Now Hang On A Minute!

[BobLatimer]

I am going to risk a banning from the forums by commenting on a thread that was locked by a moderator. I am doing so because I feel quite strongly that an injustice has been done. I want to comment on the withdrawal by Breedlings of his content and permissions. I don’t think his motives for doing so were recognised appropriately.

First, let me say that I have in the past done work for BATS and am currently doing work for MT and in those roles was and am acquainted with both Duckweed and Breedlings through those connections. This is a personal view and nothing to do with those organisations.

Secondly, let me say that I am very sad when content creators reach the point when they feel that it is necessary to withdraw their content. I recognise their right to do so, no question about that, but I also have a lot of sympathy for the “innocents” that get caught in the crossfire.

My understanding from reading the posts carefully is that Breedlings is planning to withdraw his reskins, not because he hasn’t been presented with a few free CDs, but because his permission was not obtained before his reskins were included on certain community CDs. If that is the case (and there is an “if” involved) then I believe he has the right to feel aggrieved.

I think the comment in the previous thread that copyright might not be enforceable if it is not registered is not only legally incorrect but totally contrary to the spirit of this “community”.

There is no doubt that putting together a community CD is a large undertaking and that getting permissions from the authors of every item included on the CD is a mammoth task. However, I understood that the common view (as expressed in several recent threads) is that if you don’t or can’t get explicit permission, the item can’t be included.

[Lad491]

My understanding from reading the posts carefully is that Breedlings is planning to withdraw his reskins, not because he hasn’t been presented with a few free CDs, but because his permission was not obtained before his reskins were included on certain community CDs. If that is the case (and there is an “if” involved) then I believe he has the right to feel aggrieved.

Bob i'll say no more than I believe your understanding is incorrect, unless he has moved the goal posts.

[codrivermike]

Without dragging this thread out or risking it being locked. Is a community CD not nothing more than a route, stock and activities, already freely available in the file library being simply packaged together to make life easier for those unable to master editing msts and to encourage new users into the community?
After all. Where's the gain? Where's the profit? The cost of £4.50 only covers production and a months premium membership. It's not like anyone is making a gain from someones work.
I download routes when they are released. I download activities. I download stock. But I also buy the CD. Not only does it extend my membership but, heaven forbid, if my MSTS installation ever gives up the ghost I will still have the originals to fall back on.

Best regards

Michael

[phill70]

This thread stays for now.
BUT if anything gets nasty AT ALL, it goes in the skip.

[jbilton]

Without dragging this thread out or risking it being locked. Is a community CD not nothing more than a route, stock and activities, already freely available in the file library being simply packaged together to make life easier for those unable to master editing msts and to encourage new users into the community?
After all. Where's the gain? Where's the profit? The cost of £4.50 only covers production and a months premium membership. It's not like anyone is making a gain from someones work.
I download routes when they are released. I download activities. I download stock. But I also buy the CD. Not only does it extend my membership but, heaven forbid, if my MSTS installation ever gives up the ghost I will still have the originals to fall back on.

Best regards

Michael

Hi Micheal
Not sure this is the issue here............ and this arguement has been done to death before.
Cheers
Jon

[NeutronIC]

There is no doubt that putting together a community CD is a large undertaking and that getting permissions from the authors of every item included on the CD is a mammoth task. However, I understood that the common view (as expressed in several recent threads) is that if you don’t or can’t get explicit permission, the item can’t be included.

That is certainly correct, indeed the re-issue of Bala Hub is stalled because we've been given a stack of wonderful replacement items and no confirmation that all permissions have been obtained from the relevant authors. I am guessing it probably has, but until we get that specifically confirmed the CD is dead in the water.

While we don't go and verify the permissions ourselves, we do ask the team leaders for projects whether permissions have been obtained and unless they say yes then it isn't released.

That said, we're all humans and it's quite possible that someone has misunderstood a permission perhaps received for one thing not applying to another, or not realised that one particular person was actually someone requiring a request for permission as sometimes it can be confusing, some times people have assumed that usually closely involved individuals that work on common projects speak for each other, or that simply an item was missed. I'm not saying that justifies or excuses an ommission, just saying that it happens occasionally. We've had a few instances of people realising their work has been included, complaining and then between us working it out to their satisfaction.

I have not, to my recollection, received any complaints from Alex about this. I first heard of this via another CD compiler that was seeking permission. The next I heard was that someone told me this had been posted on the forums.

The original "demand" was, in my opinion, unreasonable. I simply cannot afford to pay royalties, and nobody has ever received "lifetime membership" except for Ian Morgan and Tim Booth as a gesture towards their immense work in establishing the community in the beginning with TrainSimFiles. Even Terry Cunliffe, Tim Court, Gordon Mackenzie and the other big names don't actually have lifetime membership - though they do have more sub than they probably know what to do with.

In response, I counter offered a quantity of premium sub per CD that his work was included on (more than I've offered anyone who has contributed a similar amount of content), via the aforementioned CD compiler - the offer was forwarded and the response was the forum posting so I must assume it was rejected though again at no point has Alex actually spoken to me about it.

