means much of anything. Their wishes are not enforceable in anyway.
Stealing someones mod or not giving them credit is obviously ethically wrong, hopefully I'm right in saying everyone here agrees with that.
 
I just don't really see that me taking someone else's 1's and 0's online and updating them, or changing them for others to enjoy is ethically wrong. I don't think it is wrong in a situation where I receive no response from an inactive mod author, and I don't think it is wrong in a situation where the mod author says I can f--- off and explicitly tells me I can't change his work and upload it.
 
I do however agree that not uploading the authors mod in the two situations above is probably the polite thing to do....but I don't think it's wrong if I still upload it.
 
 
A pop music artist says she doesn't want people uploading piano covers of her song online? Who cares, there's nothing ethically wrong with that. A movie director says he doesn't want people uploading videos of his movies with the audio replaced? Who cares, there's nothing ethically wrong with that. A mod author doesn't want his mod updated/changed and put online for others to enjoy? Why??? I see nothing ethically wrong with it.

Edited June 17, 2016 by z929669

[Nozzer66]

Unfortunately it seems your ethics don't jibe with most of the rest of this community. Some of what you're essentially saying is theft, when it gets down to tin tacks. 

 

Anyway I personally would refuse to use any mod where I don't think the authors wishes have been respected.

[MonoAccipiter]

Sigh, idk I'm still not sure if I agree with most of you. This will probably be my last post on this because I can't keep up responding to everyone.

 

I just want to say that I don't think that a mod author saying that they don't want their work redistributed really means much of anything. Their wishes are not enforceable in anyway.

Stealing someones mod or not giving them credit is obviously ethically wrong, hopefully I'm right in saying everyone here agrees with that.

 

I just don't really see that me taking someone else's 1's and 0's online and updating them, or changing them for others to enjoy is ethically wrong. I don't think it is wrong in a situation where I receive no response from an inactive mod author, and I don't think it is wrong in a situation where the mod author says I can f--- off and explicitly tells me I can't change his work and upload it.

 

I do however agree that not uploading the authors mod in the two situations above is probably the polite thing to do....but I don't think it's wrong if I still upload it.

 

 

A pop music artist says she doesn't want people uploading piano covers of her song online? Who cares, there's nothing ethically wrong with that. A movie director says he doesn't want people uploading videos of his movies with the audio replaced? Who cares, there's nothing ethically wrong with that. A mod author doesn't want his mod updated/changed and put online for others to enjoy? Why??? I see nothing ethically wrong with it.

I partly agree with you. My earlier post was more about addressing the discrepancy between what I felt people were expressing as their opinion and what you interpreted it as. I still stand by that.

 

I do wish we had a civilization where this focus on legacy or "personal property" didn't seep into everything, but we don't. This is constantly proven through how people approach everything from modding to music, and for how much it despairs me to see it, I cannot blame them. For as long as society remains so focused on the "value" of all things there is really no way around simply balancing on the fulcrum. Maybe it's because I come from a country with such a large socialist movement (Norway) or perhaps it is for some other reason altogether, I do not know. However, that is also essential in my approach to this - I do not actually know. Hence, how can I defend forcing my opinion on others? Thus not forcing my opinion on others becomes imperative, and respecting people no matter our differences even more so. There is a fundamental difference in approaching the subject through logical arguing (i.e. the philosophical conversation) and assuming that you are already right, by taking the matter into your own hands. Even if I agree that this is how modding should work, I also have to respect that if I thought it right to exploit the system (in this case that would be the Internet) to achieve that goal, that would also necessitate me being fine with someone exploiting another system similarly if said goal were already achieved. 

 

A vital part you missed in your music example was that providing a piano cover for a certain song would be much more equatable to making the same mod as one that was already made, from scratch.