Where have Gobias' mods gone?

[Dublin]

While we all feel a loss at the availability of some great game content its time to put this tread to rest and let his decision to leave with his creations be his own. While we could guess, wonder and speculate to no end nothing will change that. He has passed on the knowledge and understanding of how his mods were implemented in forum conversations still available. Perhaps someone here now or joining may have the time and ability to try their hand at creating something along the same lines. Many of us have his works and perhaps at some time he may redistribute or allow its return, but this is his own choice. I would just like to say Thank You Daniel, your work brought the beginnings of new life to an old enjoyable game.

[fantozzi]

All I can say is that Gobias' must be in a real self-hating and destructive mood by deleting everything he uploaded to the LEX. Since we've already broken his wishes (or rights as a creator?) by not deleting his content, and I certainly have no intention of deleting his amazing content from my plugins folder, why not upload everything we downloaded, pool it together, and restore his files on the LEX?

Forget about copyright, if Gobias' intention was to remove all his content, and we clearly have not then we have been disrespecting his wishes for months now.

Absolutely! In such cases every western law (to my knowledge) has to ponder between public interest and personal interest - it's not true that the personal right of ownership overrules the public interest in every case. If the public interest has more weight than personal interest every judge in the western world would say - no chance that a personal interest can damage public life.

There were cases where authors testamentary declarded that all their writings have to be burned after their dead - and this personal decission was overruled in court because of public interest. The right of ownership never included the right to destroy works of public interest. Contrawise - destroying of owned things can be regarded as an illegal act but not their restauration.

In the worst case - what could happen to SC4Devotion? Well Gobias could show up again and complain and make an offical report. This official report would never arrive in court, if SC4Devotion would - then - delete officially the files again, as soon as gobbias declared this as his will. And even then - SC4DEvotion had to pay attention that it doesn't hurt public interests by doing so.

Again: it isn't said that ownership overrules public interest in every case. So if this case really would appear in court - it's hard to tell wo would win. And this thought is almost without substance, because then the question would be - what harm did SC4Devotion do to Gobias, how much money he lost. And as we are talking about free content the answer would be, Gobias had a loss of property of $0,00. So every judge would laugh and say, the contend was deleted again? So fine, case closed. Gobias couldn't ask for a compensation higher than his loss. So this is the reason why such a report never would cause a trial.

Counting all facts together there wouldn't happen something grave if the community restores Gobias' files. Shure he could complain. And he is the only one who has the right to complain as the right of ownership is a personal right and even can't be taken by communities or corporations. That's a mistake, I read quite often. The rights of ownership and the rights of publishing aren't the same thing. If I write a book and it is published by a publisher that doesn't mean at all the publisher is now the owner. I always remain the owner, no matter who the publisher is. But the publisher has rights to, rights of distribution, mostly, but not always exclusive. Imagine SC4DEvotion is a newspaper and Gobias wrote an article for it. Never he could say - I destroy my article so you have to cut it out of your newspaper too. As the newspaper has an important public function, to inform the public, gobias never would have a chance that his wish is fullfilled. So there are situations where the rights of ownership conflicts with the rights of distribution. If SC4Devotion didn't took the right of distribution from gobias (by uploading), well then he's the owner of both - the owner rights and the distribution rights. But is this realy the case? By deleting his account without further notice - this has to be taken as a declaration of will. The big question is - on what subject this will can be extended. If SC4Devotion had the distribution rights by this time, he extended his will on a matter that didn't belong to him solely. And then he would have had to come to an agreement with those party he shared the the distribution rights.

Well, j-dub,
SC4D is not a company that is paying me or you or Gobias for producing content, in exchange for ownership. So there is no reason that SC4D should have any rights. So your suggestion won't work.
And it may indeed be the case that Gobias has deceased and that his heirs used his list of memberships and login codes to delete as much as they could find from the internet. And we all can probably understand thet heirs do not really care about any kind of internet-community members.

I think, having read all the suggestions, that we will end up with SC4D having no Gobias content anymore. Let's try to live with it.

