I'm sorry, Romans 13? Isn't it crystal clear why the Counsel of Nicea made sure to include that bit of 'wisdom'?
Read Kant. Read Arendt, especially Eichmann in Jerusalem to get an idea of the follies of abdicating your autonomy to authority.
And have this discussion in an appropriate forum.
How very simultaneously hypocritical and patronizing. You say this discussion is off topic, but you are the one starting a theological debate when I explicitly said I wanted to avoid one.
I should point out that:
1. The Romans had a history of persecuting Christians. Despite this, the book of Romans, which advocates obedience to the governing authorities, was included. Hardly what you would expect if the attending bishops had ulterior motives.
2. No human theory of morality can stand on its own. Kant may be right that morality must be grounded in an intrinsic good, but the categorical imperative doesn't cut it. If you've read Kant, I think you already know why.
3. Eichmann's complicity in deporting so many Jews to extermination camps clearly violates divine law. Christians are not obligated to obey human law if doing so contravenes divine law. See Daniel 3, for example. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego disobeyed a direct command from the king to worship a gold idol. From the perspective of human law, they should clearly be sentenced to death. But from the perspective of divine law, they did nothing wrong, and divine law trumps human law where the two are in conflict. Blindly abdicating automomy to human authority is foolish, but obedience to human law where it does not contravene divine law is a Christian duty.
I think this is going off topic a bit too far. I believe the OP is asking for one further followup clarification from @TrentOster which I have pasted below.
We spent over a year putting together the agreements for the Enhanced Editions of the games. We have a multi-company agreement with all the stakeholders and we have the rights to distribute existing content and create derivative works for commercial release. As a modder, or player, of the game you can mod the game to increase your enjoyment of the game. You however cannot sell mods, as you do not have a commercial exploitation agreement with all the stakeholders. So, in summation, mod away, install mods, have fun. Discuss great mods in the forums, suggest future mod ideas to the development community. Mods are awesome and we love to see how our community can improve this already awesome series of games.
-Trent
Thanks for the information Trent! I was hoping you might see this thread. Based on what you've said, my concern about Beamdog's right to create derivative works from the original game is resolved.
I do hope to obtain clarification on one point. Based on what you said, it's clear Beamdog can create whatever mods they want, but the original versions of some of the mods being made compatible with Beamdog's games were originally created without permission from the original copyright holders before Beamdog even existed.
Just to be clear, do your "rights to distribute existing content" also include the right to distribute and create derivative works from these unauthorized mods that were made for the original ("original" as in before Beamdog made changes to them) games?
Here's the motivation behind this follow-up question: If, say someone made a mod before Beamdog existed without getting permission, the actual copyright holders may technically own those unauthorized mods, but they may not have licensed the rights to those unauthorized mods to Beamdog. If this is true (and I'm not saying it is; I just don't have access to Beamdog's agreement), then it may be the case that Beamdog isn't allowed to use material (e.g. pictures, sounds, etc.) from those unauthorized mods. In this hypothetical situation, Beamdog would be able to use material from the original game in their mods, but not material from the unauthorized mods of the original, pre-Beamdog games.
Of course, I see plenty of work being done in the forums to make those unauthorized mods compatible with Beamdog's versions of the game, so it's possible Beamdog also obtained the necessary permission to do so. I just want to be sure.
But the focus of my most recent question was not about Beamdog's permission to create mods based on the original game. They clearly have that right. I'm more concerned about whether Beamdog has the right to base their mods on other mods of the original games (e.g. the non-Enhanced Editions) done by modders who may or may not have obtained permission from the copyright holders. By the way, by "copyright holder," I don't mean Beamdog, but the entities (e.g. Wotc) who had the right to license those rights to Beamdog.
No. Holding the original rights does not give one the rights to the original elements of an unauthorized derivative work. The derivative work has copyright protection for original content (but not for re-used elements from the original work).
