Military aircrafts - the most complete list

[InvaderNat]

Yeah trust me I checked everywhere before asking here, oh well.

[fafalone]

We're talking works that are a decade old, disappeared from the web years ago, and have either unknown or long abandoned contact e-mails-- and it's not ok to share privately with full credit given to the original author? For something they publicly distributed? Private files or claiming credit are one thing, but you seriously think there's a single person out there who would be upset that the content they dedicated their time and effort to, for the community's benefit, was privately distributed after they left?

Hell when I made TMIP, I was a couple bugfixes away from a public release, so it was still private, when something happened that caused a multi-year absence. Do you have any idea how excited and happy I was to come back and find my team went ahead and posted it and that people actually used it and liked it?

It's simply not reasonable to think anyones intention was that, when the site they uploaded it to no longer existed or had it, that their attitude is 'well whoever has it is it, no new people can have it'. 


That said, I don't have any of the smart speeder fighters from the original site, only the ones republished elsewhere (all on pages linked through this thread and up as of today).

The ones by tabi... there's a few published in a pack on the LEX, but there's also a set that's not:

Are those the ones you're looking for?

[catty]

Hi fafalone

We're talking works that are a decade old, disappeared from the web years ago, and have either unknown or long abandoned contact e-mails-- and it's not ok to share privately with full credit given to the original author?

No its not OK to start sharing people's work privately because its been a few years or they haven't answered a email or the site it was hosting on has disappeared, what we are saying is if someone has a file they want to share with the community and the creator can no longer be contacted then they talk to us the site staff via PM about the file ... who created it, what site it was on why they want to publicly share it ie its a dependency, etc

In some cases we may already be aware of the file and the reasons for its disappearance, in one recent case the files had been deleted some years ago by their creator as they caused problems in people cities and he had moved onto other things, but the creator was contacted and he gave permission if someone wanted to fix the files they could be re-released by that person.

-catty
moderator

[fafalone]

Your post conflates public and private. Huge difference between posting on the exchange and a single user wanting a public file no longer available because the author is no longer active in the community (which absolutely does not imply them banning private sharing, this is Publicly Released content. Not private/beta content that was not intended to be shared.).

If you're truly saying that it's unacceptable for this:
"Hey, I'm looking for x file, but the site it was published on no longer exists and the author disappeared"
"I have it, I'll send it to your private e-mail."

That's the same as unauthorized distribution and tantamount to theft, and therefore a rule violation worthy of being banned? That's insane and it's going to be a huge shitstorm, because as a content creator I find it highly offensive that once the exchange that hosts my content goes down, someone who had nothing to do with its creation is going to come and tell people they can't send a copy to someone who wants it because I didn't answer an e-mail, or that they have to wait weeks and screenshot their inbox or something.

[catty]

Hi fafalone

I don't plan on discussing the contents of your post at this time, despite the tone of your post     I have sought clarification from site administration on SC4D policy in this matter, I should point out that most plugins come with readme's or EULA's that very clearly state what the creator of the plugin expectations are regarding their work, picking one at random which happens to be the "Narya Production GRAVEYARD" the readme for it clearly states

Feel free to modify the lots for yourself and show them in your city journals, but please don't distribute them without asking first

Anyway as I said, I or someone else will respond later regarding site policy.

-catty
moderator

[fafalone]

Ok. And sorry if my tone comes off as hostile, it just seemed really insane to me, and any frustration is directed at the policy itself and not you personally.

[catty]

Ok. And sorry if my tone comes off as hostile, it just seemed really insane to me, and any frustration is directed at the policy itself and not you personally.

I can understand your frustration, but you have to remember we are a public forum and as such we can't always do what we want as we have a responsibility to act fairly to all our users especially when it comes to people's creations.

Site staff (one of whom is a lawyer) are continuing to discuss this ....

-catty

   

[NCGAIO]

Just to contribute ...


Since the works of tabinoito are already republished in LEX i could send material that is lacking

[catty]

Just to contribute ...

Since the works of tabinoito are already republished in LEX i could send material that is lacking

That's would be great     I think the admin team still needs to clarify just what the policy is regarding "Orphan" plugins  before anything happens over at the LEX.

-catty

[NCGAIO]

That's would be great      
-catty

This is the stuff that's missing.


It only remains to say how or to whom to send!


 

[catty]

Hi NCGAIO

I'm posting a message over on the admin board that was discussing the above, so hopefully will have an answer soon for you.

-catty

[HappyDays]

I'm curious as to the lawyer's legal background. Is this person a copyright lawyer? Legal training makes them better than the layman for virtually anything related to law, true, but a background in copyright law would certainly be the most useful.

