Copyright issues solution proposal

Agreed

Regards

Northern Line

I think that these are excellant guidelines-its a pity that they were not implemented years ago.
Although not a developer myself,I hope that this will give due credit to those that do a wonderful job in giving us much pleasure in our hobby of BVE. Let us hope that this will unite us into a strong bond of friendshipwithin the BVE community.

Many thanks to Derryck

Harold

Sounds good!

Perfectly acceptable and reasonable. Anyone who would not abide by at least those principles ought not to participate.
Of course, it is even better if a developer indicates that free use is permissible unconditionally. But in the absence of total freedom those guidelines do suffice.

I fully agree Derryck. A very good idea!

right i agree with you with everything on your first comment. But i can see why things are as they are. but before i say anymore on that matter the best material do far is the one with no copyright or anything of that sort from anthony. He is the only developer in the last what is it? 3? 4 month's? that has actually kept his self to his self and not commented on any of the arguing on any of the forums.

but like i was saying about it a moment ago, there will always be that issue with copyright. it will always be there, i know some of us dont want it, and others are like" if you use that as copyright from now on your not worthy of the sim" thats absolute crap. because looking at a few items from a few developers that are on this forum, and looking on the site where there work is hosted there are still snippits like "please seek permission prior to use" or "this work is open source, but permission to edit is needed first" its what people do to protect there work.

and im not saying it to be awful. im saying it because there are reasons to which a new person who would join bve to develop something like a train would start to use permissions and etc... they would more than likely start by jumping on a forum (prior to this there was OBF & BVET where every new member who never really read the forum rules and stuff before posting and then because of their age just start posting stupid things like "oh pleeeaaaaassseeee make a class XXX pleease!" to which the select few uk developers (good at coding, not so good at interacting) would see this as just another silly youngster commenting out of key to the forum and give him/her a ear full. and then their are the other few "newbies" who just grab someones work and lets say before they edited it it was a 10/10 but then they do some really bad work on it and make it more or less a 3/10. and then re-upload this on there new site and go back to the forum and post up their work (which in their eyes always looks amazing). and then basically stand in front of a firing squad awaiting their fate.

there will always be people suggesting lets do everything open source and permissions free, was this not actually the case on BVE T when this was suggested? but there will always the idiots wanting to ruin the fun. everything in the universe had an opposite. in the case of bve its;

the saints V's the scoundrels

its a matter of which will the public choose?

if everyone wants to make sure their work is as the first post from admin said, then i propose a "group"? you get anyone who agrees to join the group. get a logo for the group. and then on every work thats produced. it will bear that logo. any questions about that group and such, then a link to this site (maybe>?) for them to ask to join/what is the group / etc....

just my views on this. im sure it will be open to comments

As Mrknowitall says, any accommodation on the copyright issue can only function with consensus. So the idea of an identified group who have signed up to the agreed code is quite reasonable.
At least, it means that that particular section of the community won't have issues of copyright to cause arguments.

If a few developers were to form a loose social grouping and declare agreement to comply with what Derryck has outlined you would have a small (at first) but significant and most importantly stable core from which to start. Others would either choose to come along with us or not. The outcome would be that any disputes outside this grouping would not disrupt it. Therefore you would have a core of stability which is healthier for all concerned. Devs and users would know exactly what the group's rules were regarding rights and permissions.

A bit like a BVE Trade Union or Guild???
I'll second that, brother mrknowitall.

so thats it then problem solved. now then ? names and suggestions?

some that i can think of;

TSF-FFAUF

(train sim framework - free for all users foundation)

TSF-OSCF
(train sim framework - open source content foundation)

the idea of a council should be scapped. with a council comes power- with power comes responsibility - and with that? well lets say that doesn't work.


a guild? nah. lets say a foundation, to which we here are building the legs to. and the more users that join. then the more "bricks" we hold.

we should create a section here. to which derrick and the few select people (helpers) will add the names of those whome actually are in the group and that the links to there site and under it;

TSF-OSCF members;

example A - confirmed partner to the foundation

link to example A's site;

(www.examplA'ssite.co.uk)

example A's username on here;

(example A/ User not joined)

and then on their site there should be a logo to which we decide to make. with a big green tick and the name of the foundation underneath. confirming the partnership.

a good idea?