The author of an NPC mod like Gavin has the rights to the original content of their mod. WoTC could sue the mod author to stop them from publishing the mod, since it would be considered an unauthorized derivative work of the BG1 game. However, WoTC could not legally take the mod and incorporate it into an BGEE update without permission from the author of the mod.
1. The Romans had a history of persecuting Christians. Despite this, the book of Romans, which advocates obedience to the governing authorities, was included.
The Romans did *not* have a history of persecuting Christians in AD 57. That came much later.
I wasn't talking about when the Book of Romans was written. I was talking about the date of the First Council of Nicaea, which happened in 325 AD. Grammarsalad's comment questioned the motives for including the book of Romans into the Bible. My point was that if the attending bishops did have ulterior motives for including the book of Romans, it would be to leave it out rather than to include it.
Upon further reading though, it seems the whole idea of books of the Bible being chosen at the First Council of Nicaea is an idea fabricated by Voltaire. If this is the case, the whole discussion of Nicaea is moot.
4. No human theory of morality can stand on its own.
That is an incredibly assertive statement, presented without any supporting theory or logic to back it up. I think you are very much wrong here.
We're off topic enough as is, so let me just ask you to name one human theory of morality that is without flaws. I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that there is such a theory. You don't tell someone there are green men on Mars without some kind of evidence, just as you can't assert that such a viable theory exists without at least citing one.
If I'm wrong, it should be easy for you to disprove me. Name one example of a purely secular theory of morality without flaws. I can assure you the categorical imperative is not the answer though.
But the focus of my most recent question was not about Beamdog's permission to create mods based on the original game. They clearly have that right. I'm more concerned about whether Beamdog has the right to base their mods on other mods of the original games (e.g. the non-Enhanced Editions) done by modders who may or may not have obtained permission from the copyright holders. By the way, by "copyright holder," I don't mean Beamdog, but the entities (e.g. Wotc) who had the right to license those rights to Beamdog.
No. Holding the original rights does not give one the rights to the original elements of an unauthorized derivative work. The derivative work has copyright protection for original content (but not for re-used elements from the original work).
The author of an NPC mod like Gavin has the rights to the original content of their mod. WoTC could sue the mod author to stop them from publishing the mod, since it would be considered an unauthorized derivative work of the BG1 game. However, WoTC could not legally take the mod and incorporate it into an BGEE update without permission from the author of the mod.
Excellent article. Thank you! I'm not disputing that parodies, which clearly fall under fair use, are protected by copyright.
But this fact just underscores the importance of my question. I said I was concerned about whether Beamdog has the right to base their mods on mods of the original games, and the case you just cited is why; if the authors of those existing mods have copyright protection to their work, then it's all the more reason why I should make sure Beamdog obtained the proper permission from those mod authors before making versions that are compatible with BGEE.
The other possibility is that the companies that made the game have at least partial rights to the mods insofar as they are derivative works. This is why I also need Trent to verify that such rights, if any, were licensed to Beamdog. His initial response only indicated that Beamdog had licensed the rights to the unmodded game, rather than the mods themselves.
If Trent can account for both these possibilities, which may not be mutually exclusive, then I'm satisfied and this discussion is over. I implore everyone to keep the discussion to these 2 possibilities.
Beamdog isn't making BGEE-compatible versions of mods. There are a few cases where Beamdog has obtained rights from the original mod authors to incorporate mods into the game (e.g., 1PP). In most cases, it is the original mod author (or other modders who take up the task), who make BGEE-compatible versions of mods for the original games (e.g., Gavin, BG1NPC).
Beamdog isn't making BGEE-compatible versions of mods. There are a few cases where Beamdog has obtained rights from the original mod authors to incorporate mods into the game (e.g., 1PP). In most cases, it is the original mod author (or other modders who take up the task), who make BGEE-compatible versions of mods for the original games (e.g., Gavin, BG1NPC).
This is a great point if true. I had no idea of this until you mentioned it. That goes to show that this forum is a lot more than just "a bunch of would-be weekend coders." This is a wonderful community you have here. Even Elminster recognizes that the theological discussion related to the moral part of my initial post. I'll try not to disappoint him.
