Ethical

[Unkownsoldier]

I would like to have a discussion on whether content should belong to developers, the server it was made for, or Graal as a whole for everyone to use. If content is free for use throughout Graal, or even used on a single server, should the content have accreditation tagged to it for the developer of said content? Graal has had a lot of content floating around and people always claimed this is theirs, or that's someone else's, etc. There has been theft and accusations of theft, is it even stealing? I want your opinion on how content should used, organized, and presented. I know the current content system has worked fine for the longest time, but don't you think people should receive credit for their projects? Seeing as most of the time there isn't any credit given. Discuss.

[Fulg0reSama]

I wish there was an A and B option in this poll. Because that's how I feel.

To the anonymous repper:

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Why do you keep busting on this guy? You have no meaning full opinions.

I'm sorry you feel this way, I did not even intend to "bust" on this guy with this message, I merely stated I wish there could be an option like that, it's nothing towards him, more importantly, I said it's how I feel on the subject, meaning I was saying that I feel that I think the way ownership and permission of content towards servers should be mutual between owner and creators. I apologize If I've offended you, mystery man. Lastly, it's meaningful.

[MattKan]

The server who the content is made for owns the content. However it's simply common courtesy to ask the developers before you release the content for everybody to use. It's not a law though.

If a developer makes content for a server and then decides that they don't want to work there anymore, however, then the developer doesn't have a right to demand that it all be removed so he or she can use it elsewhere.

[salesman]

I think we should keep track of the number of times someone tries to "revive" a project. After the third failure, the content should be released freely for anyone to use.

[Crono]

should be for the specific server it was intended for imoooo

[Geno]

when you upload to a server the content becomes graalonlines content. if they dont like that another server steals graphics from another server then they can choose to remove it. there is only a handfull of active servers and some content is shared between some servers.

i dont see the problem, for servers under development it really does not matter because they will never become hosted and if they do they die within a week.

there are no ethics involved. if you want to keep your custom graphics then start your own game. uploading them to a server that you rent, not own, leaves them up for grabs.

[TSAdmin]

These options are rather limited, so I'm not voting for one. What it should be (in MY opinion) is:
You create it and upload it to a server, the server has exclusive rights to it. That includes everyone who is staff on the server. Kind of like the "Creative commons" law, but restricted only to fellow staff. Ultimately, due to it being hosted on a server owned by GraalOnline, the content would instantly be property of GraalOnline, but not exclusively unless all creators of the combined content resign their positions (assuming they had a pass-down system in place). Example of what comes of it is Era. All original content creators of the past are gone so all intellectual and actual content related to Era now belongs to GraalOnline. Anything made today is considered a contribution to the GraalOnline owned property, and creators merely have a right to alter said content, but not claim it as their own once uploaded. Removal of unused content being at the discretion of the manager at the time, but in my opinion should be with PWA permission or at least "archived" rather than actually removed.

[cbk1994]

It doesn't have to be so complicated. If you put your code or graphics or levels on a server, it's the server's to use. If you want it to be used on other servers as well, then post them in the code gallery or appropriate section of the forums first.

If a server falls, there's nothing wrong with using their content. It's better there be a popular server on Graal using content from a dead project than just a dead project.

[Draenin]

I voted for the last one because I think there should be some kind of public depository for public-use resources besides what we have on the forums. However, I do not agree with the entire statement presented in the poll.



Everyone has a copyright on the content they publish, purely because they are the creators of the original work. But they also pass on copyrights to Linux Cyberjoueurs when they publish the work, which technically means it could be used on any server if CJ administration needs to do so.

However, Graal has some policies in place which protect users from having their works used in multiple places without permission, and that usually comes through enforcement by globals. However, content still gets stolen frequently, because it's difficult to start a server from scratch, especially with the limited amount of resources the basic Graal.exe client comes with.

The best solution would be to provide some place similar to the website's screenshot galleries where users could start to build up a database of resources for public use. Or else start including stuff like sprite and animation packs for use by the community that are downloadable through the client.