"added section" ;
Now lets say this does happen, we need to have these helpers to check the content first, make sure no underlying secrets are going to pop up - if this does happen we don't want to overlook one little bit to which could ruin a perfect idea. so these helpers should be committed.

Actually I'd suggest forming some sort a club - and if needed, I can provide its dogma based on the above guidelines (they need a little extension). Just give me some time to prepare that as I am very busy at work these days.

Also, if needed, I can take the patronage of the club and I have a suggestion for its name: "Trainsimframework Proper Author's Club" (TPAC)... More thoughts to be presented in the evening, please don't rush into founding anything as this needs to be thought about. There is no need to have the word free in the club name as it will be clearly stated in the club dogma.

Perhaps not too wordy, don't want it to sound like a Quango. A "group" sounds more friendly, or an "Alliance" might be even better.
If acronyms are unavoidable (probably) then how about "WWBDA", for "WorldWideBVEDevelopers Alliance". Sounds more like a Club, describes the aspiration, don't you think? Also points strongly to "belonging", isn't that just what we want to do?? And ties in with the Forum title too.
My personal suggestion is even shorter - "ADA" Amicable Developers Alliance".
No doubt there will be a few suggestions forwarded, enough for a good argument

PS Derryck I think you mean "Doctrine", not "Dogma". Easily confused. The difference is best indicated by the church, easy way to remember, Doctrine is what they're trying to do and Dogma is the bullsh*t that they spout as a result of that!!
Actually, what we're talking about is really a "code of practice", more like "Fairtrade" for the sake of comparing.

It might be a good idea to take a look at creative commons over on Deviant art - because that's used all over the internet for artwork - I think all of this sounds like we're looking at a system like that.

As has been said though - I agree that there shouldn't be a council for this, because all it really needs is a system.

It might be a good idea to take a look at creative commons

Indeed it is.
http://creativecommons.org/
There is a (relatively complicated) example of a licence agreement there. The general idea is what we are basically trying to reach. Perhaps if the developers just declared that "permissions were granted in accord with the Creative Commons Guidelines" that might suffice, for a start at least. Perhaps we all should take a look at that site and we might agree it could be a basis to go forward with.

Good idea to look at Creative Commons and other licenses - no need to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps a subset of their rules would suffice.

I was thinking about a possible case where Mr.Nasty copies Mr.Nice's work, then claims it as his own, and accuses Mr.Nice of doing the copying. A way of quickly resolving the argument would be for Mr.Nice to 'register' his work with a trusted, responsible body (BWWAA) before publishing it. The date of publishing would be recorded.
I'm not sure that 'BVE' should be included in the name, especially as OpenBVE is about to be renamed. Would 'Railsim' be better?

What could the BWWAA do that Mr.Nice couldn't do anyway? Tell everybody to 'ignore' them? Shun them? send them an email that we all don't agree? Report them to the Police? Sue them?

If it shows that we can all 'club together' on issues like someone copying someone else's work, why didn't we all club together when recently mainly a certain body was having their work copied?

The registered body would be abused (like a few peoples trusts have in the past) unless its backed by law. Everything we do in BVE is backed by law apparently anyway.

I think this whole situation of copyright has well and truly blown over and its not affecting/ or affected more than 5% of the BVE population, so I think we should be safe :-) Lets just continue with making good quality routes like we have done for years and not let this hinder any work. Kepp calm and carry on as they say!

I'm not suggesting that the BWAA can do anything other than settle the argument over who did the work first.
I'm just concerned that if nothing is done at all, then there are going to be repeats of the former unpleasantness.