I searched for evidence of this and found only this thread. Someone quoted Trent as saying he was looking into the legal issues, but there's no source for the quote and it's not clear exactly what ended up happening regarding 1PP. I'm hoping you have something more conclusive.
If you do find proof that Trent ended up getting the rights from the modder, that combined with this thread, which warns against using other people's work without permission, may well be enough for me.
Indeed. Very helpful. If he did it for 1PP, I see no reason why he wouldn't do it for other mods.
This leaves only one concern that I can think of at the moment: Did Beamdog also obtain the rights to those mods from the gaming companies? (insofar as they are derivative works of the unmodded game, the companies also hold some rights).
Trent's initial response indicated that Beamdog has at least the rights to the unmodded game. Does "existing content" (his words) also include the rights in the mod owned by the gaming companies, if any? If we resolve this, I think this discussion is over.
4. No human theory of morality can stand on its own.
That is an incredibly assertive statement, presented without any supporting theory or logic to back it up. I think you are very much wrong here.
let me just ask you to name one human theory of morality that is without flaws. I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that there is such a theory. You don't tell someone there are green men on Mars without some kind of evidence,
If I'm wrong, it should be easy for you to disprove me. Name one example of a purely secular theory of morality without flaws. I can assure you the categorical imperative is not the answer though.
This is not the first time you have started out asserting one thing, then changed your claim after being challenged. Nor the first time that you have put words in someone else's mouth that they did not say, in order to more easily challenge them. Poor form, sir.
I never said any theory of morality was flawless. You asserted without support that "no human theory of morality can stand on its own." Which I find dubious. I don't think any such system of morality needs to be grounded in the categorical imperative. Start with a couple axioms, apply rigorous logical internal consistency, and you're off to the races.
I'm not going to construct such a system here; I lack time and space to do that now, here. (But Wittgenstein did it, if you need an example.) As a matter of metaethics, such a system can stand perfectly well on its own.
No moral system flawless, so I think we can dispense with such a thought. But you can apply many different moral systems in your life simultaneously - religious mandates, political laws, cultural mores, friendly understandings, and a personal system of moral behavior. We all mix these things, every day. Each such system is flawed in its own way.
Yes, I'll concede that the word "flawless" does not prima facie mean the same as the phrase "stand on its own." But the fact is that moral theories that lack an intrinsic, objective good (such as God) cannot stand on their own and are flawed for that very reason, so I'm not sure why the difference is as important as you seem to believe.
In addition, I'd like to point out that even if a genuine mistake occurred in the conflation of "flawless" with "stand on its own," such a mistake does not imply that the mistake was intentional, as "poor form" implies. Note that I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem because you did address my arguments rather than just attacking me personally.
By the way, I also never asserted that any system of morality needs to be grounded in the categorical imperative. I only cited the categorical imperative as an indirect response to Grammarsalad, who told me to "Read Kant."
I'm going to have to respectfully decline to get into a debate on Wittgenstein without more specifics about which part of his work you're referencing.
OH MY GOD. Just don't install any mods and leave. This is a MODDING forum, not a philosophy debate! You're asking in the completely wrong place if you want to talk about the ethics of modding, given the intrinsic bias such a forum will have.
OH MY GOD. Just don't install any mods and leave. This is a MODDING forum, not a philosophy debate! You're asking in the completely wrong place if you want to talk about the ethics of modding, given the intrinsic bias such a forum will have.
I never wanted it to get into a detailed ethics discussion. I still don't. subtledoctor is the one who keeps pushing in that direction. The only remaining issue I want to talk about is whether Beamdog obtained the rights to any and all mods that were created for the pre-Beamdog versions of the games they're selling. Let's focus on that.
I already know that Beamdog obtained the rights for those mods from the modders themselves (based on that Tweet). The only part left is whether Beamdog also obtained the rights from those companies. Here's a little illustration to show what I mean.