Well, no. You haven't to be a company to have distribution rights. That's irrelevant. Normally first distributor is the author itself and he isn't a company too.The point is simply - by uploading, do you declare that SC4DEvotion takes the distribution rights? Well, I would say yes, as it doesn't make sense to upload something here in the opinion it won't be distributed by the site. So one could regard the solely act of uploading as a declaraition of the will, yes, I concede SC4DEvotion the right to distribute my files. Again - otherwise this act wouldn't make sense.

So the relationship is exact the same as between author and publisher, no matter what form of organisation SC4Devotion has.

And if we were in court the argument for SC4Devotion always could be - as a publisher we restored the files for public interest and as SC4Devotion don't has a monetary profit by doing so it would be hard disprove this argument. And this thread could be taken even as a proof for the existence of such a public interest.

So it is a realy complicated matter that can't by covered in total by the rights of ownership. And even not by the statement done in some 'readmes'. Also a readme don't supersede law. 

For example if an owner states that he forbids 'redistribution' it should be cleared out what this 're-' means. If the files were originally distributed by SC4Devotion/LEX and they are restored this hasn't to be regarded as a redistribution. Redistribution has more the sense of 'reselling'. And hence,  to have a redistribution a third party must be involved, that takes over the property. This wouldn't be the case if SC4Devotions restores the file, as it is the original distributor, so there are still only two parties involved. So again - it all depends how the act of uploading on the LEX is interpreted.

Conclusion: Site admins should include a statement when uploading that 'SC4Devotion gets hereby the distribution rights' or something else.
SC4DEvotion, in my opinion is free to restore the files, as no right is violated - as distribution rights and ownership are different things and SC4Devotion got the distribution rights already by Gobias. Except if the deleting is regarded as a statement that this rights were distracted. But this is a subject to interpretation (as seen in this thread) and barely will come to trial as the loss of property has a monetary value of zero.

[NCGAIO]

Both here and in several other sites with SC4 materials distribution  in fact exists only an individual space for the creators store your own files and share them with the community and this  space is  just edited by the user.


So starting from the logic that the creator is the one who has the right to decide whether or not to continue to share their work the discussion of property rights does seems not make sense because you can not apply the same logic to any repository of personal files in case of any person feels aggrieved at not being able to access a file that has used for any activity.


The question here is more ethical that procedural but that would certainly be the storage provider who would have to answer it if franking again  distribution  of a material that was clearly taken from sharing by its author.

[APSMS]

Fantozzi, that's a great philosophical argument, except that explicitly on all sites where SC4 content is propagated, distribution rights remain solely in the hands of the creator.

As NCGAIO said, it's more ethical than strictly legal, but the terms of agreements on all SC4 sites are of that creators retain ownership and COPYrights, which implies that you cannot use their works in your own (CJs/MDs in this case do not constitute "work") without express permission, which in most cases is given freely, stated so in the Readme files.

In fact, most creators don't object to re-distribution, but rather, ANY distribution not their own. Special cases and exceptions have been made, particularly in the case of Japanese and Chinese creators with their works on the STEX and LEX, but even in these cases, the authors had previously made clear that all of their work was available for use, and welcomed English support for their work, since their own English abilities were limited. Both the STEX and LEX went through great lengths not only to support and fix any issues that arose, but also were careful to ensure proper credit was given in each case to the creator. Even though a number of these Asian CC makers are either unavailable or no longer working on SC4 stuff at all, there was precedent to continue to provide access to their work, because so many had self-hosted and simultaneously sought help among English-speaking (Western) SimCity4 sites.

No such precedent is given for Gobias' work. He explicitly says not to distribute his work without contacting him first. Except that he isn't currently available for contact. So we are stuck in a pickle, and no reliable way to get out of it, especially since the SC4D admins, who have better access to him in RL, haven't been able to get a response from him about it.