I think you are probably correct when you say that only 5% of the community are affected, so there's hope there!

we should really push this forward.

ave a user to consort agreement in wich the user (developer) has to go by the rules and accept what they are before entering an agreement.

something like.

welcome to the newly formed TPAC for TSF. in order to join you must first agree to the set rules and guideline agreements's to which are formed for a better understanding for both developers and the people who play, because without either of the two this will not work. and then a link to a page which the rules are written.

and before you start i mean fair rules like the following;

> before agreeing to the guidelines please read ;

1.) open source means such - meaning any third party can/has permission to edit any part of your work and re-leases without requiring permission

2.) no single third party can be singled out as not being allowed to re distribute any work from yourself - if you disagree then TPAC is not for you.

3.) "we" TPAC committee do no have any responsibility for such work from third party developers and such work they made/devloper from you, the "owner"

4.) if your work is made by several people , "we" TPAC will require consent from all before you join the Agreement.

5.) at any time you can opt out of the agreement but "we" TPAC will not aid in bringing any prior work from third party developers off the air "online third party sites"


there are lots more but i think these will do for now.

any other's can be added as when this goes further into the process

The people who settle arguments - It would need to be fair and consistent. What about if an unfair judgement has been made (because lack of information, incorrect information, the friends of the BWWAA could play it to their advantage - so that could be one sided, is there going to be a complaints directorate for the BWWAA?)

The people settling the arguments will only drag themselves into arguments and the people who 'lose' these battles will only hate the BWWAA and refuse to be apart of it, but still release work and get on with their own developing.

For these things to happen a new website would need to be setup - funded by who? The site and contents needs to be publicly endorsed by Michelle and Anthony Bowden (links and adverts everywhere!). If you catch people when they download the program rather than after they have played it, it will be better and they are more likely to follow it. For effectiveness this would need to be a massive campaign endorsed by all developers in the UK or worldwide, not just a select few who think it might be a good idea.

Which is why I think, how many of us have actually been affected by 'copyright issues'. And out of those, you've got the odd one or two who have slated these people (and quite rightly) on their website. I know graymac was one of them! Its exactly what he says, everybody knows where you get certain routes and trains from. So the mass will always download from there.

Only a small minority decide to ruin it, and quite frankly, the small minority is not enough to urge me to do something like this.

To avoid any further misunderstandings and miseinterpretation, let me say the following:

Whatever the name of the alliance will be, it is not suppposed to act like a BVE (or whatever the name of the sim will be) police. The original idea (well, as I was thinking about it) was to create an open group of developers, who will agree to act according to certain rules and and moral values. No that much concerned about copyrights, but creating quality stuff from own or thanked resources. The group should act more like a guaranteeing subject that the produced object is created after an agreement, is quality, and the eventual resource of former work has been accordingly thanked for his/her effort. Every object fulfilling this criteria would receive something like a quality stamp, and that itself will be the guarantee of infringement and quarrel-free object.
As mentioned above, the group will be open for anyone to join; if a doctrine breach of any of the members is found, the member will be excluded from the group indefinitely (the group can discuss when and with what conditions he can return) and he won't be able to use the quality mark. Current list of members will be published, so it can easily be found out who is having the truth. As for the judgement - a board of established developers can be set up for that task. Clear as a crystal ball.

Dan. If a minority forms something, it can turn to a majority project later on. This is supposed to be a team game; and a good team is made of equal players. If you are not interested, fair enough; nobody will force you into anything, it is up to your consideration. Take your time, take the proposal into consideration and you'll see what your final decision will be. The membership will be voluntary and for anyone, who will be willing to act according to the doctrine once it is finalized.

I have the doctrine almost ready, please be patient. I will publish it as an announcement here on the forum during the weekend for further discussion. Thanks for you patience, I am just a human and have some other tasks to deal with.

If it shows that we can all 'club together' on issues like someone copying someone else's work, why didn't we all club together when recently mainly a certain body was having their work copied?

A lot happened recently that was unfortunate, and with hindsight might have been different. We can't change the past but this thread shows that we are all willing to steer the future in the right direction.

The registered body would be abused (like a few peoples trusts have in the past) unless its backed by law. Everything we do in BVE is backed by law apparently anyway.

