Illegal mods, steer clear of them. Simracing604, we stand with you too.

[Paul Glover]

 

[Mekonrider]

Would it be an idea for RD to stop hosting assets for stolen content? So, no skins for ripped cars, no AI lines or CSP night settings for ripped tracks?

I find it quite perplexing that RD (quite rightly) removes ripped content, but then in the same breath makes some of these 'mods' better by providing embelishments. I know a lot of the time these addons are simply an attempt to polish a turd, but even so, as a community we shouldn't be making these rips more appealing.

I guess people need to stop posting physics fixes etc for Simdream content. Their work is crap and other people shouldn't fix it.

 

[maranello78]

if people did more research before buying mods, the issue would be gone. If there are no money to be made, they have no incentive to steal other people's content and sell it as their own

I agree with you, no money no problems

 

[BillGuy]

Maybe someone of you here knows... What I do not get is why a "company" lets say, which they are in a sense, can cause strikes carried out by Google/YouTube when there is not evidence of fraud???

I thought they can only do claims like with copyrighted music, which causes your video be uneligible for ads and monetarization. Strikes are like with twitch when you violate the rules of the platform. This can ofc be reported from the outside, but why can a business do that? Like they just say this and that is illegal and Google immediately pulls out strikes without checking? Is there no review system? Will they strike asap and review after and remove if needed?

This practice really does not make any sense as it would mean that censorship is possible on YouTube. So also governments or others could make videos disappear if they feel there is an opinion called out they do not like.

The thing you have to remember is that the mechanisms at play here are not actually legal actions. They are actions within the confines of YouTube’s platform.

Yes, YouTube has their copyright infringement platform in place because of laws and almost certainly bases most of it off the contents of the U.S. DMCA and other actual legal principles. However, simply “making a report” of a copyright violation at YouTube is only a YouTube action. Because of this, the consequences for making false claims or otherwise abusing the system also exist only within YouTube. That is the reason why bad actors are willing to weaponize false reporting of copyright infringement within YouTube. The consequences of getting caught and…perhaps more importantly….the likelihood of those consequences coming to bear, just aren’t severe enough.

 

[Squared Circle]

The thing you have to remember is that the mechanisms at play here are not actually legal actions. They are actions within the confines of YouTube’s platform.

Yes, YouTube has their copyright infringement platform in place because of laws and almost certainly bases most of it off the contents of the U.S. DMCA and other actual legal principles. However, simply “making a report” of a copyright violation at YouTube is only a YouTube action. Because of this, the consequences for making false claims or otherwise abusing the system also exist only within YouTube. That is the reason why bad actors are willing to weaponize false reporting of copyright infringement within YouTube. The consequences of getting caught and…perhaps more importantly….the likelihood of those consequences coming to bear, just aren’t severe enough.

Which - as a side-note - is the reason why it was not the brightest of ideas to hand over responsibility for legal action from the public (state, people, society - we can call it as we wish) to private companies

 

[randomcallsign]

Which - as a side-note - is the reason why it was not the brightest of ideas to hand over responsibility for legal action from the public (state, people, society - we can call it as we wish) to private companies

Not that simple. It's either the current system that removes platforms legal liability by allowing mechanisms such as the one that was exploited, or have Youtube curate every single video that was uploaded and will be uploaded.
YouTube is acting as the law demands. The law wasn't made to have YouTube in nind

 

[Zombie Boy]

 

[1302shaun]

Ilja should just release a CM patch that makes simdream cars not work. At least create the inconvenience as it t takes time to rename and move forward.

So now we are telling people what to buy and not buy, what about the people that have only just found this out and have spend there/mum and dads money on theses cars.

 

[pai]

The idea of notifying big brands about what SDD is doing, feels like "killing an insect with a bazooka". But I think it could work, and here is why.

People who have been simracing for more than a decade will remember this: when Codemasters got the F1 license, after a couple releases they sent Cease & Desist letters to the big modding groups that were releasing quality content It is believed that they achieved their target, as CTDP cancelled their work on 1994 season. But 10 years later, and with Codies knowing the situation, good F1 cars are still available for downloading at well presented sites, for free.