All rights in the games Beamdog is selling: 1. Rights to the unmodded game held by the companies = Obtained (based on Trent's post in this thread) 2. Rights to mods created for the pre-Beamdog versions of the games (consists of 2A and 2B): 2A. Rights to these mods held by the modders = Obtained (based on the Tweet Elminster linked to in this thread) 2B. Rights to these mods held by the companies inso far as the mods are derivative works
But... but... but... the very companies you mention in 2B) are the same companies you describe in 1). You're not lacking any information here. You're only lacking the resolve to make your decision.
Yeah, they're the same companies, but the rights in question are different. Beamdog for sure obtained the rights to the unmodded game. Did they also obtain the rights to the mods of those games? A company can license you some content, but not all of it. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand that. I think it's fair game to ask about the status of mods when:
1. This is a modding forum 2. There's a thread warning people not to use copyright content in this same forum.
It's not legal advice for Trent Oster to confirm that. It's simply information. Legal advice is analysis about the elements of a law, which is precisely what I kept wanting to avoid, but you had other ideas. Why would you seek a moderator's help when you're the whole reason the thread deviated from the original post? I'm going to get the thread back to the topic of 2B right now, by ignoring everything you say in this thread from now on. Enough is enough with the hijacking.
But... but... but... the very companies you mention in 2B) are the same companies you describe in 1). You're not lacking any information here. You're only lacking the resolve to make your decision.
Yeah, they're the same companies, but the rights in question are different. Beamdog for sure obtained the rights to the unmodded game. Did they also obtain the rights to the mods of those games? A company can license you some content, but not all of it. I don't know how many times I have to say it before you understand that. I think it's fair game to ask about the status of mods when:
1. This is a modding forum 2. There's a thread warning people not to use copyright content in this same forum.
It's not legal advice for Trent Oster to confirm that. It's simply information. Legal advice is analysis about the elements of a law, which is precisely what I kept wanting to avoid, but you had other ideas. You wanted to derail this thread by taking it off topic, then you wanted a moderator to move the thread. From now on, I will ignore everything you say in this thread. Kindly stop the hijacking.
It seems like Trent Oster went to a considerable amount of effort and time and legal costs to obtain proper licensing for the games from WotC and other companies, as well as from modders whose work was included in the version of the games Beamdog released.
It seems pretty reasonable to conclude based on this amount of effort and time that nothing unapproved would have actually made it in, so if those hypothetical third party produced mods don't actually ship with the version of the game Beamdog is selling, there have been no lawsuits in five years alleging otherwise, and Beamdog doesn't host those mods on the Beamdog website or forums, would Beamdog be required to do anything further with those mods that they had and have nothing to do with, aren't selling, and aren't using?
Just to confirm, you are asking Trent Oster to confirm in writing here (which can be used as a legal document FYI!) that in fact, no unlicensed third party produced mods based on the original Bioware game are included in the Beamdog released versions of the game so you can play the unmodded versions of the game from Beamdog with no impact on your conscience?
Essentially it seems that you are asking for Trent to provide, or at a minimum confirm, the legal advice Beamdog got from their lawyers. I am not a lawyer so maybe I am wrong, but that is what it reads like you are asking for now.
Just to confirm, you are asking Trent Oster to confirm in writing here (which can be used as a legal document FYI!) that in fact, no unlicensed third party produced mods based on the original Bioware game are included in the Beamdog released versions of the game so you can play the unmodded versions of the game from Beamdog with no impact on your conscience?
No, actually it's much simpler. Trent said "We have a multi-company agreement with all the stakeholders and we have the rights to distribute existing content and create derivative works for commercial release."
"Existing content" clearly includes the unmodded games. I only want to know if "existing content" includes any rights the companies had (if any) in mods created by people outside the company by virtue of the mods being derivative works of the original game. The reason for this question is because the companies may have licensed the unmodded games but not the mods. (Yeah, the modders themselves also had rights to their mod, but as Elminster pointed out, Trent already worked out the details with them, which means only the companies remain).