[SlikRick]

I voted for it becomes the property of the server, not the property of the developer. This is because if there was no central "ownership" of the content, besides Cyberjoureurs, then all servers would be the same because the content is free to be used all over Graal. All of the "modern" servers would look almost identical to Era, all RPG servers would look like Zodiac and Graal Kingdoms, etc.

[DustyPorViva]

I feel that UC servers should return the work to the developers. But it's a subjective thing. Servers like Delteria have been worked on for a long time, it wouldn't be fair for the staff to suddenly reclaim their work. However some unknown server that's been worked on for less than a year that has gotten no where? Sure, let the devs reclaim their work. It's not fair for some server that existed for 3 months and accomplished nothing, to deprive the developers of their hard work while the owner who sometimes does absolutely nothing runs off with it and then uses it for their own reasons a few months later. Especially since most of these UC servers are forgettable, and the developer may want to use their work to pursue things other than Graal(maybe making their own game).

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I feel that UC servers should return the work to the developers.

Actually I thought that was already the case, for servers that haven't made it to the public in any form, could actually do that.

[papajchris]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I feel that UC servers should return the work to the developers. But it's a subjective thing. Servers like Delteria have been worked on for a long time, it wouldn't be fair for the staff to suddenly reclaim their work. However some unknown server that's been worked on for less than a year that has gotten no where? Sure, let the devs reclaim their work. It's not fair for some server that existed for 3 months and accomplished nothing, to deprive the developers of their hard work while the owner who sometimes does absolutely nothing runs off with it and then uses it for their own reasons a few months later. Especially since most of these UC servers are forgettable, and the developer may want to use their work to pursue things other than Graal(maybe making their own game).

But on the opposite side of the spectrum, you might have someone working for you, who gets mad and deletes all of "their" work. Or down the road demands you no longer use their work. That wouldn't be right either. If I hire someone to my server, they shouldn't be allowed to just quit and take their work with them. Furthermore, many servers are beginning to pay some of their workers. What if you paid me to make you a tileset, and after being paid, I say I want to use it on another server.

For a while on Zodiac, it was only me and Jerret logging on, until we eventually got a break. But at that point in time, we were going nowhere, and we had been going nowhere for a long time.

If people don't want certain people having the rights to their work, they shouldn't make it for them. It'd be like giving money to a charity and asking for it back at a later date.

[fowlplay4]

Unless a server is actively using it I believe it should be the creator of the graphic who should be the one who decides who can use it. If the creator of a graphic can't be contacted then it's the server's choice.

I've seen a couple cases where a GAT decided to leave and get his graphics used else where only to have someone else make a complaint to get it removed because it was technically uploaded to their server first and only "planned" to use it.

[Demisis_P2P]

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

Unless a server is actively using it I believe it should be the creator of the graphic who should be the one who decides who can use it. If the creator of a graphic can't be contacted then it's the server's choice.

I've seen a couple cases where a GAT decided to leave and get his graphics used else where only to have someone else make a complaint to get it removed because it was technically uploaded to their server first and only "planned" to use it.

^this basically sums up how I feel on the issue as well.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

Unless a server is actively using it I believe it should be the creator of the graphic who should be the one who decides who can use it. If the creator of a graphic can't be contacted then it's the server's choice.

I've seen a couple cases where a GAT decided to leave and get his graphics used else where only to have someone else make a complaint to get it removed because it was technically uploaded to their server first and only "planned" to use it.

Likewise.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by papajchris

But on the opposite side of the spectrum, you might have someone working for you, who gets mad and deletes all of "their" work. Or down the road demands you no longer use their work. That wouldn't be right either. If I hire someone to my server, they shouldn't be allowed to just quit and take their work with them. Furthermore, many servers are beginning to pay some of their workers. What if you paid me to make you a tileset, and after being paid, I say I want to use it on another server.

For a while on Zodiac, it was only me and Jerret logging on, until we eventually got a break. But at that point in time, we were going nowhere, and we had been going nowhere for a long time.

