Creatures Caves

*removed clohse's stuff. (did that as soon as she asked and noted it, actually, "angel".
*removed grendelman's stuff.

*For those of you without the attention span or will to read through this, there is an informative, short conclusion at the bottom.

I am honestly, tremendously amazed at the smear campaign that is going on and directed solely at me. I have been surprised since the first trickles of negatively, which has in time grown to astonishment at just how large this pitchfork mob is becoming. I am thankful today that I am not a straw man.

To start this discussion with a bang, I would like to display for example, Lacota. Now, obviously, I have not been part of the "in crowd" for many years, and I do not know who this person is. The wiki tells me that this person, Chris apparently, was a c1tods modder. Not a hugely prolific modder, but a quality one to have. I applaud and appreciate his work.

Not once did you question him in his Call for Help -- "Are you including readmes?" "Are you emailing everybody?" Hell, there were even offers to send him the store breeds! Wow.

Why is his case different from mine? Because he is a modder, because he has "rep" in this community, and because he is putting it on a web space as opposed to a torrent format. This elevates him in the eyes of the community to the level of "trusted." You do not feel the need to talk about readme, contact and other inclusion because you automatically assume -- as he is "trusted" -- that he is going to do these things.

I do not speak for him, his actions or his status, but, in reality, none of you have any idea EXACTLY what he's up to regarding sensitive issues; no one does but him. I do not doubt that he is doing the right thing, but the difference needed to be explained.

On the other hand, you have me. I am, to you, a name with no icon, a newbie, an idiot, a scavenger and a stranger. I am not trusted -- I am suspicious and to be wary of. I understand this. When a new member traipses into one of my "home" forums proclaiming change and movement and "for the good of the community," I too, scoff and smirk to myself, soothing bristling hairs. What is this little newbie doing, this fellow without cred (or morals, apparently)? They cannot change the world.

The Creatures games forums are particularly susceptible to this hive mentality, which in and of itself is a neutral thing -- the hive euphoria over a new mod can keep the project going to completion, while in reverse, the combined disapproval and scorn can shame a lesser dedicated person to giving up completely or pitching a forum fit. (I hear Bug got chased out by something like this, and I quite understand her sentiment.)

In regards to copyright: I firmly believe that this is fair use. Wikipedia's page has a lot to say on the subject of fair use, much of it difficult to wrap one's head around (as the details of copyright law usually are for anyone, save specialty lawyers.) I almost don't want to bring this point up, because of the crapfest it will entail, but seeing how firmly I believe in it I can not omit it and still do justice to my opinions.

Before I get into the meat of things, you need to understand, process and accept this fact: Copyright law in direct relation of video game mods is unclear, undefined, and ultimately decided only by the process of court. There are no written laws specifically regarding this that are easily available. Rather, what little legal agreement there is on the subject is documented and repeated from court cases on the subject.

Quick disclaimer no one cares about: I am not a lawyer, I only play one on TV.

This is taken directly from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html:

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

- Obviously, since I have not included anything official or unusual (ie, NG2/4/Ost) this is completely nonprofit. I would actually characterize this as "educational purpose," if only because there is not an archive or preservation issue listed specifically.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

- Mods by the community for a video game, whose intellectual property copyright belongs [currently] to Gameware Development.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

- This can be expounded on in a number of ways:
1. The whole of the CC, including games and CC content. This would, doubtlessly, be illegal to distribute.
2. The whole of the CC. It is not so clear.
3. The "whole" of a single modder's mods; ie, ALL of slink's things, for example. It is not so clear.
4. The "whole" of a single mod. For example, a breed would include sprites, body data, genetics, and anything else directly involved in producing that breed on your screen. It's not so clear.

The reasons these aren't so clear: The Creatures sprites, code, engine, and so forth were all created by CL. The overwhelming copyright here belongs to Gameware Development. When you use some code, and/or some sprite, and/or the engine itself, and/or the names "norn, grendel and ettin", your work becomes, from what I understand, technically classified by law as either "fair use" or "a derivative work".

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
- Modded Creatures content is, for the vast majority, free. Therefore this does not affect cash value. Theoretically, making this widely available my even raise market value for the games themselves. You may argue that it affects "value" in a more general and/or emotional way, but it does not.

Again, to summarize my important copyright point: There is not a set, defining law governing the creation, usage, and redistribution of mods created by fans for video games. The only solid truth in this matter is that Gameware Development, weather partially or entirely, owns the copyright of all Creatures games. As it stands, modder's work is either a "parody," a "derivative work" or, possibly, a copyright infringement within itself. The last important thing to note on this subject is thus: even if you do have permission directly from the mouth of GWD's CEO, a mod will still be either parody or derivative since it inevitably includes creatures game files in some way.