That's it. It's a simple clarification on what existing content means. Hardly legal advice.
Just to confirm, you are asking Trent Oster to confirm in writing here (which can be used as a legal document FYI!) that in fact, no unlicensed third party produced mods based on the original Bioware game are included in the Beamdog released versions of the game so you can play the unmodded versions of the game from Beamdog with no impact on your conscience?
No, actually it's much simpler. Trent said "We have a multi-company agreement with all the stakeholders and we have the rights to distribute existing content and create derivative works for commercial release."
"Existing content" clearly includes the unmodded games. I only want to know if "existing content" includes any rights the companies had (if any) in mods created by people outside the company by virtue of the mods being derivative works of the original game. The reason for this question is because the companies may have licensed the unmodded games but not the mods. (Yeah, the modders themselves also had rights to their mod, but as Elminster pointed out, Trent already worked out the details with them, which means only the companies remain).
That's it. It's a simple clarification on what existing content means. Hardly legal advice.
But why would the companies have to license work which they did not produce? What power would such licenses hold? You already acknowledged earlier that the license and rights holders had no claim on third party original work done for mods, even when those mods as packages were derivative works. Permissions were obtained from the modders who did the original work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But why would the companies have to license work which they did not produce? What power would such licenses hold? You already acknowledged earlier that the license and rights holders had no claim on third party original work done for mods, even when those mods as packages were derivative works. Permissions were obtained from the modders who did the original work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wasn't trying to say that rights holders had no claim on third party mods. I only said it was a possibility, because the truth is I'm not sure. I believe a derivative work has to be substantially different from the original work in order to qualify for copyright protection. As to whether this is the case, I think Beamdog is in a better position than me to know this since it has the facts, which is why I want confirmation from Trent, who has investigated this issue, specifically when incorporating 1PP into the game.
It's not as if I don't believe what the developers are saying. When Trent said he had agreements with the companies to existing content, I immediately accepted that he had all the necessary rights regarding the unmodded games. I didn't even question it.
So if Trent says his investigation revealed the gaming companies do not have rights to the mods, this discussion is over, because Beamdog clearly obtained rights from the modders as Elminster's Tweet reveals.
If Trent says the companies do have partial rights (the other rights being owned by the modders who created them) in the mods and that his agreement with the companies included the rights to the mods as well as to the unmodded game, this discussion is also over.
I'm not at all doubting Trent. I just want him to clarify what he said. That's all.
Can we all just agree this is an elaborate troll job? Trent and Phil have both confirmed that the games are kosher. Not to mention that the games have been out for ... three? four? ... years and no one's sued yet. If someone had anything to sue about, they'd have done it when the games started making money. (Or, if anyone sued Beamdog settled quietly; either way I assume Beamdog's lawyers know what to do.)
Not to mention, the games went off sale for a period when there was a contract dispute with Atari. That the games came back for sale, and are still for sale now, makes it pretty clear that Beamdog's playing by the rules and their lawyers have all ducks in a row.
If this isn't good enough for the OP to install the games on his/her computer, then that's the OP's loss. At this point, there's no reason for anyone from Beamdog to respond unless the OP has a specific allegation to make. The company has answered the question as clear as possible regarding the legality of the games and their sales.
That being said, if folks want to keep engaging the OP I'll still lurk and watch the show.
I just realized that every post in this thread after Trent's reply could have been avoided. I noticed in another thread in this forum that Dee discussed ownership of mods. Specifically, he said "The first thing to do is remember that, although everything created with Infinity Engine resources is more or less proprietary to the owners of that engine, mods are the property of their respective authors." "The owners of that engine" is precisely what I meant when I mentioned the possibility companies may have had some rights to the mods even though the companies themselves didn't create the mods. I had read Dee's post before, but I must have skipped over that line.
Well, maybe not every post could have been avoided. Elminster's link to that Tweet was essential too. It showed Beamdog's efforts to obtain the rights modders had in their own creation.
