Removal of Fleet Operations mod and prohibited upload of the 1.2 game patch

[Aerilon]

Originally Posted by kel333

I have nothing but respect for Jolt, SSA and Freyr, 3 of the most senior members of this community.

I am going to start banning people if they keep calling me SSA.

It's Ash, or Tycoon (I prefer Ash).

PS: Joel, I am not replying in relation to the topic, just addressing a comment

[DarkEnergy]

well admins,

1 i wasnt trying to put pressure on someone. i saw an open question (what logical reason is there to still lock the files if they have been changed they way you wanted it) and you decided not to answer that one. your decision, i gotta have to accept that.

2. if u open a threat and dont like the answers, close it down. this is not a purely democratic forum, as you have stated on numerous occasions (sometimes well reasoned). such a decision would make me sick, but hey, i am only a user, not an admin.

3. to let it stay open but not to answer because you feel you repeat yourself - see answer 2. besides: maybe answering the open questions and not repeating given answers would put something new to this threat. with all given respect.

i dont expect any response as you have already made your point well clear. my last 10 cent in this, too.

[Atlantis]

Originally Posted by Freyr

This is somewhat hypocritical. You are possibly making more of a "big deal" out of it than we are. I think everybody knows what we are doing at the moment, our position and the current situation has been stated in this thread so many times that Cecil suggested locking it to save us repeating ourselves.

I'm not MAKING a big deal out of anything. I'm just making my opinions known seeing as someone ELSE has started this off.

Originally Posted by Freyr

I don't appreciate your tone. I am sure that you have heard the term "FAIR USE" before. It is a provision of copyright law that allows the use of copyrighted materials under certain conditions. I suggest that you might want to avoid the use of such inflammatory language as its likely to lead to people getting upset. That doesn't benefit anybody.

Don't talk down to me, mate. If you want to start censoring other people's "tone", then... well, don't ask for peoples' opinions in the first place. Especially seeing as all you're doing is calling me hypocritical for one issue, and then covering up your team's own hypocracy on another. (what i've said now IS in a bad tone, just so you know)

anything else i can say would just be repeating what other people have said.
that's all i have to say on the issue, do what you want with it

[IKS]

I believe the decision was and is final... arguing with each other, insulting each other and treating each other poorly will not turn the decision nor will it do any good only create tension...

If you want the mod then download it off the FleetOps site... What is the big issue with doing that? It is not being hosted on Filefront then get it from FleetOps. Does it really matter that much that Filefront won't host it? Will Filefront not doing so affect you downloading the mod?

- How about we all calm it for a while. There is no need to argue over this.

[Aerilon]

[cecilzero1]

AFC to my knowledge will not put up Fleet ops onto the site

[Dontai]

wow, this is one of the most absurd thing i have ever heared in a long time, next to the (where not going host illegally downloaded game that have ben dead for ten years.) Wow, you do know every rule has point that it need to be broken? Im looking at it right now.

problem is hosting a file that is in breach of the A2 dead EULA (yeh, EULA that every one, who is any one has forgotten about, and that is officially dead to developer, is in violation wow.) What next? A game that has ben dead since windows 95, is going to be in violation, and are you going to remove that two? I'm happy im not the staff ...

[fullphaser]

You guys are aware that posting a link to the download location would be viewed by the legal department over at Mac Doc as still in the wrong (Not that they care, I think we have just about all come to that conclusion). Regardless, it is much the same issue as sites/blogs posting content that shows where you can find files. Many host will have the site deleted for simply linking to a violation of a cooperations/industries files and or materials. This is why most forums/sites/blogs and the likes are forced to lock and or delete even links pointing to the location of the file.

In that regard, if you can point to the link, I don't see why you can't host the physical file. Most host TOS do not draw a line between the hosting of the physical file and pointing to a location somewhere on the internet. It be much like myself posting a link to a torrent here on the forums (I would assume that would be met with some degree of moderation). If you can not host the files yourselves, I am very much in doubt that the host would find (whomever runs the filefront network) to be in high regard of linking to it. If you the staff believe in full honesty that the packages that are generated by the fleetops team to be in violation of the Star Trek Armada II: EULA, than posting a link to those packages is no less a violation of international copyright laws than hosting them yourselves.