No one is probably reading this far, but I'm still not done.

In regards to contacting the creators before distribution: I CONCEEDE AND AGREE TO THIS. Yes, this is the proper way for things to be done. Yes, this is the proper way to cover your ass when you are in a situation like mine.

What I was expressing in my previous post was my dismay at the idea of how daunting that task would be. I do not know how one would reliably contact every single author. A functional method would have been to get emails every time I downloaded a mod -- sadly, as an oversight, I did not do this. That said, the collection of emails after the fact is an extremely discouraging task of monumental proportion, to me. The last thing I want to do, for the several weeks it would take, is re-vist every single site I went to in my collection run. I just don't think I can, primarily because I scoured the web insanely thoroughly the first time and the dead links were, again, a mire.

Yet, when I complete this email list, and email an announcement/request out to everyone, does the community dictate furthermore the amount of time I would have to wait after sending? To clarify, how many responses would I have to receive to consider the pack a "positive go ahead"?

Did anyone even THINK of this? Half the emails are probably dead ones. Of the remainder, a fourth are probably alternates and not up to date; another fourth may want me to remove the mod, and the last remaining half may be positive. But if I sent 1000 emails and only get 100 back, what do I do? Wait a month, a year? No one has ever answered this question. Considering that most of you who have beef is attuned to the fact that you/creator wouldn't get an email BEFORE the fact, and reply your positive BEFORE the fact (as opposed to just getting an announcement and going from there), you can see why this is a problem. To get a response from everyone could very well take a month or ten in this state of decay. Just how long was it until the CEO responded, and he owns the entire game property? Think on that, please.

I was never and am not opposed to this idea of mass-email, as I did make clear in my post. I simply don't have the technology available to easily do it, and the logistics of the reply-wait have already been discussed. For what it's worth, I am currently compiling emails from the wiki, starting with the most popular modders and ending likely when finding emails gets so obscure that I can't take it anymore.

Again, THAT SAID: I believe it is legally acceptable for me to distribute this content with the obviously enclosed notice that I will remove any content should the creator wish me so. Many sites have this policy, YouTube being the main example that comes to mind. If you have made, or might be the person who has made, the content, and contact YouTube to remove it, they will do so immediately; so will I.

My further observation is that over time, this community has undoubtedly grown smaller and tighter. With this territory, the cliquish, or "hive" mind mentality I have referred to other, has increased at a steady pace. It happens to all communities that go through a decline in popularity over time, which weeds out all but the most "hardcore" fans -- who, incidentally, are the most passionate about the subject. You really need to look at how you're feeling and try to disengage from it and see things logically: Should we share as much content as possible, under policy of removal-when-asked, to keep the spirit of Creatures, sharing and CC alive; or, should we enclose our content, keep it on separated sites for individual and small groups of modders, risking the chance that elevates every day that these sites could be lost to time forever? Computer hdds crash; webserver hdds crash. While information recovery technology has improved, it is still relatively expensive and a time consuming option that, more often than not, is foregone. Just try to separate favoritism or "ownership" factors from logical decisions.

CONCLUSION: I am not trying to hurt anybody, I am trying to help everybody. Please respect my intent. Copyright law is not detailed on this matter, but I have done what I can to be reasonable about things. Emailing the hundreds of creators is a valid, morally proper idea that may or may not work in actual life. Regardless of the outcome of this or any forum thread I will still be distributing the content. I am not gloating nor apologizing about this fact. Even though I'm aware I'm speaking to a -mostly- younger audience, lets please think on this like reasonable adults. (I'm twenty-three, for those of you who assume otherwise.)

I feel I might as well rename this to the "CC Pack Removal Request" thread, because I know exactly what's going to happen after everyone reads this; I just have no idea why people let stubbornness control the fate of a dying art form.

Sources and such:

Wikipedia: Fair Use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Wikipedia: Derivative Work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

BPM article: Video Game Mods and Copyright Issues
http://literatigamereviews.blogspot.com/2008/11/legal-writing-assignment.html

Blizzard vs Bot Modder & Copyright:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/05/blizzard-attempt-to-kill-wow-bot-bad-news-for-copyright-law.ars
*not directly related, but interesting as it discusses something of the state of game mod copyright today, albeit for negative game mods.

ps: I will ignore the snide comment about my typing and literacy skills.

edited: to fix the formatting that the forum ate, no words changed