There are not many mods out there that need to modify this file directly. CAM is one that does. Distribution of the original file is prohibited, but it begs to question if an unofficial patch to this file may be allowed with full disclosure that it is there.
Modifications of the components are what bring us all of the custom content we currently know. In essence, many of us are distributing a modified version of the SimCity_1.dat file in some form, only smaller, and overriding what is already there. In the case of CAM, this has caused a serious bug. The double workforce/Doubled CI bug. Most of it has been solved, but the IR Fix in the new version causes a whole new doubling issue if it is not patched with 3rd party programs.
I have done months of research on this problem. Utilizing the fix of the original CAM bug by Z, I was able to put out the new CAM that only has a doubling issue when not patching the Total Industrial exemplar when it contains the Sums function. Even including the IHT fix, found on Simtropolis did not cause any noticeable doubling effect. This is probably because this exemplar does not use the Sums function. Z determined the Sums function was the issue as well in his previous posts about the bug.
My question therefore is, since I am using the Total Industrial exemplar to make SimCity include IR in its totals, could I distribute the modified SimCity_1.dat file in the installer without having to use programs or self written classes to patch the file during install? I do realize this would require full documentation in the readme, manual and descriptions. A backup is already made of the file before patching. All this would do is remove the time consuming and nightmare process of running another application to achieve the same results.
Just for think ...
Everyone knows that this would not be permitted by the EULA which includes all files.
But if it were analyzed as possible giving a mod this privilege so why it would not be possible to distribute a new Graphics Rules best suited the current reality or even an exe with the integration of Manifest Section to troubleshoot installation problems?
The problem is always the same .... change by other processes is already common point in many cases but the distribution of changed files will never escape of the prohibition by EULA unfortunately
Certainly querying to EA about this is time lost ( even more now that maxis / simcity is dead ) maybe were now of the community position allowing the distribution of material that would solve the problems directly.
Or even implement gameplay advances ( in this case ) without the lay users had to perform processes to which they do not have empathy and that most often cause disinterest in use.
IMO should be a deep reflection about this.
I don't think you are going to get the answer you want. Even disregarding the terms of the EULA, I think Copyright Law is going to trump everything. To get a 100%, "this will stand up in court" answer, you really need a lawyer (preferably one that specializes in copyright law) to give you an answer to what is really a request for a legal opinion. I wonder if there is one hanging around in here someplace?
The key words in US copyright law are going to be "distribution" (not just distribution for profit), and "without consent of the copyright holder." Unfortunately, attribution isn't enough.
Despite the "Maxis" brand-name being dead, and the fact that EA no longer even supports this game, barring getting EA's consent to distribute "patched" files, the only other way around this quandary would be if EA were to release SC4 to the public domain (probably even less likely that them giving consent).
So we are left with people like you, who pour their souls into coming up with workarounds, and the inevitable workarounds for the workarounds, to try and fix the things that we know are broken. Just remember we truly appreciate your hard work.
Simply put, redistribution of such files would probably violate the T&C's of the Lex and/or STEX, this is not viable.
Just like the I-HT fix, over the years people have tried to find a way around needing to patch SimCity1.dat, but to no avail. I don't see this situation being any different.
However, something like a modified .ini or settings file does not contain proprietary code or IP. So redistribution of such modified files should be fine.
Kind of what I was expecting. :P Never hurts to ask from those who've been around this longer than me. I fully endorse the Terms and Conditions of all intellectual property. A ton of work goes into these creations, so protection is necessary.
I do wish it would not violate any agreements to have full disclosure if doing something like a replacement unofficial patch, but points have been made where it could be a disaster. If the SimCity_1.dat were allowed, what then would stop someone from modifying the EXE for instance. The precedent would then be there.
Easier it would be, yes. I still agree it is our responsibility to protect the Agreements of Maxis/EA as we have agreed by installing the game and this site, along with others, has done for over a decade.
Thank you guys for the great answers to a very old question.
Quote from: twalsh102 on April 07, 2016, 09:16:25 AM
I don't think you are going to get the answer you want. Even disregarding the terms of the EULA, I think Copyright Law is going to trump everything. To get a 100%, "this will stand up in court" answer, you really need a lawyer (preferably one that specializes in copyright law) to give you an answer to what is really a request for a legal opinion. I wonder if there is one hanging around in here someplace?
Well, SC4Devotion does in fact have voluntary legal counsel (courtesy of David/dedgren), but I doubt his advice would be any different. It's a shame, really, because of the extreme lack of support that EA gives to the community nowadays, but you're right that such consent is extremely unlikely. It's unfortunately not even evident who in EA you would ask for permission, unlike Maxis where at least you had a face to refer to to ask about code and other things. I doubt a general copyright email would even get a form letter response, much less a personal answer.