If people don't want certain people having the rights to their work, they shouldn't make it for them. It'd be like giving money to a charity and asking for it back at a later date.

I'm talking about servers that close down.

Like I said, it's subjective. It's not a simple yes or no answer for something that can have so many variables.

[MattKan]

Moral to the story:

Respect your developers. Don't back stab them after they do nice work for you. Treat them with kindness, and don't take their work for granted. If you follow textbook rules, you'll have fine standings with the management of GraalOnline. But since Graal is a community driven game, you'll regret your awful standings within the community, so it's actually pretty important.

[SlikRick]

Well when it comes down it, ethics is from a person's point of view. What some people would consider ethical, others might not see it as such.

[Unkownsoldier]

Originally Posted by SlikRick

Well when it comes down it, ethics is from a person's point of view. What some people would consider ethical, others might not see it as such.

Ethics are established by society, you might have a different opinion on ethics but ethics are the same for all, it is just your choice to follow them or not based on who you are. That is why I have brought up a discussion, to see what is the most ethical choice based on the majorities opinion. Sloppy yes, but as close as accurate as we can get.

[SlikRick]

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

Ethics are established by society, you might have a different opinion on ethics but ethics are the same for all, it is just your choice to follow them or not based on who you are. That is why I have brought up a discussion, to see what is the most ethical choice based on the majorities opinion. Sloppy yes, but as close as accurate as we can get.

Ethic guidelines are established by society, but each person's view on ethics is learned from others and through experience. What I view as ethical, others might have a different point of view on it.

[Unkownsoldier]

As I said ethics are defined by society, so you either have an ethical standpoint or you do not. If you disagree with an ethical reasoning, your reasoning although right to you is still unethical. So yes you might have a different view point, but it is unethical unless it agrees with society. The word "ethics" is used improperly by many, you don't have personal ethics, you either align yourself with the already defined ethics or you do not. They aren't personalized (individually) but culturally for sure.

[SlikRick]

Guidelines do not equal defining

[Fulg0reSama]

You know... Considering the topic of this thread was to discuss this community's general set of ethics towards this particular problem (that being who should own content)... I'm not seeing a lot of that anymore, I'm now seeing more... Amateur Philosophy class.

Cut the god damned semantics.


(Thanks to Crono for using this before me)

[Unkownsoldier]

Originally Posted by SlikRick

Guidelines do not equal defining

I think you are getting ethics and personal values confused. Ethics are defined by your peers for what is the right view point and the incorrect view point (a consensus not individualized). Personal values are your personal opinions on right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

You know... Considering the topic of this thread was to discuss this community's general set of ethics towards this particular problem (that being who should own content)... I'm not seeing a lot of that anymore, I'm now seeing more... Amateur Philosophy class.

Cut the god damned semantics.


(Thanks to Crono for using this before me)

Please read the title of the thread. Maybe it is not relevant to the OP but I am not against threads morphing into other conversations (and I am sure others aren't either)

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

Please read the title of the thread. Maybe it is not relevant to the OP but I am not against threads morphing into other conversations (and I am sure others aren't either)

I'm all good and fine with that as well, but this is petty and you know it.

The general consensus btw, seems that people would prefer that if it was the server that the content was created for as the property owner.

Why would you want it to "morph" into something that's just pointless.

[TheGodAngelo]

very interesting thread!
but personally i like think every thing I've ever made for graal should be given away freely for anyone to use and credit means little to me, but as someone who's had something put on iPhone that is currently being CHARGED for. I was very outraged. It offends my sense of creative FREEdom. (my creativity comes to me freely and i give it away freely, it should never have a price)

Personally, i think if you make something for a server than it becomes that servers property, part that servers identity. If you don't want someone else having ownership over something you've made than you shouldn't even bother developing for graal in the first place. will +rep for this thread though

[Draenin]

What do you guys think of a public resource gallery, though?

Might be a great asset to people starting out, or those looking to heavily modify stuff and turn it into something new.

