Fallout Autumn Leaves mod for Fallout: New Vegas

[circ]

However, these two quest are also murder-mystery whodunnit quests, borrowing from a wide variety of tropes present within the genre, the characters & story are just the usual genre archetypes, so it's entirely possible two different people got the same idea from the same source.
All these characters the mod author points out are archetypes common throughout murder mystery stories, so again, this is more and more just looking like a case of two authors applying the same transformation.

Wew. What are the chances of two quests, in the same game series, to take place in a vault (possible), featuring robot characters (possible), featuring a murder mystery quest (possible), featuring a side-plot of bedding a robot (um well), an eccentric robot painter (wait a sec)?

As a self-diagnosed authority, none.

THE JIG IS UP SHILL.

 

[Ismaul]

How creatively bankrupt are they to stoop so low?

I thought they were shits, but this, this is truly the new shit.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Says who?

Guy created a mod with their tools and in their universe (which they own). Why can't they just take his mod? He never owned it in the first place? I mean it's totally douchey. But there's no real legal recourse here.

If I'm reading the EULA correctly, it doesn't transfer the rights, it just prohibits commercial use.

 

[Sigourn]

Redditors actually believe this isn't plagiarism.

IT'S A FUCKING QUEST INVOLVING ROBOTS AND A MURDER MYSTERY IN A CLASSY-THEMED VAULT WITH A ROBOT DISCUSSING PAINTINGS.

"i-it's not plagiarism bro"

 

[DosBuster]

However, these two quest are also murder-mystery whodunnit quests, borrowing from a wide variety of tropes present within the genre, the characters & story are just the usual genre archetypes, so it's entirely possible two different people got the same idea from the same source.
All these characters the mod author points out are archetypes common throughout murder mystery stories, so again, this is more and more just looking like a case of two authors applying the same transformation.

Wew. What are the chances of two quests, in the same game series, to take place in a vault (possible), featuring robot characters (possible), featuring a murder mystery quest (possible), featuring a side-plot of bedding a robot (um well), an eccentric robot painter (wait a sec)?

As a self-diagnosed authority, none.

THE JIG IS UP SHILL.

Those two things I highlighted are one of the most common tropes in murder mystery, granted, from what I understand Autumn Leaves subverts those tropes somewhat but Bethesda just used them in their normal form.

 

[Mustawd]

Says who?

Guy created a mod with their tools and in their universe (which they own). Why can't they just take his mod? He never owned it in the first place? I mean it's totally douchey. But there's no real legal recourse here.

If I'm reading the EULA correctly, it doesn't transfer the rights, it just prohibits commercial use.

To me it reads like there's an inherent ownership of any content made by the tools, even if not explicitly stated. Especially when the EULA says you need to ask permission from Bethesda to commercially sell it.

 

[DosBuster]

People here do realize that Plagiarism is not a fucking law. If Bethesda had stolen the author's code, dialogue, art (whatever was custom), audio or even level layouts it would be possible plagiarism.

 

[DosBuster]

Says who?

Guy created a mod with their tools and in their universe (which they own). Why can't they just take his mod? He never owned it in the first place? I mean it's totally douchey. But there's no real legal recourse here.

If I'm reading the EULA correctly, it doesn't transfer the rights, it just prohibits commercial use.

To me it reads like there's an inherent ownership of any content made by the tools, even if not explicitly stated. Especially when the EULA says you need to ask permission from Bethesda to commercially sell it.

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

 

[Mustawd]

Says who?

Guy created a mod with their tools and in their universe (which they own). Why can't they just take his mod? He never owned it in the first place? I mean it's totally douchey. But there's no real legal recourse here.

If I'm reading the EULA correctly, it doesn't transfer the rights, it just prohibits commercial use.

To me it reads like there's an inherent ownership of any content made by the tools, even if not explicitly stated. Especially when the EULA says you need to ask permission from Bethesda to commercially sell it.

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

Interesting. Mind linking to where that's from? I didn't see it on the EULA.

 

[Lhynn]

I'd rather spend all my life writing for RPGs than going for a one-shot slam-dunk trial to get monies and recognition.

Thats noble. Hopefully in 30 years you have the same attitude.

 

[DosBuster]

Says who?

Guy created a mod with their tools and in their universe (which they own). Why can't they just take his mod? He never owned it in the first place? I mean it's totally douchey. But there's no real legal recourse here.

If I'm reading the EULA correctly, it doesn't transfer the rights, it just prohibits commercial use.

To me it reads like there's an inherent ownership of any content made by the tools, even if not explicitly stated. Especially when the EULA says you need to ask permission from Bethesda to commercially sell it.

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit.

Interesting. Mind linking to where that's from? I didn't see it on the EULA.

http://store.steampowered.com/eula/eula_202480

First section, granted that's for Skyrim's Creation Kit, I can't find the one for Fallout New Vegas anywhere.

