Arthmoor Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 If it works for you, that's cool, but I can't stand it. I don't want my menus to be in hiding and need an alt-key press to resurrect them. They're supposed to be there and it's a crime against nature that they're gone now!Also, fuck you Trillian. Stuff your ads up your ass, no upgrade for me!If there's a trend toward this thing, it sucks. You're probably right though, and it's probably because everyone is obsessed with "the cloud". You would think the recent incident with PSN would make people think twice. Not only is PSN considered a cloud service (77 million people assraped) but the attack on PSN was launched from the Amazon cloud service.The space saved by one small line of menu does not make up for the raft of new security issues this creates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 And with the mention of clouds, you've totally lost me. What does that have to do with any of this UI we've been talking about?Crime against nature seems a little harsh. It's not like the Alt key is the Second Coming of Clippy or anything, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 I was ranting more about the text of your Trillian ad talking about the cloud than anything. I guess I let the two thoughts merge into one. Never let it be said merging doesn't work!But yes, I am as bugged by the removal of menus as I am about this obsession with cloud computing. Neither one offers me something I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Oh, yes. I see.I guess I could see more use in the cloud computing thing if I was actually mobile - home, office, travel, and what have you. It's a bad way to back things up, we already know, so there's not really much else for me there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallen68 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 The cloud thing really strikes me as something for those that might travel for business and not have room on their blackberry for every conceivable file. I know they advertise it for "average home users at the airport and want to watch a movie that's at home on the laptop", but in a practical sense-it just doesn't make it. If I'm taking a trip and I expect to be *someplace* long enough to watch a movie; I just plug my iPod into the laptop overnight; in the morning there's movies on it. Also, I suppose it might be OK for school related stuff-you know so the students can have a common storage point for collaborative efforts. Other than that, I can do just about everything they advertise without connecting to a remote server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettyfly Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 On a different note, I picked up Crysis over Steam and...am reasonably impressed. The graphics, to be fair, don't seem to be that far ahead of Fallout 3 with a high res texture pack and max settings; aside from the better water and lighting, but y'know, the game-plays smooth, the setups are good and I can kill people by throwing turtles at them so... :smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kaira Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 The main benefit of the CryEngine over Bethesda's iteration of GameBryo is that it streams the world rather than loading in blocks.Oh, and the water, but that's because CryTek is simply better at writing shaders (due to the advent of Liquid Water, we know Oblivion could handle such detail). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 You guys should check out Witcher 2. Good game, though it has a ridiculously steep newbie curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Random thought:Dead mods make me sad, especially ones that could have been good like "Skyrim Improved".You can find the Beta on Nexus, and it's pretty clear the guy went though and hand crafted all those mountains, switchbacks, cities, etc, etc. but it was never finished, with land tears and missing areas. From what I can see High Hrothgar was not completed before the current public release, but the real shame is that there are images of arears that were worked on after the last public release. Somewhere outthere on a harddrive is a mostly complete version.Of course, no one else can pick it up and finished it because it's completely "dead".I always think that's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hana Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I hope we're not going to go down the same debate road as is happening over at Beth right now about this similar issue.Sure, it's a shame. But nothing says you can't pick it up, fix it up and play with it to your hearts content in your own game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 I hope we're not going to go down the same debate road as is happening over at Beth right now about this similar issue.Sure' date=' it's a shame. But nothing says you can't pick it up, fix it up and play with it to your hearts content in your own game.[/quote']It's more than a bit much for one man to fix.I'm not suggesting picking it up without the author's permission, but it's worth reflecting that, if you look at the thread for it on Nexus, the author gradually lost interest and dissapeared, but never considered handing the mod off, which is a shame.I think that's worth reflecting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 I wouldn't worry about the debate on BGS. It apparently either hit the post limit or the mods got sick of it. I haven't read through, but I wish it wasn't locked just yet because there's at least a couple of people who refuse to get the point.Bottom line though, if the author hasn't left behind a contingency for permission, consider it dead. Resurrectable only if the author responds to some other means to obtain permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndalayBay Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Did you hear about the ruling regarding Warner Brothers and the tattoo artist that did the tat for Mike Tyson? Basically Hangover 2 took Tyson's tattoo and put it on another actor. Tyson has a cameo in both movies, so there's no question where the tat came from. When the tattoo artist tried to sue them for copyright infringement, the judge ruled in favour of Warner Brothers. Basically the artist was trying to get an injunction against the movie being released. WB didn't try to defend against the theft - they just said delaying the movie would be catastrophic. The judge agreed. So much for copyright laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Meanwhile, in F:NV, apparently one or another of the later patches is now causing my game to sometimes crash on exit and corrupt my preferences ini, which is annoying.Also, re: that whole cloud thing, apparently I somehow had cloud synch turned on, and it was crashing Fallout on every quicksave. That was pretty great.However, I have discovered the joys of the Power Fist. Punching Legion guys FTW. And also the unique Grenade Rifle. Somehow I shot a deathclaw a thousand feet in the air. Yay broken physics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 The catastrophe is that movies like Hangover 2 even exist :(However, the judge ruled