[Unkownsoldier]

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

very interesting thread!
but personally i like think every thing I've ever made for graal should be given away freely for anyone to use and credit means little to me, but as someone who's had something put on iPhone that is currently being CHARGED for. I was very outraged. It offends my sense of creative FREEdom. (my creativity comes to me freely and i give it away freely, it should never have a price)

Personally, i think if you make something for a server than it becomes that servers property, part that servers identity. If you don't want someone else having ownership over something you've made than you shouldn't even bother developing for graal in the first place. will +rep for this thread though

I agree that using other peoples content to make money is morally wrong (and not being compensated), but unfortunately it is legal in this case. I mean people pay for Graal so they can play other peoples content but that's indirect because you could be paying for zone or a bunch of other content but nothing specific. While on the iPhone games you are buying hats and items directly - things that have been made by actual players. But most people know this going into development (except for Vinka -lol).

Originally Posted by Draenin

What do you guys think of a public resource gallery, though?

Might be a great asset to people starting out, or those looking to heavily modify stuff and turn it into something new.

Dustys free image/tiles thread is great, but I agree that we should have one place where new developers can look for pre-made content (scripts, images, levels, sounds, ganis) and be able to edit them without getting in trouble. We have the code-gallery etc, but if we had all of it in one place and each item was clearly defined for what its purpose is, it could be a very useful resource.

[SlikRick]

Originally Posted by Draenin

What do you guys think of a public resource gallery, though?

Might be a great asset to people starting out, or those looking to heavily modify stuff and turn it into something new.

This would be great to help out the community as a whole, and especially people looking to create their own servers and need a starting point. Although it would have to be watched closely to make sure content that is on a server is not added to it without permission from the current Manager.

[gravator]

As was mentioned by others, at what point would the content of any given server available for free use? Some servers have been untouched for years because there is no one left that originally tried to get the server up and running, would the content just fade into history never to be used again only because there's a chance that someone may work on it later and nobody else is allowed to give it out?

There are people that feel that content made by one individual can be given out by that very person, but we all saw how that was delt with concerning Bomy Island content, Konidias made many things for the server and according to some it should have been alright for him to share the files freely since he DID create all of that particular content, but he was forced to remove it since the new manager (how many years ago?) did not want that work to appear anywhere else.

Now that server and all of the content are just stagnating and there does not seem to be any work, and i still doubt that anyone would be allowed to use the content because some one or many people have the mindset that the server could come back someday and it is restricted content not to be spread to other servers.


I would suggest that a limit on server inactivity be put into place as some way to encourage work, if your server is not showing good solid progress within a certain time, it's all up for free use if you want it to be or not.

[DARKVILLIN]

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

Unless a server is actively using it I believe it should be the creator of the graphic who should be the one who decides who can use it. If the creator of a graphic can't be contacted then it's the server's choice.

I've seen a couple cases where a GAT decided to leave and get his graphics used else where only to have someone else make a complaint to get it removed because it was technically uploaded to their server first and only "planned" to use it.

^ This is true...

[Geno]

Originally Posted by DARKVILLIN

^ This is true...

^ This is true...

[DARKVILLIN]

Originally Posted by Geno

^ This is true...

^Which is also true

[Starfire2001]

Originally Posted by DARKVILLIN

^Which is also true

^I'm not sure if I agree with this.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by gravator

I would suggest that a limit on server inactivity be put into place as some way to encourage work, if your server is not showing good solid progress within a certain time, it's all up for free use if you want it to be or not.

I agree with most of what you said until you got to this part.

While I am a big proponent of sharing content that any server developer can use, it would be a big mistake to take apart servers just for 'spare parts.' Seeing as I own a server and I haven't had the money to renew it for a while, I would be very angry if my creation were suddenly dismantled and redistributed without my permission.

However, I would very much approve of some kind of 'server morgue' where people can deposit their resources for others if they're giving up on a server project altogether. But really, it's better to develop new stuff for the community instead of always trying to dig up content from abandoned servers. We can't be scavengers forever.