Alex has every right to ask for his items to be withdrawn and they will be done so as requested without argument from me, I will ALWAYS uphold the authors rights before anything else. That doesn't mean that mistakes will never happen, but it does mean that I will always try to resolve them in whatever manner I can that is reasonable to all parties and if that means content and CD's must be withdrawn then so be it.

I will never be preventing people from withdrawing their items or trying to take their copyright away from them. It's a pain to the community, but it'd be an even bigger pain if the authors decided that they didn't want to make stuff anymore and in the midst of the hysteria I would ask everyone to remember that, these people create the work and offer it up entirely out of their good will and you can download it and keep it; but it's entirely their decision if they no longer want it to be available.

Alex has already said that the items will likely be available elsewhere, presumably via MT or Fastline as either commercial or freeware items, so the community as a whole has not lost a thing. The only thing wrong will be where you can get the items from. The CD's, well, that's in the process of being fixed already thanks to some of the other outstanding folks who continually take the baton and run with it.

Regards,
Matt.

[emrhd01]

Thanks for that information Matt, now we have heard from both sides.

Lets hope this can be amicably resolved for the benefit of the Train Simming Community as a whole.

[NeutronIC]

The only thing wrong will be where you can get the items from.

Actually just wanted to clarify that as I just re-read it and did a double-take, that's not what I meant to say

I meant to say that the only thing *different* will be where you get the items

Apologies for any insult or offence caused

Matt.

[crompton]

I think I can now understand why certain people get very upset at certain times.

To quote Matt

The original "demand" was, in my opinion, unreasonable. I simply cannot afford to pay royalties, and nobody has ever received "lifetime membership" except for Ian Morgan and Tim Booth as a gesture towards their immense work in establishing the community in the beginning with TrainSimFiles. Even Terry Cunliffe, Tim Court, Gordon Mackenzie and the other big names don't actually have lifetime membership - though they do have more sub than they probably know what to do with.

Yet I have to live on incapacity benefit and have just had to pay for my membership on this site although I can barely afford it.
Come on now, it is time for a level playing field for all not for the in "cliques" to get the star treatment.
Look at my uploads and then all of the reskins of my work to see what I mean.
And by the way I would like to point out to those that so easily knock commercial developers that there is barely any money in it at all, not even enough to pay the broadband bill each month, so please don't think that because someone wants to recoup a little money for all of their field trips, books, etc that they are suddenly turned overnight into the fat controller, I say this as a freeware turned commercial and back to a freeware developer.

Lets have a little more common sense and a lot less in-fighting and back stabbing.

Ian Jenkins

[NeutronIC]

Oops, sorry Ian - you are more than entitled to a quantity of free subscription from the stuff of yours that's on CD's at the moment...

I've just topped you up a bit more. Next time it runs out, drop me a mail.

PM me your address and i'll get a cheque back to you to refund your last payment.

Matt.

[Lad491]

well im glad Matt posted the real reasons for the current disagreement. It shows that, far from being hard done by, breedlings was just another money grabber trying it on. Wanting payment (in kind maybe but payment nevertheless) for his work when others have given far more, spent far more hours than he, for nothing or very limited return.

I have to say Ive had a few months premium access given for my activities. Its always been given without asking and was welcomed but not expected.

Well im afraid good riddance i say. Take your stuff and go off into the wilderness. I for one will never, ever use your stuff again. Youve been added to my blacklist of people from the last round of withdrawals

[lateagain]

Oops, sorry Ian - you are more than entitled to a quantity of free subscription from the stuff of yours that's on CD's at the moment...

I've just topped you up a bit more. Next time it runs out, drop me a mail.

PM me your address and i'll get a cheque back to you to refund your last payment.

Matt.

Now that post cheers me up!!

I've said, to my mind quite clearly, what I think about the current withdrawal and I hope that some of you will realise that I was privvy to information that Matt has now chosen to make public, not because I'm part of any clique, but purely because I'm totally involved with MEP and specifically the stock and permissions.

I sincerely believe that we can draw up an agreement that protects everybody, does not infringe any of their rights and which would stand as a document that would clarify once and for all who is happy for various scenarios to happen with their files.

The one thing that shines through like a beacon in my recent attempts to gain permissions and help for MEP is just how generous and how helpful evryone has been. Despite some of the comments in the locked post I'd have to say that those who were most helpful and generous displayed that attitude in their postings there.

No one can criticise Matt's stated intention to protect the rights of the authors but it isn't quite that simple. What we have is not something based on individual pieces of work. We have things based on several peoples work and often interlinked like bricks in a building. No sane person would allow someone to withdraw the foundations from a structure and watch it collapse and yet that's what can happen as things stand. We also have "dead mail boxes" unanswerd pms (and I'm as guilty as the next for missing them) but I don't think that any of these issues are not relatively easily overcome if we adopt a uniform upload agreement.