With that precedent, I believe that the general modding community won't be attacked, just SDD. Of course, some innocent people could get C&D notes again, but as long as it doesn't get past that, it will be fine I reckon. These guys though, they will be getting so demanded in court!

 

[Case_]

What I do not get is why a "company" lets say, which they are in a sense, can cause strikes carried out by Google/YouTube when there is not evidence of fraud???

I thought they can only do claims like with copyrighted music, which causes your video be uneligible for ads and monetarization. Strikes are like with twitch when you violate the rules of the platform. This can ofc be reported from the outside, but why can a business do that? Like they just say this and that is illegal and Google immediately pulls out strikes without checking? Is there no review system? Will they strike asap and review after and remove if needed?

Why wouldn't a business be allowed to report a copyright strike on a video? That's what the system is there for, to submit a request to remove certain content from YT based on the fact it infringes on your copyright. There are several ways of resolving the issue, and no, there is no real review system, YT is not there to decide who's right and who's wrong. They're a video platform, not a court of law. They're not held responsible for the content people upload, they just provide a platform.

It is however not legal to report a copyright strike unless you truly believe your copyrights were infringed upon, you are technically entering a legal process by doing so (you also have to provide your details and description of the infringement), and you might end up in court if the owner of the channel decides to fight your claim.

So yes, the option is there, but you better be damn sure you know what you're doing when you use it, because it can have serious consequences for either side.

Also, it is good to have in mind that while some people abuse the YT copyright system to get back at someone and "teach them a lesson", it is probably still the best thing we currently have to deal with the copyright issues, and it the vast majority of cases, it works as it's supposed to. It just gets abused in a minority of cases, which obviously you tend to hear a lot about as they tend to blow up big and people feel strongly about them, for obvious reasons. You don't hear about the 10000 cases (in fact probably a lot more) where the system worked as intended, you hear about that 1 case where it was abused. (But that doesn't mean the system couldn't be improved or revised, it certainly could.)

 

[Wolf_XII]

Now isn't that interesting......there is neither an adress nor a prompt asking for allowing the use of scripts/cookies on their site...now that would be violating the DSVGO/GDPR.....interesting.

Now they aren't a EU member state, which would make the latter part illegal but the question is, what does the moldavian law say about that? And if Moldavia trades with the EU they need to accept certain parts of the rules......
I know that both in Germany and the EU it is illegal to have a site, or in fact even pulish a Leaflet without an Impressum/Imprint. Don't know about Moldavia, but given my experience in certain eastern European Countries (Hungary and Serbia, the latter before EU membership) Corruption and bypassing the law are rife there.

@Bobby Pennington fully agree on Cancel Culture, we need to keep it's proponents out of our communities. Sadly a bit of gatekeeping is both necessary and healthy, to keep out those that would destroy our communities for their own gain.

Hopefully something is able to be done about "Team". This "team" is the reason why the original F1 Classics site closed its doors. This team has been doing this for years and they have not been able to be shut down and people still buy their content. A few modders have quite modding as their content was taken from rF1, F1C etc converted to AC then the "team" claims it as their own, and strikes down the hard work of the original modders.



The CART 1995 mod is 100% the iDT rF1 mod. We did get it taken down for a bit, but then they put it back up. The "team" is from a country that it is difficult to file a cease and desist. Their Endurance mods is 100% Forza (Lola-Mazda LMP2) and Enduracers rF1-rF2 mod.

As much as I love the modding community in games, it is situations like this is why developers are moving away from removing modding from their games. And I 100% don't blame them from it.

Partially, in part certain devs, like those owned by EA, like Dice moved away from it to avoid the competition. Remember up to BF 2142 modding was great and it was the thing that made 1942, Vietnam and Battlefield 2 really popular. But the thing is, if a modding team makes a better "addon" for your game than your own team, you both look foolish and loose a lot of money. As why would anyone something for money that is worse than the free offer.