Final Point: SC4Devotion was created explicitly to be friendly to Content Creators, and to serve their needs over the average player, which is the focus of Simtropolis (more of a casual site). It would be against precedent to simply ignore the creator's distribution rights in favor of the community, no matter the work. The only reason we can even have this conversation and suggest such things is because Gobias didn't explicitly tell us what he was doing and why, leaving the whole thing up in the air. If he had been a little more thorough and given a reason, we'd all be very said and truly out of luck, because we'd know for sure and the answer would be a resounding NO.

[Vizoria]

Final Point: SC4Devotion was created explicitly to be friendly to Content Creators, and to serve their needs over the average player, which is the focus of Simtropolis (more of a casual site). It would be against precedent to simply ignore the creator's distribution rights in favor of the community, no matter the work. The only reason we can even have this conversation and suggest such things is because Gobias didn't explicitly tell us what he was doing and why, leaving the whole thing up in the air. If he had been a little more thorough and given a reason, we'd all be very said and truly out of luck, because we'd know for sure and the answer would be a resounding NO.

But everyone who downloaded Gobias' files, before he removed from the LEX, are using them without his consent. So the precedent has already been set since the community ain't mad enough to delete high quality terrain mods and pavement textures which are featured in so many CJs and MDs.

[APSMS]

No one controls (on a practical level) what people do in their own homes. This is why it's legal to give your children alcohol (in moderation, no drunkenness) when inside your own home and under your own supervision. The US also lets your children fire your federally licensed firearms when under your direct and express supervision, even though legally children aren't allowed to possess or use guns.

We who [already] downloaded his work were given consent to use the stuff, not redistribute it (publicly).

Gobias didn't actually say anything about people using his creations. He didn't actually say anything about it at all, so the only things we are left with is that nobody who hasn't already downloaded his mods can get them online, and those who do have them can't distribute them without contacting him first, which has proven a dead-end (no response). So no, we aren't actually using the stuff without his consent at all, because he actually hasn't said anything about the matter, which again, is why the whole thing is so upsetting.

The same kind of precedent goes for ripping music from your CDs and burning them onto new ones (in like a playlist). Technically speaking, this isn't legal, but the music industry doesn't care as long as you don't sell or redistribute your burned CDs. They can't control what you do in the confines of your home, and even if the music is removed entirely from the market, this doesn't mean you have to destroy all the copies you own, just that you still can burn more copies and sell them publicly in a store or market (online, whatever).

[fantozzi]

But everyone who downloaded Gobias' files, before he removed from the LEX, are using them without his consent. So the precedent has already been set since the community ain't mad enough to delete high quality terrain mods and pavement textures which are featured in so many CJs and MDs.

Using and publishing/distribution must regarded as different. Shure you can lend your friend a movie DVD, this wouldn't be regarded as a violation of copyright and no one would know and argue if you give a copy of Gobias terrain mods to a friend.

But the moral question is interesting.

It's much easier to respect someones will if you know his/her will. Gobias will was read out of his action. This presumes the action was taken by him personally. But who knows this for shure? Maybe he had a heavy accident and someone else, f. e. a relative, deleted his account and the content without real knowledge about what he/she is doing?

If we are talking about what we presume - you can't hold one possibiliy for the truth because you simply believe it's the truth. What if Gobias became a handicapped person and would be totally glad if we would keep his work in honor and to remind him? What - if the action taken by somebody wasn't his will at all?

What surprises me how people can be so shure about his will as there are no annoncements, statements, no traces of a quarrel with moderators, nothing of those things they may have led to a desicion like this.

Well, if there were more facts one could invoke - but you can't exclude the possibility that the action that was taken and his will aren't identical. And by accepting what happened we maybe even ignore his will. Who knows? Maybe he has troubles and someone of us could help him?

Respect? Doing nothing sometimes is the opposite of having respect for other people.

[NCGAIO]

First strange because this issue is being discussed if the staff of the site has positioned itself and it seems clear that ignoring the will of the creator in this case and that it would create for sure such precedent is perhaps the goal of the discussion.


Since it became a land of mere assumptions also could assume as already mentioned above that critical because of CTDs have led to some sort of resentment by the creator mainly by extensive type of work that he proposed to do.