properly. The artist sued to get an injunction. Said injunction would have been an undue burden on WB. Injunction denied. That they didn't contest the infringement is immaterial. That may well be getting dealt with in a separate civil action. One that can now result in monetary damages because the movie was in fact allowed to release with the infringing material still in it. The judge might have done the guy a huge favor if his lawyers are savvy enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prettyfly Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 @Dwip; if you like power fist's, you'll like ballistic fists a even more. BOOM! Its almost as much fun as Boone with a Gauss Rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndalayBay Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 The catastrophe is that movies like Hangover 2 even exist However' date=' the judge ruled properly. The artist sued to get an injunction. Said injunction would have been an undue burden on WB. Injunction denied. That they didn't contest the infringement is immaterial. That may well be getting dealt with in a separate civil action. One that can now result in monetary damages because the movie was in fact allowed to release with the infringing material still in it. The judge might have done the guy a huge favor if his lawyers are savvy enough.[/quote'] Very true... on all counts. Show business is one case where all publicity is good publicity and it could help both WB and the artist - and maybe that was the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I wouldn't worry about the debate on BGS. It apparently either hit the post limit or the mods got sick of it. I haven't read through' date=' but I wish it wasn't locked just yet because there's at least a couple of people who refuse to get the point.Bottom line though, if the author hasn't left behind a contingency for permission, consider it dead. Resurrectable only if the author responds to some other means to obtain permission.[/quote']That's our social contract though, it isn't ethically or legally required. Ethically, leaving behind a dead mod you promised to finish is certainly not a good thing and "resurrecting" a mod might be considered positively, especially if a lot of people play it.I think its important to recognise that we have this policy to allow the mod community to function, rather than any other reason.About the "Hangover 2" thing, I'm pretty sure the artist's case would be thrown out, otherwise everyone who ever copied their friend's tats would be liable and a tatooist would own bits of your skin. As Tyson was in the movie the use of the tattoo probably comes under some sort of "fair usage" law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 If there's no ethical or legal requirement to obtain permission, then you also have no ethical or legal obligation to finish a mod you started after telling people about it. Cuts both ways.Fortunately the community doesn't see things in such a fast and loose manner. We have respect for the rights of other modders, even when those other modders are total asses.As far as the tattoo thing, yes, if it had just been Tyson in the movie and the tat was visible, there would be no real case. However the case revolved around another actor sporting the same tat ALSO being in the movie. The suit was brought on that basis, that the studio copied the work without permission. By not granting the injunction the judge may well have handed the artist a golden goose.I don't think even Fair Use would have applied had it just remained with Tyson since it would fall under incidental exposure. Fair Use would imply they knew about the potential issue ahead of time. Tyson walking in with it on him and the studio paying no attention to it would be entirely different. In that case, the artist would have been told to get lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwip Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 All I'm saying here is that catapulting deathclaws > copyright.And yeah, I've seen the ballistic fist used. One of these days. For now, the unique fire axe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 If there's no ethical or legal requirement to obtain permission' date=' then you also have no ethical or legal obligation to finish a mod you started after telling people about it. Cuts both ways.Fortunately the community doesn't see things in such a fast and loose manner. We have respect for the rights of other modders, even when those other modders are total asses. Right, because it's a social contract, part of "being a good modder", but it certainly isn't a legal or ethical requirement. You can argue an ethical requirement to identify the original author of a work, but not the ethical requirement not to copy or modify that work when the work itself is in the public domain, is a modification of another work itself and not owned legally by the "modding" author but by the original game author.As far as the tattoo thing, yes, if it had just been Tyson in the movie and the tat was visible, there would be no real case. However the case revolved around another actor sporting the same tat ALSO being in the movie. The suit was brought on that basis, that the studio copied the work without permission. By not granting the injunction the judge may well have handed the artist a golden goose.I don't think even Fair Use would have applied had it just remained with Tyson since it would fall under incidental exposure. Fair Use would imply they knew about the potential issue ahead of time. Tyson walking in with it on him and the studio paying no attention to it would be entirely different. In that case, the artist would have been told to get lost. Right, but the tat is only in the move because Tyson is, and presumably that's the plot point too. So can the tatoo artist own the copyright to a piece of Tyson's body? Put it another way, who owns Pamela Anderson's boobs or Megan Fox's nose? Can the plastic surgeon sue if someone gets an identical nose job in a film as another actor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Oh. You're one of those "if you upload it, you're fucked" people. I see. I guess there's not much point in continuing this since that position is entirely indefensible. You'd first need an understanding of what it means legally to be in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 No, I'm not. The license Bethesda attached to the CS makes it clear that any mod belongs to them, the same way academic research belongs to an institution, not an individual.You've completely missed my point.The reason we do not modify other's work without their permission is that we expect the same curtesy in return, not because we are legally obliged to. If we all copied and re-edited other's work the community would implode in a week or so.It is a social contract, not a legal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurð Stormhand Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I'm going to hell for still laughing at this - with music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hana Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 LOL lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts