Discussion in 'PC Discussion' started by londonmidland, Oct 6, 2020.
I suspect in the same way that Farming Sim does.
I think it’s to DTG’s credit that they conduct their business well within the law with regards to trademarks and intellectual property. Whether other gaming companies don’t, and that they may have been able to do so without being sued or prosecuted, is irrelevant to how DTG decide to do business.
The Farming Simulator Franchise is pretty big in Germany. They even got their own eSports Tournaments. The licensed content is treated with some kind of respect by the community, i havn´t seen any misuse of brand logos or such.
I think brand owners see it as some kind of advertising to appear in this game, because real farmers play this game. With locos and trains it´s a different matter.
By the way, in Farmsimulator 19 one can offficially use mods on consoles that are created on the PC. You just can´t create them on consoles, wich is fine.
‘I think it’s to DTG’s credit that they conduct their business well within the law with regards to trademarks and intellectual property.’
I’m not going to disagree with that but there are examples of how others achieve it.
As I’ve stated before I’m a pretty casual TSW user and mostly I flight sim. There I use Xplane. Now there’s a lot of user content for that, not just liveries but scenery and aircraft. The producers of X-Plane Laminar don’t host that content. Much of it is on a forum site independent from Laminar. While the site does have some revenue from advertising it’s unlikely to get sued by some copyright holder as there little or no money there. Others will be able to suggest similar sites for TSxxxx content. These sites work for PCs, if the developer allows access to the file structure to add content, but presumably not for consoles. If content was downloaded to an individual’s PC from a non DTG site I can’t see a copyright holder having much luck against DTG, or am I missing something?
The new MSFS, which I don’t own, might also be instructive. Microsoft are likely to be even more copyright cautious than DTG given their deeper pockets. All the images I’ve seen to date for MSFS have aircraft in generic livery (so Airbus on the A320) but no airline liveries. So Microsoft clearly got a license from Airbus but they’re not going to negotiate with the over 300 airlines who fly the A320. Now the flight sim community is probably even more focused on liveries than the train sim world so those liveries should appear and MSFS is intended both as a PC and console game, matching TSW, so how are they going to do it? Does anyone know?
One other interesting observation from the Xplane world is that JustFlight, the same developers who own JustTrains have a traffic package (fills the airport and skies with aircraft) that was released in the last year that has literally hundreds of liveries in the package, together with the schedules used by the airline flights. Clearly they don’t have licenses for the liveries, maybe they pay some sort of central fee for the schedules, but there’s another UK software house with a very much more aggressive stance. They’re selling the liveries not providing access to content provided for free.
So I agree that DTG being law abiding is good but they do seem to be taking a more aggressive stance than others. Perhaps in paying for licensing as DTG do, rather than ignoring the issue as others do, puts you in the situation of being an easy legal target for non compliance. Sort of if you know that you need to license from X then I Y will insist that you pay me as well?
You might be missing something and I doubt that DTG’s lawyers are going to post here with a full rundown of how likely it is that DTG would get into any legal wranglings with owners of trademarks and copyright or what potential harm it could do to their business from people sharing their own illegal activity using their software externally. Actively allowing people access to the means to do it would leave them more at risk than not allowing that access. I’m not an expert but I’m sure DTG have consulted with people who are before making these decisions.
I’m sure they have too, but the inescapable fact is DTG are on the opposite side of this concept to virtually everybody else.
Ford licences, BMW licences, Porsche licences, Airbus licences, Boeing licences, John Deere licences, Massey Ferguson licences, MAN licences, Volvo licences, etc. All achievable for developers. DTG chose to licence DB/CSX/FGW rather than Stadler, Bombardier and EMD.
DTG have also recently lost some fairly sizeable UK licenses - CrossCountry went last week, Arriva before that, I remember hearing mumbles last year that GWR expires by the end of 2021, wonder what goes next.
does anyone have a list of TS licenses? so we can see who might actually be left.
Presuming they don't renegotiate those licenses of course
It ties in with alot of what many of us have said - about Train Sims being more niche, and the differences between TOCs and car manufacturers. I do wonder how many companies really couldnt care less if DTG approached them, asin they dont want to talk to them.
IIRC a few years ago stagecoach took a very "we dont care about video games go away" approach to many companies.
Nobody has sued Hornby for selling paint and weathering powders yet...
My point was lots of products have been sold with officially licensed liveries and shapes, right alongside materials to change the look of those same products. You don’t see brand enforcers hanging around model rail shows to see if anybody has applied a unlicensed version of their livery.
I understand how the licensing matters, but as I said DTG are taking a different approach to almost everybody else.
‘from people sharing their own illegal activity using their software externally. Actively allowing people access to the means to do it would leave them more at risk than not allowing that access. I’m not an expert but I’m sure DTG have consulted with people who are before making these decisions’
Once I have the software on my computer or console what I do with it is my responsibility. Your argument would be that a scammer using Yahoo mail makes Yahoo in some way a party to the illegality.
I’m sure that Dovetail have consulted with people, but you’re also discounting there’s not some benefit to DTG to keep everything locked down.
Yes. Not a lawyer, but this falls under “aiding and abetting. As soon as the ISP or host becomes aware that a content or activity is unlawful, it could be found guilty of aiding and abetting the offense if it does not take immediate action to prevent the activity.”
Copyright law is usually civil, not criminal. It would be unlikely for the ISP to get involved in a civil matter.
ISPs are routinely involved with DMCA notices and takedown process to remove material that infringes copyright.
But they are not held responsible themselves, they simply provide a mechanism for the copyright or trademark holder to complain and seek removal. They are not therefore “aiding and abetting”.
Perhaps I could have chosen better language about the ISP not getting involved - let me try again: The ISP or host is unlikely to be found responsible for aiding and abetting simply for providing a service, provided they comply with relevant laws and regulations.
Anyway, TS has supported modding and Steam Workshop for years - if it’s now an impossible legal issue where does that leave the other sim? What about the content on UKTS?
You think they’re not held responsible if they do nothing after becoming aware?
Let’s have some respect for DTG’s decision, instead of pressuring then to do something that is questionable.
Even if other publishers or developers might get away with something that might not be morally right or legal, that shouldn’t serve as an excuse or justification for DTG to do the same.
Different licensing agreements, etc.
Again, one shouldn’t argue that just because it happened in the past with another game, it should happen in the present with this game.
Yes, let’s all agree that DTG’s apparently inconsistent behaviour is all in everybody’s best interests. It has nothing at all to do with being able to sell content.
also, Steam Workshop is still a thing for TS in the present, unless Workshop Wednesday is instantly banned?!
With something like a model train that's your property, as your mods are basically for private use they aren't going to care. Same thing with with someone that just makes a repaint for their use in TS Classic or TSW. Where things get tricky is when you start sharing them, at that point it's no longer for personal use and it can be taken down if it infringes on copyright.
Now full on takedowns don't happen often but it ain't unheard of, one example I can think of is a game called Dreams. People made all sorts of Nintendo related stuff in it, Nintendo ended up actually issuing takedowns on a bunch of things on that game. Even looking into flight simulation for a time most payware addons avoided American Airlines like the plague because they were fairly strict about selling their IP I believe. So while Dovetail are strict they do have good reason to want everything licensed, because places can go after you.
Nothing on the Workshop would be in much threat, keep in mind it's mostly scenarios and a few routes, nothing much in terms of liveries or assets. As for other places it's up to them, you can certainly take a gamble that companies aren't going to care about it. Other websites are smaller, they aren't going to be noticed as easily for one thing. While not a set legal line like a lot of people think there's places that draw the line at selling, so freeware doesn't tend to be as strict.
Now DTG are awful because they are trying to protect their relationship with TOC's! Wonder what their next crime will be?
I clearly didn’t accuse them of a crime.
My point is setting up and running a sharing service is entirely possible. They’ve done it, they currently do it, but in this case they don’t want to. Ask yourself why?
Sure, it would need to be controlled. There would obviously need to be clear T&Cs about what’s allowed and what isn’t, but simply taking the default line of “I love DTG, they can do no wrong” every single thread doesn’t do anybody any favours.
1. We’re never all going to agree, as you already know.
2. DTG has the right to change their behavior. That doesn’t make them inconsistent.
3. DTG’s decision is in DTG’s best interest.
4. Everyone doesn’t have DTG’s best interest in mind.
TLDR: DTG not doing what you want doesn’t make them wrong.
They don’t do it because they don’t want to. That should be enough of a reason without expecting them to justify their decision.
Well if you read all my posts you would see I have never said they can do no wrong, conversely I am not in DTG is the devil incarnate camp. My comment was also slightly tongue in cheek!
But, how do you know they haven't agreed it as part of the licence conditions? You make assumptions without knowing the facts, which to be honest are nothing to do with us anyway it is between two commercial partners.
Your argument seems to be that it’s a crime against us for them to not set up and run a sharing service.
Again, just because something is possible, it doesn’t make it right.
Let’s please stop suggesting that just because it’s ok in our eyes, DTG should think and act the same as us.
They have the right to make their own mind up, they have, and it’s childish for us to get upset if we dislike what they decided.
I actually don’t care what they do - I don’t play the game much anymore anyway! ;-) As I’ve said before they stream so much that it’s so much easier to get a train sim fix without exposure to any bugs or costs!
you’re right theorganist - I don’t know what their licensing conditions are. My interest in this thread today started with the implication that other devs were playing fast and loose with licensing, copyright or trademark terms, whereas DTG were playing absolutely fairly. I certainly don’t believe the first bit, but from a psychological perspective it’s really interesting to see the interactions triggered when one suggests that different positions may exist.
We’ve even seen it suggested that it isn’t “morally right” to set up a sharing service for train liveries! There’s a certain irony there I feel.
I’m sorry, but you’re reading things I’ve never written.
Now you’re just trolling. Try quoting the entire paragraph instead of two words.
So is it morally wrong for UKTS to do what they do? Are you suggesting it’s illegal? Again I don’t have an opinion on one way or the other.