That is very true, it will sooner or later. The point is (I think) to create a loose grouping of interested individuals who accept a code of conduct which will insulate them from external disagreements. This will help to maintain stability and allow work by the group members to continue unhindered.

I think this whole situation of copyright has well and truly blown over and its not affecting/ or affected more than 5% of the BVE population, so I think we should be safe :-) Lets just continue with making good quality routes like we have done for years and not let this hinder any work. Keep calm and carry on as they say!

That's fair comment too, Dan. It was only a small number who had a grievance. But the grievance multiplied and inflated out of all proportion. Most of us were appalled and called for calm but it seemed to get out of control like a bush fire and the damage was inflicted on all and sundry whether involved or not. All of us here discussing the issue are anxious that it shouldn't repeat itself. Any initiative to improve communication and co-operation among the truly decent majority must help to prevent such a debacle occurring in the future.

You mentioned that graymac had "slated" an impostor who tried to pass off some some work as his own. What graymac put on his blog is this:

Any individual who tries to pass off my stuff as their own is totally dumb. Close to three thousand downloads of Ballyfeckin points to the reality that a huge number of BVE fans all over the world know perfectly bloody well who made it. So I don't know what the fraud hopes to gain?

I take that as indicating that the developer is (apart from full of contempt for a fraud) confident enough with his brand identity to dismiss imitators as well as not being concerned with copyright. Which would seem to be in line with our target, would you think?

From my experience working for online arts communities, there are always going to be people who take work uploaded for no capital gain, and there are those who just want to pass it off as their work - it's always going to happen.

When it happens - and it isn't actually as often as most people might think - users tend to just report the user to the site they've posted their work on - which is easy enough, as with the case with the BVE community - the same people use different art sites.

So more or less, what happens is, they end up ensuring that 'the pretenders', (is that a useable term?) end up being banned consecutively from a number of arts communities - thus preventing them from being able to continue the same behavior.

Whilst they could then infact post it to their own websites is another thing; but bear in mind that without themselves being a member of a number of online arts communities - it makes getting the traffic to their site very, very hard indeed.

Plus, people aren't as stupid as they look - and eventually they'll clock that a work is stolen.

kwijiboenator wrote:From my experience working for online arts communities, there are always going to be people who take work uploaded for no capital gain, and there are those who just want to pass it off as their work - it's always going to happen.

When it happens - and it isn't actually as often as most people might think - users tend to just report the user to the site they've posted their work on - which is easy enough, as with the case with the BVE community - the same people use different art sites.

So more or less, what happens is, they end up ensuring that 'the pretenders', (is that a useable term?) end up being banned consecutively from a number of arts communities - thus preventing them from being able to continue the same behavior.

Whilst they could then infact post it to their own websites is another thing; but bear in mind that without themselves being a member of a number of online arts communities - it makes getting the traffic to their site very, very hard indeed.

Plus, people aren't as stupid as they look - and eventually they'll clock that a work is stolen.

Some valid points made there. The group will just fasten the process and ensure that anything released "with a brand" is clean.

Whilst they could then infact post it to their own websites is another thing; but bear in mind that without themselves being a member of a number of online arts communities - it makes getting the traffic to their site very, very hard indeed.

In the case of the artists there might be financial loss to those who had work pirated (I assume the art is offered for sale?). All of us make our trainsim work and gift it to the end user without payment, so there is no monetary loss suffered. I imagine that most good developers would tell you that having their work properly appreciated is more valuable than a paltry payment. With there being no payment asked for by the user there is no good reason not to obtain the work in the proper way from the authors website. That could be assisted by a listing of participating authors and their proper website addresses being available so that the customers were in no doubt where to look. No grubbing around on esnips getting dodgy extra add-ons instad of a genuine item. And should a member find his work offered under an alias on a strange download site, I'm sure we would all join in condemning the ungrateful scum (firmly, but politely) and perhaps shaming that person by some sort of common declaration that he is a cheat.