It should NOT be a dictate on what aurthors can or can't do. Rather a document that enables them to choose from options how they wish their files to be treated. If this document is drawn up by the participants of this site and agreed we can then move forward knowing where we all stand. As it is, when you look at the amount of stock I've scoured through over the past months, you can rarely find a relevant read me. Often the only read me relates to or was posted by the original model creator and you're looking at the reskin of a previous reskin!!! I don't think this is the place to go into detail about this but I do think that with all the common sense and good will I've encountered that we ought to be able to put together a group of authors, from all file types, to come up with a draft document for appraisal by all who contribute. Then by listening to feedback we can come up with a final common agreement.

As I said a few times Rights are balanced by Responsibilities and to protect everyone I'd suggest that anyone uploading must agree to keep UKTS appraised of any e-mail changes so that there can be at least one certain recourse if anyone needs to contact another member.

I spent a good deal of time disecting such agreements up until a couple of years back so although I don't relish the task I'm happy to give this project time as I think it may be worth it in the long term. We've a new Sim out and at least one in the Pipeline so any effort now could set foundations for years to come. Back dating these agreements might take a bit more work but if at least all new files from the date of agreement contained them it might save a lot of heartache.

I say, Good luck Alex, even though you really hacked me off, but lets take these events as a wake up call and do something constructive about it. Building stuff and running the Sim is MUCH more fun than bitching at one another afte all?

Geoff

[buffy500]

well im glad Matt posted the real reasons for the current disagreement.

Out of interest, define 'real' ?

Do you mean actual really the confirmed authenicated truth, or one persons publically stated version of it ? Because thats actually what you are basing it on
.
As I understand it, its not as clear cut as it might be.
ie, 1 persons description of something not tying up with someone elses description of how it happened
..
To be specific, theres a significant difference between side 'X'' coming back and offering an alternative 'compromise' deal, to simply saying 'no deal' to the original 'demand' from side 'Y', and don't forget, this is linked to previously unauthorised use, not just requesting use of stuff in MEP.

I've not had anything back for the Voyager or Desiro that are in Scottish Central / Dorset Coast, and I'm not entirely bothered about that, but I was asked for permission to use them in those CD's. I'm sure if I found something which I'd not given permission for, I'd not be so laid back about it.

I like you, have not seen the original communcations, and can only take someone's word for how it happened, and like you, I have no reason to suspect someone of bending the truth, but the fact is there is a descrepency between accounts. Which is what makes taking sides based on just 1 half of an arguement a risky business.


On a different tack, I would agree that something needs to be sorted out with permissions for people who are no longer contactable. It does cause a lot of problems, some of which I am sure are really not required.
It might be as simple as agreeing to something which covers what happens when you are unobtainable.
ie, not further permissions, same as granted before etc..
It is very possible that people who's moved on don't care a hoot what happens to thier uploads, it does seem a shame that sometimes theres so much time wasted over it. Clearly though if someone advised what was to happen to their work, like Bob Potts (?) then that wish needs to be strictly abided by.

BUT I would add, any attempt to make such an agreement cover things already updated I personally would not find acceptable.

[lateagain]

well im glad Matt posted the real reasons for the current disagreement.

Out of interest, define 'real' ?

Do you mean actual real, or one persons version of it ? Because thats actually what it is.
As I understand it, its not as clear cut as it might be.
ie, 1 persons description of something not tying up with someone elses description of how it happened
..
To be specific, theres a significant difference between coming back and offering an alternative 'compromise' deal, to simply saying 'no deal' to the original 'demand'.

I like you, have not seen the original communcations, and can only take someone's word for how it happened, and like you, I have no reason to suspect someone of bending the truth, but the fact is there is a descrepency between accounts. Which is what makes taking sides based on just 1 half of an arguement a risky business.

Point taken Dave.

In my experience there's always two sides to the arguement and when you delve deeper there are sides to sides ad nauseum.
I would just say, and particularly in view of some of the posts on thelocked forum, that Laurie has written, rewritten and fixed, then fixed and fixed again activities for Mid East Plus. The withdrawals out of the blue, and to our knowledge through no action of ours, of the Mk2's was just about the final straw for Laurie and if his post seems a little "venomous"? You have to take my word that this is the reason.

We're well into replacing the stock and our only regret is that to limit the extra work we've now switched to Tim's Mk2's, unavailable at the time, because to redo the work we did to the excellent models by Andy and Mark would have to be done all over as it originally included Alex's 1024 skins. That doesn't make me feel good as I was the one who asked permission to use it in the first place. No offence to Tim or his models you understand, which are excellent, but the way I was bought up to accept something from someone and throw it back at them for another offer is bad manners. It's just another knock on of the action.

But lets move on and look at tidying up the usage/permissions scene? It ain't rocket science. We just need to collate the issues and draw up a form of agreement.

Geoff

[buffy500]

Geoff,

I can understand Lauries feelings, but in the same breath, is Alex not allowed to have a final straw too ?

Lets be fair though, the utmost simple solution would have been to revert to 512 textures

What happened to the community 'developing' by someone else replacing the textures ? The way some of the posts read, the only reason for no one doing anything else is because there was already good versions in play.