 

[Modron]

I wonder if that is the original eula, because the last paragraph really reeks of addition for that whole paid mods fiasco.

If You make New Material available to others through Your use of the Steam Workshop as a Workshop Contribution, You may participate in any applicable Steam program for commercial distribution of Your Workshop Contribution, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Steam Workshop.

Also is this really the state of agreeing to a EULA these days?

PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING AND USING THE EDITOR. YOUR DOWNLOAD AND USE OF THE EDITOR CONSTITUTE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS OF USE (THIS “AGREEMENT”). IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS OF USE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE EDITOR.

I mean at least before with the TL/DR and agree/disagree buttons they could argue people gave informed consent but now just touching something means you agreed to all legal terms and ramifications even if you never saw the EULA? Kind of sad.

 

[Mustawd]

I can't find the one for Fallout New Vegas anywhere.

I found some dead links when looking for the GECK EULA. However, I did find this:


http://www.gamepur.com/news/7025-al...velop-using-creation-kit-belong-bethesda.html

According to the details in Skyrim Creation Kit End User License Agreement, "If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials [Mods], You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit,"

This means that Bethesda has all the rights to make use of user-created content in any way possible, and this includes selling. The developer of the mod won't have right to claim royalties.

On all this Bethesda told NowGamer, "These are standard T&Cs. We have the exact same language in our previous kits. If you install the Oblivion Construction set or the Fallout 3 GECK, you’ll see the same language in the EULA. We release modding tools because we want the community to be able to create new content within in our games."

So basically the same applies to FO3 mods.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I wonder if that is the original eula, because the last paragraph really reeks of addition for that whole paid mods fiasco.

If You make New Material available to others through Your use of the Steam Workshop as a Workshop Contribution, You may participate in any applicable Steam program for commercial distribution of Your Workshop Contribution, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Steam Workshop.

Also is this really the state of agreeing to a EULA these days?

PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING AND USING THE EDITOR. YOUR DOWNLOAD AND USE OF THE EDITOR CONSTITUTE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS OF USE (THIS “AGREEMENT”). IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS OF USE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE EDITOR.

I mean at least before with the TL/DR and agree/disagree buttons they could argue people gave informed consent but now just touching something means you agreed to all legal terms and ramifications even if you never saw the EULA? Kind of sad.

EULA is not sacred scriptures, it can be challenged in court. At least in the EU it can, yanks probably gave away all their power to corporations long ago.

 

[Wayward Son]

I wonder if that is the original eula, because the last paragraph really reeks of addition for that whole paid mods fiasco.

If You make New Material available to others through Your use of the Steam Workshop as a Workshop Contribution, You may participate in any applicable Steam program for commercial distribution of Your Workshop Contribution, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Steam Workshop.

Also is this really the state of agreeing to a EULA these days?

PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING AND USING THE EDITOR. YOUR DOWNLOAD AND USE OF THE EDITOR CONSTITUTE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS OF USE (THIS “AGREEMENT”). IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS OF USE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE EDITOR.

I mean at least before with the TL/DR and agree/disagree buttons they could argue people gave informed consent but now just touching something means you agreed to all legal terms and ramifications even if you never saw the EULA? Kind of sad.

EULA is not sacred scriptures, it can be challenged in court. At least in the EU it can, yanks probably gave away all their power to corporations long ago.

That we did.

 

[Trash]

Guess noone here has read The hero with a thousand faces. Mankind has been plagiarizing every story since day one.

 

[Mustawd]

EULA is not sacred scriptures, it can be challenged in court.

Not a lawyer, but from what I remmeber in my business law classes the EULA is basically considered a contract. As long as there is nothing that would void the contract or make it voidable (which can be a number of things), then the contract stands.

I dunno....how does EU work? You guys just say, "meh, it's a contract, but we don't read those things"?

EDIT: Like I mentioned above, there are probably a variety of things you can do to challenge the EULA and how it is administered. Things like, how was the EULA shown? Did it require a signature or acceptance? Was it easy to find? Were all the definitions in terms of the case and the contract defined appropriately?

But that's different than saying the EULA is not a contract, which if found to be then it is pretty hard to get around.

 

[ArchAngel]

EULA is not sacred scriptures, it can be challenged in court.

Not a lawyer, but from what I remmeber in my business law classes the EULA is basically considered a contract. As long as there is nothing that would void the contract or make it voidable (which can be a number of things), then the contract stands.

I dunno....how does EU work? You guys just say, "meh, it's a contract, but we don't read those things"?

EDIT: Like I mentioned above, there are probably a variety of things you can do to challenge the EULA and how it is administered. Things like, how was the EULA shown? Did it require a signature or acceptance? Was it easy to find? Were all the definitions in terms of the case and the contract defined appropriately?