I think I'll poke em a bit anyways. Worst case scenario, we stay in the same position as always. Best case, they realize this is still an active community that can boost sales so is worth supporting. Not likely, but dreams never truly die. :satisfied:
So, I got a very surprising reply from Electronic Arts. They actually stated distributing a modified version of SimCity_1.dat would not be a violation under these conditions. Attached is the screen shots of the chat. I only removed my full name from the first image.
That is ... amazing, I guess? If I understood that correctly, I would say so ...
%BUd%
Not sure though how much trust should be placed in this anonymous specialist, or how well a screencap of a chat holds up in court for that matter. :D
That said, it's pretty friggin' awesome!
On a practical note, another thing to keep in mind is the file size, i.e. bandwidth. There's a reason pre-rendered regions are not allowed on the LEX/STEX. Seeing Simcity1 weighs in at 150mb make sure to compress the heck out of it before uploading. ;)
With just the compression algorithm through IzPack, I've been able to get the whole CAM, including the SimCity_1.dat down to 100MB. See what I can do to get it a little smaller anyways. ;)
Doesn't weigh in much for bandwith, but at least with this a lot less board space is going to be needed to support packing operations with outdated tools and CAM. :satisfied:
Wow :o what an interesting reply. I would have not expected it. Good job. :thumbsup:
I still would be a bit careful as that person may not know what he is talking about. ;)
I can only dream, just a tiny hope that EA will drop SC4. It could be their last revenge. Abonware or version with source code would be the biggest competitor to Cities Skylines and other possible citybuilding games :D
I had some problems with the installation and SimCity_1.dat, but I can live with datpacker route. But if this makes it easier to you then great. :)
That's an interesting reply alright, but I agree that the guy in the chat (somehow, I wonder if there are actual people sitting there, or if it's just a cleverly programmed chat bot) or the "specialist" actually understood what you were planning to do.
On the other hand, several websites got the permission to distribute the Maxis landmarks, for instance, so maybe EA doesn't care all too much, as long as nobody is making money from that stuff. Ideally, you should try to send an e-mail and ask for confirmation, but there might be some hope after all.
@bombardiere They are not likely to release the source code of SC4 anytime in the near future. It still generates quite a bit of income, especially with the new updates removing the ability to use Safedisc protected programs. If you read over at Simtropolis, many are converting over to digital versions, generating a huge amount of cash.
@andreas good point on the email. I'll try to find someone to email for it.
As for the reason I think they would be so willing to allow this, it is just a data file. I (we) are not asking permission to put in code that would allow external files to control aspects of the game thereby allowing a vulnerability. Not asking permission to reverse engineer the code, so in essence, it's just replacing a data file with a modified one. Dat Packing it together does basically the same thing, so the question was really distribution of a main data file. Again, since it's just a data file, not a major piece of the code, I can see where it really is not that big of a deal. Asking for the EXE (the only real code file in the game, it's not that complicated of a game codewise) would have been an absolute no way in my wildest dreams.
Even with this, a big part needs to be stated. This should be reserved only for absolute needed reasons. Everybody distributing SimCity_1.dat of their own making would make mods unstable at best, completely undo them at worst. The only reason this is important for me is CAM causes a huge bug if not implemented into the file directly.
Just my thoughts on the matter of why it would not be so complicated, but hey, I'm a dreamer and chase those dreams until they end. ;)
For the record ...
As said above simplification is always a good idea, but I have a small observation about the showing the displayed messages.
This is not modding by the addition of a process but the distribution of an original file of the game modified modifiedified and it was not apparently the perception of its interlocutors ... actually I do not know if they understood the right subject matter or if they could opine about it so quickly.
Unless something has changed recently EA's position remains the EULA including all modifications that have been implemented for digital versions.
Some time ago it was not possible for example to obtain an affirmative answer regarding the distribution of a graphical configuration file more current ... and this it's just a simple script ... since the time of the "graphics rules maker'.
But I cheer for this to be possible because even as also I have already mentioned before, there are even detailed statements on PP documents that previously thought from the beginning to allow easy access for changes made by libraries... and even made by the own users
As is the case of the recent "SC4Fix": that despite being a process to modify the executable loaded in memory ... what the EULA also prohibits ... was accepted by all perhaps because it is not exactly a distribution of exe file modified.
in time: Missions manned to Mars should be much closer than the old "SC4" become an abandonware. :D
Right now, this is merely a discussion of the process. Even if the Agent is correct and the distribution would not violate the EA/Maxis EULA, the question then turns to would it violate the LEX agreement?