When Lowkee33 initially also used HD textures to make this mod that is a job for the landscaping he also not adhered to detail that would be problematic and specific mod to run only on hardware option  a subject that was much discussed in the topics on creation and use of HD textures with respect to real benefits in the game in relation to possible problems


As cited  mods that seeking make  "what has never been done before" ( perhaps for not be the aim of the game ) should perhaps bring clearly explicit in download text a  description of the precautions and the possible problems arising from its use instead of explanations only in readme (How many read?) or on topics of forums where the problems for the User would have already happened


Anyway if it is to have access to works that the creator deliberately excluded of sharing seems that the position was already clear.


It would be difficult to assume that by mistake or error he would have excluded individually each of your downloads or in the worst of hypotheses as a death (Tarkus already denied  )  a person of family would have bent to grasp how to do it.

[SC4D_Staff]

Many have wondered where Gobias' LEX uploads have gone. Others have wondered where they can still get them. The matter has been discussed among the staff here and we will leave it as this: Gobias, as you may have noticed, has elected to end his account here. He took down his work in the process, and without any real indication as to why. The Staff here attempted to contact him several times in the months since about what we believed was an oversight, or at least something that didn't add up from our end. Were we to have gotten a response, that would have changed things, but the majority view has been that his lack of response has been an abdication of responsibility and an abandonment of rights over the files that do still remain on the LEX servers.

While we as a site respect his, as well as any person's, decision to maintain an account at any given site, we are confronted with an issue that has raised its head before in various forms. Specifically, buggi's "extra cheats .dll" back in 2009, that was re-uploaded after its initial source had been taken down. Further, there's ST's re-upload of APTX's "Bullet Train" mod. As this community has progressed over the last 13 years, it has evolved and changed. The temporal nature of the internet has necessitated periodic, pragmatic decisions aimed at the balance of creators' rights while still keeping the viability of custom content as whole open to people. It is, in the same way, the reason we require people to link to dependencies, rather than bundle them in to a given work. Were it not for the BSC Custodian, many mega packs and other dependencies would no longer be available, and thus render hundreds of files useless.

We have re-allowed access to his uploads to the LEX, based in part around his lack of any form of reply to the several attempts at contact. If, for some reason, we hear otherwise from him, it may change. But for now, they are once again available as stated above. We strive to be a community that provides stability and growth, both in terms of content, as well as community, and we continue to work to do that in the future.

-SC4D Staff

[NCGAIO]

Just to understand ...


Even if a work is  manifestly removed the files still remain in the LEX servers?


The lack of response as opposed to setting the abandonment not exactly mean the desire to not want to return or re-evaluate a decision already taken?


This means that now for the LEX any User can charge to download any work with lost access and this remain available unless the original creator if manifest contrary ?


This is not to engage in polemics but only to understand the relevance that may have the concerns of some works  that have been carried out based on availability of another works  to radically modify an opnion  that often has been ratified and deterrent for some.


As to the "many who sought" the beginning of the thread here would give a good reflection about that  was said.


Certainly the times are changing already as in another sites see the user download area are modified for another users.

[vortext]

Just to be clear, this decision does not mean that anyone can now upload someone else work to the LEX without prior consent of the original creator. While this does seem to fly in face of said decision, a considerably factor here concerns the unique nature and quality of Gobias' work. If he'd pulled a couple of BATs it'd be another story all together and we - as SC4D staff - would most likely not reached the same decision.

That is to say, this is the exception to the rule and as such was not taken lightly. As said, we choose to make Gobias' work available again in the same guise as the BSC Custodian account: to preserve content for the community and ensure its longevity, as we see that part of SC4D's duty so to speak. Two highly regarded HD terrain mods arguably help keep SC4 attractive to newcomers and veteran players alike.

[NCGAIO]

Sorry to ask but "exception to the rule" could not also be called "precedent" ie would not have won the pressure on ethics?

This then would mean that depending on the quality of work and its importance for some the decision on the ownership of the work is maybe flexible?