But that's different than saying the EULA is not a contract, which if found to be then it is pretty hard to get around.

EU works that contracts have to follow EU laws and can be proclaimed void by the courts. And EU has strict customer protection laws.
I don't know if they would help in this specific case but they don't allow the "You signed your soul to us in the contract so it is your own fault" type deals.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

EULA is not sacred scriptures, it can be challenged in court.

Not a lawyer, but from what I remmeber in my business law classes the EULA is basically considered a contract. As long as there is nothing that would void the contract or make it voidable (which can be a number of things), then the contract stands.

I dunno....how does EU work? You guys just say, "meh, it's a contract, but we don't read those things"?

EULA is a biding contract, but federal law can override contracts if they contain illegal clauses, or lack some clauses that are required. The most obvious example is that you can't sell yourself to slavery through a biding contract, because slavery is blocked on a constitution level.

In terms of gaming, you have the EU and Australia to thank for Steam refunds. Consumer protection laws say that consumer must be offered an option to refund, and consumer watchdogs kept poking until Valve eventually had to bend over. It didn't matter that refunds were not featured in the EULA.

EDIT: Like I mentioned above, there are probably a variety of things you can do to challenge the EULA and how it is administered. Things like, how was the EULA shown? Did it require a signature or acceptance? Was it easy to find? Were all the definitions in terms of the case and the contract defined appropriately?

But that's different than saying the EULA is not a contract, which if found to be then it is pretty hard to get around.

There's probably books written on various methods of how to do proper EULA acceptance by now, and Valve sized corporation definitely has that covered. So I wouldn't look for an angle there.

In any case, it wouldn't hurt if the guy just visited a lawyer. If there's any potential to a settlement with a mega corporations, they'd probably be happy to work for future profits

 

[Mustawd]

EULA is a biding contract, but federal law can override contracts if they contain illegal clauses, or lack some clauses that are required. The most obvious example is that you can't sell yourself to slavery through a biding contract, because slavery is blocked on a constitution level.

From an American viewpoint that sounds incredibly goofy. Well, at least to me it does. It totally takes away the responsibility of the consumer to know what they're doing.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

EULA is a biding contract, but federal law can override contracts if they contain illegal clauses, or lack some clauses that are required. The most obvious example is that you can't sell yourself to slavery through a biding contract, because slavery is blocked on a constitution level.

From an American viewpoint that sounds incredibly goofy. Well, at least to me it does. It totally takes away the responsibility of the consumer to know what they're doing.

Sure, but what about the responsibility of corporations to respect consumer protection laws in their contracts? Because that's crux of the matter here. They know exactly what they are doing bypassing consumer rights in the EULA, and they do everything to obfuscate the messaging to the consumer so he has no idea what he is signing up for. A man on the street isn't a trained lawyer and objectively he has no means of even realizing that he is being fucked in the ass. That's why the courts have to step in.

 

[Mozg]

Speaking to something I know from actually playing Autumn Leaves:

You don't fuck a robot. Chateaubryan was using robot sex as some parallel between the mod and the DLC thing (where I understand you DO fuck a robot). AFAIK the insult comic robot in Autumn Leaves just makes sex references while being a good old fashioned unfuckable robot. So, given that this incident is used explicitly as a parallel, I judge that it's all probably baloney and they aren't really close enough to be worth outrage. Bethesda is bad so I would like some Codexer in good standing that has played both the fucking things to fucking step forward and make a comparison to say that's wrong if possible.

 

[Mustawd]

Sure, but what about the responsibility of corporations to respect consumer protection laws in their contracts? Because that's crux of the matter here.

Oh, well in that case that's the same as US law. It makes the contract voidable because it's not technically legally binding. I think it's more of the "can't be a slave" kind of law that I found goofy. It's just a weird concept. But so are labor laws in France and their permanent contract nonsense, so it's not surprising that overall EU laws are weird to me.

 

[Infinitron]

Speaking to something I know from actually playing Autumn Leaves:

You don't fuck a robot. Chateaubryan was using robot sex as some parallel between the mod and the DLC thing (where I understand you DO fuck a robot). AFAIK the insult comic robot in Autumn Leaves just makes sex references while being a good old fashioned unfuckable robot. So, given that this incident is used explicitly as a parallel, I judge that it's all probably baloney and they aren't really close enough to be worth outrage. Bethesda is bad so I would like some Codexer in good standing that has played both the fucking things to fucking step forward and make a comparison to say that's wrong if possible.

Hmmm, if you're so incredulous about this, why not watch an LP:

 

[Mozg]

I ain't watching all that shit but right from the beginning the setup is different. In AL the robots are basically sapient and running the vault as a library. In that youtube Bethesdas are more typical Fallout robots that don't have any concept that the apocalypse happened and are playing out quotidian behavior.