How those chaps at SimDream are able to take down simracing forums, like f1classics for example, or legitimate youtube channels is beyond me. But it speaks for both wordpress and youtube more clearly than pictures.

Well the problem is that Yotube doesn't care, a lot of the mechanisms hurting us now were implemented to improve the way Big Tech, including Alphabet/Google can influence the generation of public opnion and therefore policy.
They made the flagging of content easier and automated the process to strike down those they see as their political opponents or those having any opinion that runs counter their official narrative.
What we see here is what Alphabet/Google regard as acceptable collateral damage for the power they gain. One of the tools favoured by the cancel culture that @Bobby Pennington mentioned is exactly this, this false copyright striking to destroy people's incomes.
Enforcement of any policy in this regard has been exceedingly lopsided, whoever is on the side that Alphabet/Google sees as theirs, is fine..........well as long as Alphabet/Google thinks they are useful, if not, or if you have an opinion running coutner their narrative........well, you get hit with the biggest hammer they got, and you're gone.

There have also been suspicious cases of channels locked due to alleged hacking, see Arch (used to be Arch Warhammer)'s Channel being locked out a few months ago.

Similar things happened to the creator of the Astartes Fan Movie, In December 2019 there was a mass purge of channels including archival and documentary channels.
Monetization has been extremely limited and many channels favouring topics that the Youtube Leadership and Admins does not like have been completely demonetized, not just political, but anything covering military topics, conflicts studies, history, independent news, crypto mining, independent tech and so on and so forth......

The algorythm has been changed so that it favours "authoritative sources" which in clear means the mainstream media or corporate channels.

Don't look to youtube for help, they only act once it's sufficiently bad for optics and only then.

Susan Wojcicki has sacrificed Youtube's profitability over the last years to push certain narratives, and I don't think it's going to be better. Youtube is past it's prime, with a lot of creators starting or have already built up presences on other platforms.

Is this a reason for legal action? lol i guess not, but really wish it would...
View attachment 452305

I don't think so, but I think the contract would be void, because there is no contracting party. They have to disclose who they are for the contract to be valid. I mean otherwise they could be for example underage.....a contract needs to be betwen two legal persons (which in the case of a person is a natural person).
The problem with this is that this is essentially a contract with nobody.
Not a lawyer though....just know a bit of german contract law....sooo pinch of salt.

 

[AccAkut]

The idea of notifying big brands about what SDD is doing, feels like "killing an insect with a bazooka". But I think it could work, and here is why.

People who have been simracing for more than a decade will remember this: when Codemasters got the F1 license, after a couple releases they sent Cease & Desist letters to the big modding groups that were releasing quality content It is believed that they achieved their target, as CTDP cancelled their work on 1994 season. But 10 years later, and with Codies knowing the situation, good F1 cars are still available for downloading at well presented sites, for free.

With that precedent, I believe that the general modding community won't be attacked, just SDD. Of course, some innocent people could get C&D notes again, but as long as it doesn't get past that, it will be fine I reckon. These guys though, they will be getting so demanded in court!

And thing is, as long as we do this for free and on our own free time, car manufacturers etc don't care, or rather appreciate the attention. If it's not their newest models, even getting a car licenced can be welcomed and easy (iirc Ford UK offered LFS a number of vintage licences back in ..2008?, after a fan simply asked). It changes the moment we do it for profit.

 

[BillyBobSenna]

I am a racing photographer and frequently post photos of cars I shoot on the web for free. Thousands of people do this. I don’t believe this is illegal. How is this different from someone making a mod and giving it away for free? It’s the same, correct? I think the problem comes in when you try to charge for it and you don’t have the legal authority?

 

[aphidgod]

Just seen today, just now, more skins for their 2020 F1 mod, We do not support that people, but we can put skins here, I mean, what the..

I tried bringing this up a couple years ago with RD, there have long been many mods hosted here which are associated with ripped content. They didn't seem to care as long as the actual ripped files weren't hosted here. I'm sure that has helped legitimize these mods and "modders" over the years.