I'm not even going to dignify subtledoctor's conspiracy theory with a reply. So as far as I'm concerned, this thread/discussion is over.
Comments
Read Kant. Read Arendt, especially Eichmann in Jerusalem to get an idea of the follies of abdicating your autonomy to authority.
And have this discussion in an appropriate forum.
I should point out that:
1. The Romans had a history of persecuting Christians. Despite this, the book of Romans, which advocates obedience to the governing authorities, was included. Hardly what you would expect if the attending bishops had ulterior motives.
2. No human theory of morality can stand on its own. Kant may be right that morality must be grounded in an intrinsic good, but the categorical imperative doesn't cut it. If you've read Kant, I think you already know why.
3. Eichmann's complicity in deporting so many Jews to extermination camps clearly violates divine law. Christians are not obligated to obey human law if doing so contravenes divine law. See Daniel 3, for example. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego disobeyed a direct command from the king to worship a gold idol. From the perspective of human law, they should clearly be sentenced to death. But from the perspective of divine law, they did nothing wrong, and divine law trumps human law where the two are in conflict. Blindly abdicating automomy to human authority is foolish, but obedience to human law where it does not contravene divine law is a Christian duty.
See: http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/ip/news/original_elements_of_unauthorized_parody_are_protected_by_copyright
The author of an NPC mod like Gavin has the rights to the original content of their mod. WoTC could sue the mod author to stop them from publishing the mod, since it would be considered an unauthorized derivative work of the BG1 game. However, WoTC could not legally take the mod and incorporate it into an BGEE update without permission from the author of the mod.
Upon further reading though, it seems the whole idea of books of the Bible being chosen at the First Council of Nicaea is an idea fabricated by Voltaire. If this is the case, the whole discussion of Nicaea is moot. We're off topic enough as is, so let me just ask you to name one human theory of morality that is without flaws. I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that there is such a theory. You don't tell someone there are green men on Mars without some kind of evidence, just as you can't assert that such a viable theory exists without at least citing one.
If I'm wrong, it should be easy for you to disprove me. Name one example of a purely secular theory of morality without flaws. I can assure you the categorical imperative is not the answer though. Excellent article. Thank you! I'm not disputing that parodies, which clearly fall under fair use, are protected by copyright.
But this fact just underscores the importance of my question. I said I was concerned about whether Beamdog has the right to base their mods on mods of the original games, and the case you just cited is why; if the authors of those existing mods have copyright protection to their work, then it's all the more reason why I should make sure Beamdog obtained the proper permission from those mod authors before making versions that are compatible with BGEE.
The other possibility is that the companies that made the game have at least partial rights to the mods insofar as they are derivative works. This is why I also need Trent to verify that such rights, if any, were licensed to Beamdog. His initial response only indicated that Beamdog had licensed the rights to the unmodded game, rather than the mods themselves.
If Trent can account for both these possibilities, which may not be mutually exclusive, then I'm satisfied and this discussion is over. I implore everyone to keep the discussion to these 2 possibilities.
I searched for evidence of this and found only this thread. Someone quoted Trent as saying he was looking into the legal issues, but there's no source for the quote and it's not clear exactly what ended up happening regarding 1PP. I'm hoping you have something more conclusive.
If you do find proof that Trent ended up getting the rights from the modder, that combined with this thread, which warns against using other people's work without permission, may well be enough for me.
This leaves only one concern that I can think of at the moment: Did Beamdog also obtain the rights to those mods from the gaming companies? (insofar as they are derivative works of the unmodded game, the companies also hold some rights).
Trent's initial response indicated that Beamdog has at least the rights to the unmodded game. Does "existing content" (his words) also include the rights in the mod owned by the gaming companies, if any? If we resolve this, I think this discussion is over.