The only thing that is gained by such actions is to show a lack of support for the mod team, or a need to distance oneself from the development of the package.

With that in mind, it should be stressed (I believe) the number of leaps made by the few remaining mod teams in existence these days. The ones that made it through the hurtles of years of development time. Mac Doc and Activision have decidedly showed little interest in matters of support not only to the modding community, but to those who had purchased their product some time ago. I believe at this point to really clear up those fine lines, that communication and dialog between the Armada II Modding community and the Programmers and Distribution companies that are responsible for Armada II must be made. Without this, with each innovation that could possibly push Armada further than its original intent will be met with fear of a cooperate hammer that most choose to believe no longer exist.

Although understanding the needs that moderation teams must take in regards to sensitive matters such as the modification and possible breach of the Armada II EULA I believe that should Filefront wish to disassociate it self from the repercussions involved with the hosting and possible distribution of illegal materials and or modification than a non hypocritical stance must be taken. To walk the fine gray line of its to bad to be hosted here, but we'll tell you where you can get it anyway is a stance that is often frowned upon by host as an attempt to bypass standard methods of Security.

I would suggest that Filefront take an affirmative or negative position on the distribution of the mod and patches created by the Fleetops team and not present a divided opinion.

Regards,
Fullphaser

[Freyr]

Originally Posted by fullphaser

You guys are aware that posting a link to the download location would be viewed by the legal department over at Mac Doc as still in the wrong (Not that they care, I think we have just about all come to that conclusion). Regardless, it is much the same issue as sites/blogs posting content that shows where you can find files. Many host will have the site deleted for simply linking to a violation of a cooperations/industries files and or materials. This is why most forums/sites/blogs and the likes are forced to lock and or delete even links pointing to the location of the file.

In that regard, if you can point to the link, I don't see why you can't host the physical file. Most host TOS do not draw a line between the hosting of the physical file and pointing to a location somewhere on the internet. It be much like myself posting a link to a torrent here on the forums (I would assume that would be met with some degree of moderation). If you can not host the files yourselves, I am very much in doubt that the host would find (whomever runs the filefront network) to be in high regard of linking to it. If you the staff believe in full honesty that the packages that are generated by the fleetops team to be in violation of the Star Trek Armada II: EULA, than posting a link to those packages is no less a violation of international copyright laws than hosting them yourselves.

The only thing that is gained by such actions is to show a lack of support for the mod team, or a need to distance oneself from the development of the package.

With that in mind, it should be stressed (I believe) the number of leaps made by the few remaining mod teams in existence these days. The ones that made it through the hurtles of years of development time. Mac Doc and Activision have decidedly showed little interest in matters of support not only to the modding community, but to those who had purchased their product some time ago. I believe at this point to really clear up those fine lines, that communication and dialog between the Armada II Modding community and the Programmers and Distribution companies that are responsible for Armada II must be made. Without this, with each innovation that could possibly push Armada further than its original intent will be met with fear of a cooperate hammer that most choose to believe no longer exist.

Although understanding the needs that moderation teams must take in regards to sensitive matters such as the modification and possible breach of the Armada II EULA I believe that should Filefront wish to disassociate it self from the repercussions involved with the hosting and possible distribution of illegal materials and or modification than a non hypocritical stance must be taken. To walk the fine gray line of its to bad to be hosted here, but we'll tell you where you can get it anyway is a stance that is often frowned upon by host as an attempt to bypass standard methods of Security.

I would suggest that Filefront take an affirmative or negative position on the distribution of the mod and patches created by the Fleetops team and not present a divided opinion.

Regards,
Fullphaser

Well, Joel did say that Staff were not going to reply to this topic anymore (sorry Joel), however you have brought up a couple of points that deserve an answer so I am going to answer this post, however it will be my last on this topic. If you, or anybody else would like to offer your opinion on this topic in terms beyond words to the effect of "I agree" or "I disagree" then please either PM or email me.