All personal thoughts and actions here. In no way would I ever put this community in jeopardy or go against the wishes. It was started by BSC members and affiliates, is maintained by BSC members and its affiliates and I am not currently a member of the BSC or its affiliates. I am in no position to push an agenda, put the ideals of this group at risk or even think about violating the wishes and operations of this amazing community. I will argue an interesting point to further progress, whether it agrees with me or not.
With that, personally only, I am taking the agents words at face value I think call center (chat center?) agents are versed in basic agreement clauses of their games. The general agreements are what would be enforced and only if it caused damages to company. I stated distribution of SimCity_1.dat specifically, the agent in image 2 stated distribution specifically. Even if I were to distribute this file, it would not allow anyone to operate the game without purchasing it. It does not bypass any protection mechanisms like modifying the EXE file could do.
The SC4Fix dll is a great example of what is possible without harming EA/Maxis. It provides a great fix for a very aggravating bug. The community also provides amazing fixes for bugs. Digital groups, like GOG, are permitted to distribute the Graphics Rules script now. Of course, they pay a royalty to be able to distribute a copy. This community is non-profit and therefore cannot pay a royalty. As was stated, this is possible only because of the acceptance of the community, even though it is a direct violation of the EULA. EA/Maxis again will definitely not pursue anything legal because it fixes the game.
I know, a lot here, but that is the point of this. Open discussion :)
I was with the idea since 2014, now the game is old enough..............it is time!
Fred
Wow, my hat is off to you, my friend. I know there is a long history of people trying to contact EA with essentially this same question and they have been met with silence (or so legend says). I'm wondering if you are the first person to engage EA Technical Support on this particular issue, with what is essentially a legal question. Brilliant thinking outside the box. This will definitely fall into the "now why didn't I think of that?" category.
For the powers that be, because of the sheer import of this news (assuming the community decides to run with it -- and I think it should), and because of InvisiChem's never-give-up attitude, I think another karma point is in order.
twalsh102, the K-point has been sorted.
A very big thank you friends. Trying to find someone contactable in the legal department now to verify everything. Hopes are big, but we never know. Might come up with a big empty space, which of course brings it back to the community. :)
A light automated system scolding for emailing the wrong department. lol. Next.............................
Quote from: InvisiChem on April 08, 2016, 06:31:01 PM
The SC4Fix dll is a great example of what is possible without harming EA/Maxis. It provides a great fix for a very aggravating bug.
Let's just point out that the correction sc4FIX's not really the correction of one "BUG" of the game.
There is no problem in the original game that has the need to use this process because it solves a problem only for moddings added by the User.
Similarly the distribution of the Dat can not be seen as a correction because the CAM also not part of the original game and therefore are also not "BUGs" the errors added for its use.
Now only as curiosity.. If we could distribute dats modified to use the CAM then we could also use the same for SimMars for example?
Or going further .... we could distribute as moddding Dat specific versions for certain epochs or locations as Medieval SImcity for example and only keeping a copy of the orignal dat which is part of the game if simply just not to charge anything for it ?
What say about the NAM or SPAM ... to name but a few ... none of the above cited needs a exe modifications to run so why could not also have an integrated Dat version?
Returning to SimMars ... there were praise for many of the studio on the work by andi however can not be considered as approval for it to solve most of the problems for their use by the modified dats distribution instead of plugins.
See I'm not opposed to what you want, on the contrary, it would open the door to many ideas but everything would be done without the express assurance that it is legal or that it was allowed by the creators for the nonprofit distribuition by community
Without an express warranty is all just conjecture about permission given in a forum message by someone who might not even have standing to do so.
Just to collaborate in the discussion below is a current
link to download a "bugs" correction based in replacement of Simcity-dat ... there are others!
-
http://simcity4.hippotank.com/ (http://simcity4.hippotank.com/) ... note on the page where else it can also be downloaded.And as to what was quoted ... sometimes silence to give an answer can be interpreted as an elegant way of saying: At the moment we do not agree.
The site is a great example of what I am wishing to do. Pretty much the exact same thing. :)
Sim Mars would be a great example of when this method would need to be used. It is a complete overhaul of all game aspects, therefore incompatible with most other mods. It is a specialty mod. That would be a responsible and needed way to implement that type of Mod.
CAM needs it to fix a nasty doubling that will occur when including the Total Industrial Census exemplar using the Sums property. I have tried every method, including the Z fix method to solve this, but nothing has worked other than merging it. Good part is all my testing has confirmed for me that Z is correct, the Sums property is where the doubling occurs. Without this property there is no doubling, therefore the IHT fix can be placed in the plugins folder without any noticeable harm to the numbers. It does not contain the Sums property.
