Petty squabbles like I see on the rest of this thread is a reason why a hobby that I liked has become something I am starting to hate. Crap like this stresses me out to the point that I want to start shooting up again. It's a hobby that you are suppose to enjoy.
i'm not sure what about this thread is stressing you out: from my perspective, it's one of the most useful threads i've seen recently on any of the
IE boards i go to.
But this hinges on the idea that game content IS there to be modded. For NWN or UT2004, both marketted as modding platforms, this might be true, but it seems most unlikely in the case of BG2. It seems, therefore, to come down to whether the creator has any objection to their content being altered.
indeed. and we can safely imply that bioware have no objection (at the present time) cos there's many years of
BG/
BG2 modding already done - their past lack of complaints makes it a reasonable assumption they won't complain in the present. they may well have a brain-spasm and issue cease-and-desist orders in the future, but until then, implied consent is a valid presumption.
Whatever the case here, I find this discussion to be very helpful. I will probably spend the next year or so finishing my TC and it would be very discouraging to know that Bioware could stop me at any time.
even if they did have a brain-spasm, they not likely to get ownership of other ppl's work. there was a case earlier this year, which i've been trying unsuccessfully to find, where what we might call a primary copyright owner successfully sued a secondary copyright owner for ownership of all materials made using the primary material, but this is the only one i can think of (and it was a commercial case too, not a modding related case). it's more like, in the unlikely event that bioware ever cracked the shits with modding communities, that they'd pull a paramount;
ie, require us to stop making publicly available unauthorised material making use of their (bioware's) intellectual property. so yes: we could still distribute via IRC
.
If I don't lock my house, you don't have "implicit permission" to help yourself to what's in my fridge. (or, if you want to extend the analogy, if I don't call the cops on you just because I notice that your recycling bin has my cans of Coke in it--because it's not worth my time to summon a grand jury over it, irk me though it may.)
yr example misunderstands the basic distinction between real property and intelletual prperty. in brief:
- real property: is finite and scarce. so if i drink yr coke, you can't.
- intellectual property: is non-finite and non-scarce. if i modify yr mod, it doesn't reduce yr ability to use yr mod.
to quote more from a recent lawrence lessig article (available in full
here):
software in particular, and knowledge in general, is not like food: when I reveal to you how best to install Word on your computer, I don?t lose that ability myself.
the whole point of intellectual property law is to make IP scarce under specific conditions, usually as a means to encourage innovation. the upshot of all of which is, yes, we're infringing bioware's IP rights, but in light of their previous practice, and until such time as they revoke this permission, we can safely presume implied consent.
so, whilst i would wish to agree with jc (one of the main things you have to learn as a grad student is how to divorce yrself from yr work and from criticisms of that work) that:
I still say, if you publish it for the game, it is part of the game and, therefore, fair game for further modification. That has always been my policy about my own work and it is my policy about anybody else's, even though I typically don't, in fact, avail myself of the opportunity to mess with other mods (see the Solaufein "objections" I have created, which neither add nor modify Solaufein content.)
i can't - and i wonder how much you agree with it yrself, jc, given, as you say, you don't generally avail yrself of the opportunity? and i can't agree with it, because the injunction to contact the author of a mod prior to altering their work is not just a question of politness, it's at the heart of the question 'why do we mod?' - and that, as i said earlier in this thread, is in part because modding is a collaborative practice.
even when practiced entirely by individuals working alone, it's collaborative - as the process of bug-hunting, bug-fixing and compatability-ensuring demonstrates. because it's collaborative, we release bug-fixes and updated versions, we chastise ppl - like the infamous script troll - who claim other ppl's work as their own, and we look down upon ppl who abandon mods, dump unfinished mods into the community, or fail to address known bugs and issues in their mods. all of these things are part and parcel of collaborative working: they're esssentially a form of quality assurance.
all of which gets me back round to my initial point: that it's necessary, and not merely polite, to consult/ inform/ get permission from authors of existing material prior to altering it - because informed and willing consent is a basic premise of any collaborative enterprise.
Edited by seanas, 31 August 2005 - 06:23 AM.
Or will I be banned, excluded and condemned for all eternity?
