Don't list other people's material Thread

Reference:
Moddb.com

It's important that people on ModDB are not encouraged to upload and list the content of other people without at least their express permission. If they wanted it listed, they could be contacted and asked if they would like to list it themselves. It takes a few minutes for them to register and upload, so if they wanted material here, they could do it.

It's even more important that the staff don't do this themselves.

In the instances above the content is listed, the files are uploaded, and the original authors are not even accredited - I'm concerned that the author has not been contacted at all - and even so, the author should have been encouraged to make the listing themselves. It's not just 'fair play', it's also a potential legal situation, especially with distribution licenses for ported software, and should be avoided.

If they want it removed it will be, otherwise listing a mod is just that listing a mod same goes for addons and its the rules we stand by.

I do however agree if its not yours make it clear, you did not make it.

Uploading a mod is more than listing it. More often than not, licenses prohibit others from distributing the content under their own channels.

I don't believe this is a breech of rights unless the download has "exclusivity" somewhere. Otherwise sites like fileplanet, filefront which basically list any file uploaded wouldn't be able to operate. At the end of the day most files either contain a readme which credits the appropriate people, or the files are linked with relevant "creator" profiles, which then link to the original authors homepage. The internet is built as a tool to distribute information, hundreds of blogs, file sites and more are linking and providing this content. If the author or someone associated with the project contacts us, the content will be promptly removed. We will always listen and comply with such requests, and will be as open as we can.

As for community generated content, it is almost impossible to monitor and manage content generated. Youtube is a perfect example. They don't want copyright videos uploaded but their users do anyway, so they do their best to handle the situation by removing content when requested. The whole benefit of being a "community powered site" is that you empower the community to run the site essentially, the community is responsible for the content and we will reactively take action when copyright breeches occur or complaints are made. If we strip the communities power the heart of the site is lost.

Its not breaking any license issues, the games still require the original files.. they should however list permissions to ID Software as the original developers, this would make more sense as they are dis-connecting themselves from their own project, I'd like the idea of them making the game developed by ID and the mod team as the publisher since they are distributing it, not Developing the game itself.

However - Filefront and Youtube do not actively encourage users to upload the material of other people like the article in question, nor do the staff actively do so themselves. What the community does, can be pinned down to limited liability; what the site itself does cannot. There's a fine line between the two.

Ultimately if the team doesn't get permission ModDB will to avoid Liability.. else if its too hard just ban them or hope ID doesn't mind.

I maybe mistaken, but I am fairly certain filefront and others upload files for iD, Valve and tons of others on their behalf. When they release a video chances are staff will encode it onto their own site. Unlike copyright videos etc which are released to be distributed on specific channels (i.e. on tv's with ads), I believe these files are released on the internet with the intention of being distributed far and wide.

isn't DSQuake GPL? If so then all this "DONT PUT IT ON SITE" bull is will remain as moot

i can see that missing the mentions for the author and the original site in the newspost can be bugging to them though

Edited by: leilei

Agrees with Leilei, if its under GPL they can get away with it.
I think it is under GPL. Would it be too hard to ask for Quake 3 .

leilei wrote: isn't DSQuake GPL? If so then all this "DONT PUT IT ON SITE" bull is will remain as moot

i can see that missing the mentions for the author and the original site in the newspost can be bugging to them though

Is *anybody* paying attention to the point I'm actually making - the part where encouraging people to upload other people's content without their permission part?

ambershee wrote:

leilei wrote: isn't DSQuake GPL? If so then all this "DONT PUT IT ON SITE" bull is will remain as moot

i can see that missing the mentions for the author and the original site in the newspost can be bugging to them though

Is *anybody* paying attention to the point I'm actually making - the part where encouraging people to upload other people's content without their permission part?

Dunno why you didn't bring that up earlier when moddb v2/3 introduced the Mod Adoption feature.

Also there was an article on Recycling Content.. why no "WTF?" back then.

I don't have an issue with ports, I mean people are adding Games to ModDB on behalf of such companies. And further more these ports are NOT distributing the content rather the means to play such content, it is still a mod in that its a modification of the original codes to work with a DS platform, and also its not like ID made an issue over iDoom when that first came out.

ambershee wrote:

leilei wrote: isn't DSQuake GPL? If so then all this "DONT PUT IT ON SITE" bull is will remain as moot

i can see that missing the mentions for the author and the original site in the newspost can be bugging to them though

Is *anybody* paying attention to the point I'm actually making - the part where encouraging people to upload other people's content without their permission part?

TBH I think your nit picking your bringing a fairly valid argument to the table and pulling it apart in pieces, it affects no one, we have measures inplace to resolve issues, if the creator wants it removed they can have it
If it says don’t redistribute, we wont and so on.

I recall leilei brought up a similar issue with addons back when addondb was online.

Moddb.com

But that was about changing a inplace licences.

Please clearly point out how moddb has been in the wrong in this case or others.

I don't think it's really an issue. Just as long as there is a better effort made to cite the original creators.

The only issue is if the port is really GPL and the author is not properly credited. This would be breaking the GPL ( hence license infringement ). Other than that if it's GPL you can distribute it the way you want as long as the GPL is respected.