There is a lot of possibilities that open up with this permission, but care should still be taken by the community to avoid changing SimCity_1.dat or any other dat file, unless absolutely necessary. CAM changes most of the file on its own, but the only parts I am willing to change in the SimCity_1.dat would still be compatible even with vanilla SimCity_4 RH/Deluxe. The same can be said with the version that was linked, only the IHT fix was in the SimCity_1.dat file. Everyone changing it at will would cause so many different conflicts the results would be disastrous to the community, but with a bit of consideration and care, the possibilities are great and the conflicts minimal. :)
Okay, interesting results, but not unexpected. Reply back so far........
Thank you for contacting Electronic Arts. We appreciate your interest and enthusiasm for our SimCity franchise. Unfortunately, we cannot comment on whether your proposed use violates any EULA or EA copyrights and suggest you contact your own legal counsel regarding your inquiry.
Best regards,
EA Permission Requests Team
There is a cool part of this message. They state it is the SimCity franchise, so the current posted SimCity terms apply. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/modding-and-simcity (http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/modding-and-simcity)
I say look at item number 3 under "What are the rules?"
QuoteMods may not modify any .com, .exe, .dll, .so or other executable files.
Since the .dat files are not executable files, this should open up our ability to modify this type of file by their own statement.
my 2 cents......
All the SC#.dats are works of EA/Maxis etc. Redistributing said works would only violate anything if others were flogging it off;
1. as their own.
2. for profit.
Provided neither of these 2 conditions are met, there's no reason why anyone can't redistribute any SC4 content (except executable files). Mods aren't executable files. There's a reason why executable files are the exception & aren't allowed to be be modified/redistributed.
Redistributing (modified or otherwise) SC#.dat files is no different in extracting SC#.dat data, modifying it & re-releasing it under some other banner. This has been happening since the games release by numerous modders & Maxis themselves. Even the Mac *.dat release I provided years ago (*from memory*) provided significant adjustments relating from SC#.dats. To this day I've not seen/heard EA/Maxis come a runnin. I guess it would depend on the context to which these files really warrant adjusting/redistributing.
Contributing to the discussion follows two texts whose authors need no introduction
Quote
As one of the people that originally started on this, I can answer specifically.
EA gave us complete permission to do any modifications that we want. In fact they cheered us on in person, and gave us as much info as they could without breaking NDA's or giving up company secrets. Several modders have been under Non disclosure agreement with EA specifically for the purpose of furthering file modifications, and a bunch of us (myself included) beta tested the BAT when it was being made.
Yes, it is perfectly legal in every way. But sorry, you're not going to get any document saying so. These are our personal emails and chat logs with them.
We have talked to them about modding the EXE by the way, but they said they couldn't give us the source code currently due to legal reasons. Modding the exe would be done via dll plugins which can be made, and would be legal if done.
The only thing they remotely have a problem with is the naming of SimMars expansion (which EA employees call "That other Mars simulator" in order to maintain legality)
If you need more proof, EA paid thousands of dollars to fly us modders to San Fransisco in order to learn more about the game code... I doubt they would do that if they considered it illegal.
source: Karybdis (http://community.simtropolis.com/forums/topic/25824-legal-status-of-sim-city-4-mods/?do=findComment&comment=695104)
Quote
Plug-Ins at Maxis
At Maxis, we took a route that is partly between rolling our own plug-in system and using Microsoft
COM. We didn't want to become dependent on Windows nor the Microsoft-owned COM
specification, but we thought it would be a good idea to implement something conceptually similar. So
we came up with "GZCOM" (Gonzo COM). Here are the basic traits of GZCOM:
...........
...........
· We cut away most of the more esoteric COM features, such as Distributed COM and
some of the DLL-interfacing functions.
· We implemented a simple DLL loading and interface-querying system, so " anybody" could easily write a DLL that " provided new objects" that the main executable could load easily and "treat like native objects".
· Our version (GZCOM) is entirely implemented in just a few platform-independent and
lightweight files.............
source : Paul Pedriana - Game Development in C++ (http://pisa.ucsd.edu/cse125/2006/Papers/Game_Development_in_C++.pdf)
Thank you Tropod. I looked those up and they are really cool. Helped a lot of Mac users.
I'm pretty confident that I could distribute this file as planned. It wouldn't cause any conflicts with mods anymore than the CAM already does and the majority of the CAM would still be in the plugins folder. EA has shown they only want the executable files to stay intact both through my conversation with Tech Support and the SimCity.com article for modders. Precedence from both HippoTank and Tropod give me a lot of confidence in this area. The last post by NCGAIO confirms it for me. A huge thanks.
The last position is the stance of the LEX. Again, SC4D/LEX is the home of CAM and it will remain that way.