The question I've always had is this: Is what we release actually ours, or is it considered property of EA as is the case for everything made for SC2013? Are the EULAs legally binding? Whether EA's, Pegasus', or a random guy's/gal's? Is there a statute of limitations?

True, we should respect people's EULAs as that's how we roll, but the question is pointed moreso to their limits when it comes to works where their author's have vanished from the face of the planet.

Sorry for hijacking the topic with my mind words. I've always found the subject fascinating and something that the major exchanges need to make a decision about as the game gets older and more sites/authors disappear.

[APSMS]

I believe the lawyers on hand (which one is it? The actual SC4Devotion legal counsel, or someone else?) are fully qualified to be discussing copyright law, if I'm not mistaken.

EDIT: A quick glance at the EULA for the Maxis tools (LE, BAT, etc.) appears to suggest that the custom content created for the game with EA tools remains property of the creators ("respective owners"?) but that EA is released from all liability and has the right to remove access to the tools at any time. I think when they released the game, EA wanted no part of anything the community might make, not realizing what a boon user-created material was for the longevity of the game.

[HappyDays]

SC4Devotion has legal counsel... 

That's interesting and weird at the same time. Anyway, I am aware of what the EULA for using SC4's tools says, but my concern is whether it actually means what it says it does. Is the EULA overridden by other SC4-related EULAs (Is there are any)? Is the EULA for SC2013 an indication of EA's present stance on user-generated content and can it be retroactively applied to older releases?

(SC2013's EULA for the curious. Note section F: https://eacom.s3.amazonaws.com/SimCity_1_3_2013-ROW_EU_updated.pdf)

Quick research indicates that, yes, EULAs are absolutely and completely legally binding because you don't own software. You license it.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/12212110968.shtml

If a company doesn't want you to sell/give away software you bought or has ridiculous policies you need to follow, that just sucks for you. Anyway, this is true for EA's EULAs. But what about created works? Does EA own in part or in whole the creative works of others because they used tools provided by EA to create those works? Does the EULA/company policy of EA supersede that of, say, Pegasus' EULA/policy?

[catty]

SC4Devotion has legal counsel... 

That's interesting and weird at the same time. ...

No what we have is a SC4 player who happens to be a lawyer in real life ... interesting points APSMS and HappyDays

[APSMS]

No what we have is a SC4 player who happens to be a lawyer in real life ... interesting points APSMS and HappyDays

Ah, I thought that might be who you meant. The other guy hasn't been around in a few months I noticed.

And the software bit is completely true, mostly due to legal definitions of "ownership", which in my understanding is not the traditional use of the term (or at least, as layman are familiar with it). This is what happens when you read too much fine print.

[fafalone]

While actual public distribution may be a point of legal contention, non-profit private sharing between individual people of free content posted in a public place is the topic of the day; and whether or not it's technically a violation of copyright law (maybe, and the idea a suit would EVER be brought AND not accept an affirmative defense is laughable), isn't even the biggest issue. Regardless, SC4D is not liable for what I e-mail to people and placing restrictions on my private communication is unethical. SC4D has zero moral right to ban me because of anything I do in private.

Not letting people's hard work die with the site it happened to be hosted on, by sending the content to a single user asking for it, is ethically sound, and you're threatening to exclude me from this site because I chose to act within what I believe to be ethically correct, by sending a file through another service not operated by SC4D. While I also believe posting orphan works publicly is ok, THAT is a valid issue for SC4D policy. NOT what I choose to e-mail people.

[art128]

SC4D has zero moral right to ban me because of anything I do in private.

Actually, it has the right to. As long as you announce in public ( as in, in a thread) that you're going to send someone's files via email, an administrator has all the rights to terminate your membership, as per the rules it is not tolerated.
However, if no one knows you've sent the files beside you and the person who receive the mail, then free to you to do it. No one knows, nothing happened. You can even tell that person by PM on SC4D as no one can view them beside you and him. (and possibly the webmaster as they're stored on the server IIRC)


Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere. This is how I've always interpreted the site's rules. But if I'm wrong, then tell me what the correct interpretation is. 

[catty]

...Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong somewhere. This is how I've always interpreted the site's rules. But if I'm wrong, then tell me what the correct interpretation is. 

art128 is correct, while staff are still continuing to discuss "orphan plugins" and what should happen when either their creator or the site the plugin was on has disappeared ... the policy re exchanging other people's work on this site is very clear, what people do via PM is something we can't stop you doing as it is private, but if you try asking for or exchanging other people's work on this site in public we the site staff are going to take a very dim view of it, in my case I will warn people first, but if they continue to ask publicly for other people's work to be sent to them, then there will be consequences.

-catty
moderator 

[Girafe]

Cathy said consequences...