How could solve a case as this of dependence to LEX users

Tarkus simlacroix: Thanks for pointing this out. I've just checked Gizmo's site myself and it does Appear the download section is somehow broken. Since there are some other files Gizmo que que are out there are used the dependencies are not que Also at SimCityKurier, it looks like something we will have to solve. 07/10/2016

Perhaps with the upload of his  works to LEX as done to other inaccessible old creators  who had lost work for reasons beyond their will as closing of providers or it's only for some a search for old and presents them,

Certainly times have changed and the concepts also then  while recognizing that the decision is welcome for those interested users think should also be the same from now on in all cases, or not?

[vortext]

Yes you're right times are changing. In light of that we want to make changes to the LEX code of conduct - which have been brought up before in this thread iirc- to be better handle these kind of situations (see also sudden demise of SimPeg). So I should have said: for now this was an exception as we are aware the rules & conduct need to be changed, loosened up perhaps to handle the legacy of files which, for one reason or another, are abandoned by their original creator.

This thread offers valuable insight on the subject in that regard, and thoughts on the matter are appreciated. 

[Tarkus]

To add to vortext's comments, it's not only the nature of what was lost, but how it was lost.  Had Gobias contacted the staff to advise us of his intentions, it would have been much more straightforward, but the silent "hit and run" created more questions than answers, as evidenced by the fact that this thread has been going for eight months, and the topic has popped up at Simtropolis on at least a couple occasions.  If he wanted to silently drop out of the SC4 world, this was just about the least effective way of doing so.  It left us with an unprecedented scenario that brought several longstanding community principles that usually operate in harmony into a state of discord, namely, the support for creators' rights, and the prohibition on gray/black market redistribution.  Had we not decided to start taking these steps, it would have also set up some potentially deleterious precedents down the line, if, say, something like this happened with a major dependency package, breaking dozens of other creators' files on multiple exchanges in the process.

Regarding the case of Gizmo's files, I'm going to attempt to contact him before we do anything on that front.  That's always the first step in the process.

-Alex

[callagrafx]

*cough cough, is this thing on?

Just thought I'd live up to my CML and add a splash of opinion to this... 

When Gobias "deleted: the files from the LEX, all that happened was the entry was moved from the active database.  Gobias uploaded his files to the SC4 community with the intention to share them.  By doing so he placed them in the public domain. He uploaded them at a place that has to pay for bandwidth, so we hosted his files for free, which is how it should be.  As far as I'm concerned, once the files have been placed in the public domain (i.e. available for the public to download and use for free) that is where they should remain. To the dinosaurs like me out there, all I can say is "Remember Marrast".

As has been noted, an author cannot remove his works from the public once published, a musician can't retract a recording once made and sold. By uploading to a public server, Gobias has implicitly agreed to allow the relevant file exchange distribute the work without prejudice.  This is the decision you make when you upload to a publicly accessed file sharing facility.  Authors own the copyright to the work, but not the distribution rights... never have, never will unless of course they want to pay to host it themselves.

And with that, I'm off to annoy someone else 

[NCGAIO]

I'm sorry to disagree friend but this interpretation of public domain seems frontally contrary or at least it was until now to the own site rules that  often been defended here and even at the time of the dinosaurs as well.


The site rules:


"The owners and designers of this website assumes the responsibility for the content of the download section.


Uploaders are Responsible for keeping backup copies of Their uploads and if data should get lost it will be the choice of the uploader "to his or her contributions refresh." The website owners or designers have the control over the use or abuse of the objects hosted here. All and any copyright issues will be Solely for the uploader to solve or maintain."


ie if should be flexible  for more that one else maintain dominion over the his work this was not clear to the uploader quite the contrary was assertive in claiming to be only yours.


As for music put so .... in a stroke of luck create a fantastic dance music and upload for distribution at some hosting service "free" generating thousands of views for her. So I go out that service by removing the file and resolve host it in another but the previous service reintegrates to distribute  it going against my will.


I do not know if this is so in your country but here it would certainly be reason enough to earn good money  in lawsuits..


With decision taken maybe  is time to follow a popular saying here "Now Inês is dead then it's time to get on with life"... and certainly update the rules too, of course.