 

[Joshua Prematta]

I am a racing photographer and frequently post photos of cars I shoot on the web for free. Thousands of people do this. I don’t believe this is illegal. How is this different from someone making a mod and giving it away for free? It’s the same, correct? I think the problem comes in when you try to charge for it and you don’t have the legal authority?

It would possibly be a better comparison to compare a mod to something like a painting, or sculpture over a photograph, but I could be incorrect. Each painting or sculpture or model takes time to create, and provides infinite variability between similar examples. To perfectly re-create a model, polygon for polygon is impossible outside of the infinite monkey theorem, and is often a clear indication of stolen content. From my understanding, the use of someone else's model without their consent is illegal on its own for violating IP rights, but selling for profit is what opens most doors for legal action.

 

[HaloInR3v3rs3]

I am a racing photographer and frequently post photos of cars I shoot on the web for free. Thousands of people do this. I don’t believe this is illegal. How is this different from someone making a mod and giving it away for free? It’s the same, correct? I think the problem comes in when you try to charge for it and you don’t have the legal authority?

As a racing photographer myself, the issues lies within someone making a profit off of your work. For someone to use a photograph I've taken for personal use, I have no issues with. Now when that someone decides to market that photograph as their own without giving credit, or trying to make profit off of it is where the issue lies. You can site your photo as intellectual property by the DMCA.

SDD is blatantly harvesting work from other people, packaging it as their own, and attempting to make a profit from it.

 

[Wolf_XII]

I am a racing photographer and frequently post photos of cars I shoot on the web for free. Thousands of people do this. I don’t believe this is illegal. How is this different from someone making a mod and giving it away for free? It’s the same, correct? I think the problem comes in when you try to charge for it and you don’t have the legal authority?

Yeah it's basically selling something that you don't legally own, which would be a virtual form of fencing/receiving or selling stolen goods.

Remember Ebaum's World?
They got into hot water a few years ago with the photo community for pretty much stealing photographs with watermarks removed and posted it as theirs.

Same goes for flash animations, back when they were a thing.

Copyright is pretty inflexible, as that would make pretty much every use illegal even the transformative, which is why some use Creative Commons with the BY (Attribution), NC (Noncermcial) and SA (Share alike) clause. Which means that any other artist is free to use it in their works even transformative ones, as long as they attribute and share their work as free as you do. If they want to charge money they'll have to ask.
You can, if you want to also use the ND (No Derivatives) Clause to lock out transformative works.

 

[TorpTheTorpedo]

Hey all not sure if anybody has gotten these pics already but I was able to get into sim dreams twitter and has some post of cars like ferrari being able if we need more proof

 

[BillGuy]

I am a racing photographer and frequently post photos of cars I shoot on the web for free. Thousands of people do this. I don’t believe this is illegal. How is this different from someone making a mod and giving it away for free? It’s the same, correct? I think the problem comes in when you try to charge for it and you don’t have the legal authority?

I think the principle at play with this particular issue is that you’re talking about the aesthetic design of a product which may not in itself be copyrightable as a creative work. The product itself, however, may be. Your photograph is not reproducing car X. It’s reproducing its design or likeness within the physical form of a totally different type of product: your image.

In the U.S. we have the legal instrument of design patents. From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

In a design patent application, the subject matter which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and not the article itself....
...In general terms, a "utility patent" protects the way an article is used and works, while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks.

When you take this "definition" into consideration, your photograph doesn't have the appearance or ornamentation of the car. It has the appearance of a photograph.

 

[Jason Mullin]

So now we are telling people what to buy and not buy, what about the people that have only just found this out and have spend there/mum and dads money on theses cars.

I see it differently.
Stolen is stolen doesn’t matter if it’s a mod car or real car. Mum and Dad would have to buy them a legal car. Bit extreme for a video game mod yeah? I know a lot of people have put extreme hours into their work so again, I see it differently.