I don’t have any authority in that matter. (But let’s keep in mind that there’s the concept of relative morality, and then there’s absolute morality. What may be considered moral to one person might not be moral for another.)
Again, not a lawyer.
For someone who apparently doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other, you’ve appeared to take the opposing side in this discussion, friend.
Can we agree our discussion has run its course, and move on?
Certainly FeralKitty - I simply took exception to the way the thread was going with the implication that Giants Software and Auran were not playing by “the rules” and were somehow in the wrong. My intent was simply to point out that they have taken a different track than DTG, nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for a polite debate.
I think you miss the point of the workshop, and of workshop wednesday. The workshop SHOULD only have DLC licensed and published by DTG, nothing third party and certainly everything available through steam. WW specifically has said recently that only licensed content will be included
On the point of hosting 3rd party content which may or may not be in infringement of copyright, whilst not technically illegal (any more than the yahoo mail post above) it would certainly be possible that UKTS be contacted by an IP holder and asked to remove content from it's hosting, happens to YouTube and Facebook thousands of times a day I believe.
But this all goes back to whether the IP holder bothers to press the case. Some will, many won't
Thanks for the clarification on Workshop Wednesday - I didn’t know that. Yes that’s my understanding of third party mod sites also.
Purely conjecture - Maybe DTG legal council fell short signing the current licensing agreements, instead of facilitating their business, they hamstrung it. Now they have to live by and put the best light given that reality. This may not be correct, but that's the way I would bet...
This is about people they HAVEN'T got licensing agreements with...
That is one part of it. The other to which I refer is older liveries for licensed Roads.
older liveries they don't have licensing agreements with presumably, like Virgin or Arriva neither of which hold permission to run the trains, so they're not likely to want their logos on them any more
Well that could explain why we got zero GWR content. Great Western Railway is probably one of the best in the u.k and I enjoyed playing it in tsw. It's a shame we won't be getting any new content for that anytime soon
I wouldnt expect to get the TOC. Just the stock.
Stock has liveries, liveries have IP owners. DTG won't put out a blank train just to have the train in game
The option of putting in lookalike trains and routes and letting the community mod them with realism mods is an interesting one. The only thing missing would be any inside information/access DTG get with the licences, would the inner workings of the trains be as easy to know about without that access? If they get help with layouts and things like that it might be useful but there are still plenty of modders who do it with google images/youtube/trips around and do a great job.
If the licences are starting to expire and they have to pull content from sale as a result that is another harm of going the licenced route. I think the Pendalino was withdrawn until it emerged again in the WCML South route in a new Avanti skin? Odd why they couldn't just keep it on sale with a generic skin on though.
Depends on who they go the license for the shape of the train with... The train outline is also the property of somebody (or company) so the terms of that may have been with Virgin. Conjecture
They addressed it in one of the streams. They could easily patch the licensed content out, and replace it with a generic skin. The problem is that this would also affect existing users, which already own the route. For those the licensed content (which they have every right to continue using) would also be replaced. Thus they rather choose to pull it of sale and possibly rewamp it, and re-release it later under different product id.
Sam's example of the "first person shooter" and the gun manufacturers is a solid one, but also a little different because the devs themselves were the ones who included the unlicensed stuff.
I think this is a better example from the good ol' U S of A that the Brits here likely aren't as aware of as part of the, "Make it look similar but not infringing, and let the modders do what they want with it." position coming crashing down here in the US with a video game.
The games in question are the NCAA Football (and basketball) series from EA Sports. College sports, especially football and basketball are big money and big sports here in the US because we prefer our elite athletes 18 years old and unpaid. Well, for years, and years and years NCAA Football would have fully licensed conferences and schools, but due to NCAA rules, players can not accept money for their likeness or talents in any way (it's a terrible exploitative system, I know). So the makers of the game would create a roster of players for each team that was a near exact match for each real life player on that team. The number was the same, same height, weight, race, etc. Only they were given a generic name and the face of the player was generic as well. The game would then also have a convenient system to allow players to edit rosters and change names and things and then download someone else's roster and use it in their game. I think you can see where this is going.
Well this went on for decades and NCAA Football was yearly one of the top selling games in the US making EA Sports millions and millions and millions. Until one day some former players got together and decided to stand up for their rights and make legal challenges to the rules around these things and having their likeness used in game. They sued EA Sports and the NCAA for using their likenesses without their permission in the games. This was in 2013. The result was that one of the top 5 selling games of each year was discontinued by EA and to this day is no longer made, and they ended up settling with the players for $60 Million. It wasn't just the fact that they made players in the game that were almost 1:1 the same but with different names and faces, it was also that they facilitated users changing those names easily and then being able to easily use those shared changes in game.
I did enjoy playing the ncaa games. I just wish the NCAA would finally pay the players
Same on both counts. I really miss the College Hoops 2K series.
PES (Pro Evolution Soccer) has an in-game editor to put real names and shirts and logos on unlicensed teams. Konami doesn´t endorse it, but you get the idea.
Separate names with a comma.