Spoiler:

Freyr's Generic/standard note on Legal language:-

To avoid possible misunderstandings, when answering points of law, or accusations about violations of the law then I will tend to pick words, phrases and sentence structures that have extremely specific meanings in law. This may not translate perfectly into modern, current day English as the language that Solicitors use is the result of an attempt in another age to produce words with only one meaning. How it comes out after translation in another language is anyone's guess, however I suspect that in some cases it dosen't mean precisely the same thing at best, and it could mean something completely different at worst.

Sentence structures are also direct and short which may seem unfriendly and abrupt to people not versed or used to the language used in legal exchanges, however this is just the nature of our wonderfully dry legal language as anybody that has seen Solicitors letters will understand. It dosen't mean I am taking it personally. And no, I am not a lawyer. I have however been working in the IT Dept of a Solicitors firm for several years, and while I don't hold a legal qualification of any type its hard not to learn a fair amount about the law in that time. If you don't like the language used, avoid posting "THAT BREAKS THE LAW!" or words to the same effect in a manner that suggests its a fact instead of something you want to discuss in the normal manner in a forum.

I assume people stating the law as facts know both what they mean, and the legal language that is used in such cases between professionals. If you don't , or did it accidently and don't want to argue the point just concede the point and I will be quite happy to drop it without further mention. If you keep arguing then I am extremely likely to keep arguing it as well until I have completely demolished your argument and any counter argument in a manner thats legally satisfactory. (ie, utterly.)

If you want to argue a point then I would suggest doing it in private. (ie, PM or E-MAIL)

Posting a link to the download location is certainly forbidden for the reasons you state. We have said that its not allowed and clearly stated the consequences should anybody start linking directly to the files. All we have is an entry in the directory of modifications that we maintain, along with associated news articles. These do contain a link to the modifications website and forums.

Your point on the legality on linking to third party websites that may then link to other files is interesting, though I believe under the circumstances it has no legal basis in law.

If we were linking to a page solely set up to immediately redirect you to the files with no action then we would certainly be distributing the files. However, we aren't. We are linking to a busy website/news hub of the Armada II Community, and an active community on the forums. What action the user chooses to take from there on is their own responsibility. The content and any legal liability of any third party website is owned by the owner, not ZDM/FF.

We cannot be held responsible under any law for the content of third party websites and any liability for content on external sites is in fact specifically disclaimed by ZDM/FF, a point which you have agreed to acknowledge by using the service which we provide. (aka, the website/forums your using at the moment)

5.2 The Service may contain links to sites on the Internet which are owned and operated by third parties (the "External Sites"). You acknowledge that ZDH is not responsible for the availability of, or the content located on or through, any External Site. You should contact the site administrator or webmaster for those External Sites if you have any concerns regarding such links or the content located on such External Sites.

Therefore, I believe the approach that we have taken is entirely consistent. Likewise, I don't agree with the suggestion that we are being hypocritical or divided in our approach to dealing with this issue.

We continue to have an amiable relationship with the fleet operations developers. As you point out we are unable to support them directly by offering (or referring to) materials available to download. However we are still able to continue to post news and allow discussion of the mod, as so long as no downloads are permitted. Considering the situation, we doing everything possible to support the fleet ops team. Obviously I cannot agree with your suggestion that we are showing a lack of support for the team.

Regarding your suggestion that we approach the developer/publisher, it has been attempted over a long period of time by many different people, and neither the developer or the publisher appears to have any interest in discussing anything with the community. Certainly, my emails don't get answered.

Again, this is my last reply on the topic. Should you with to discuss it further please either email or PM me.

[Dontai]

You know this great and all, but fact of matter is activision doesn't give spit about us. We always wanted ability to have more freedom in modding, do more with engine, and right when it is with in reach, you take it away for dead EULA. Fact is this is absurd, and arguing law politic about a dead eula, is like asking dead person what he want for dinner. You have probably put stop To modding taking next step on this site. Staff have mange to try and stop people from modding, wow good jop. Didn't think that was what staff jop was, o well ... But might as well try arguing with a corpse, ant like staff is listening

congrats on killing a good thing ...