Kind of off topic: Yes, I'll concede that the word "flawless" does not prima facie mean the same as the phrase "stand on its own." But the fact is that moral theories that lack an intrinsic, objective good (such as God) cannot stand on their own and are flawed for that very reason, so I'm not sure why the difference is as important as you seem to believe.
In addition, I'd like to point out that even if a genuine mistake occurred in the conflation of "flawless" with "stand on its own," such a mistake does not imply that the mistake was intentional, as "poor form" implies. Note that I didn't accuse you of an ad hominem because you did address my arguments rather than just attacking me personally.
By the way, I also never asserted that any system of morality needs to be grounded in the categorical imperative. I only cited the categorical imperative as an indirect response to Grammarsalad, who told me to "Read Kant."
I'm going to have to respectfully decline to get into a debate on Wittgenstein without more specifics about which part of his work you're referencing.
I already know that Beamdog obtained the rights for those mods from the modders themselves (based on that Tweet). The only part left is whether Beamdog also obtained the rights from those companies. Here's a little illustration to show what I mean.
All rights in the games Beamdog is selling:
1. Rights to the unmodded game held by the companies = Obtained (based on Trent's post in this thread)
2. Rights to mods created for the pre-Beamdog versions of the games (consists of 2A and 2B):
2A. Rights to these mods held by the modders = Obtained (based on the Tweet Elminster linked to in this thread)
2B. Rights to these mods held by the companies inso far as the mods are derivative works
Only 2B remains. Let's focus on that.
1. This is a modding forum
2. There's a thread warning people not to use copyright content in this same forum.
It's not legal advice for Trent Oster to confirm that. It's simply information. Legal advice is analysis about the elements of a law, which is precisely what I kept wanting to avoid, but you had other ideas. Why would you seek a moderator's help when you're the whole reason the thread deviated from the original post? I'm going to get the thread back to the topic of 2B right now, by ignoring everything you say in this thread from now on. Enough is enough with the hijacking.
It seems pretty reasonable to conclude based on this amount of effort and time that nothing unapproved would have actually made it in, so if those hypothetical third party produced mods don't actually ship with the version of the game Beamdog is selling, there have been no lawsuits in five years alleging otherwise, and Beamdog doesn't host those mods on the Beamdog website or forums, would Beamdog be required to do anything further with those mods that they had and have nothing to do with, aren't selling, and aren't using?
Just to confirm, you are asking Trent Oster to confirm in writing here (which can be used as a legal document FYI!) that in fact, no unlicensed third party produced mods based on the original Bioware game are included in the Beamdog released versions of the game so you can play the unmodded versions of the game from Beamdog with no impact on your conscience?
Essentially it seems that you are asking for Trent to provide, or at a minimum confirm, the legal advice Beamdog got from their lawyers. I am not a lawyer so maybe I am wrong, but that is what it reads like you are asking for now.
"Existing content" clearly includes the unmodded games. I only want to know if "existing content" includes any rights the companies had (if any) in mods created by people outside the company by virtue of the mods being derivative works of the original game. The reason for this question is because the companies may have licensed the unmodded games but not the mods. (Yeah, the modders themselves also had rights to their mod, but as Elminster pointed out, Trent already worked out the details with them, which means only the companies remain).
That's it. It's a simple clarification on what existing content means. Hardly legal advice.
It's not as if I don't believe what the developers are saying. When Trent said he had agreements with the companies to existing content, I immediately accepted that he had all the necessary rights regarding the unmodded games. I didn't even question it.
So if Trent says his investigation revealed the gaming companies do not have rights to the mods, this discussion is over, because Beamdog clearly obtained rights from the modders as Elminster's Tweet reveals.
If Trent says the companies do have partial rights (the other rights being owned by the modders who created them) in the mods and that his agreement with the companies included the rights to the mods as well as to the unmodded game, this discussion is also over.
I'm not at all doubting Trent. I just want him to clarify what he said. That's all.
Not to mention, the games went off sale for a period when there was a contract dispute with Atari. That the games came back for sale, and are still for sale now, makes it pretty clear that Beamdog's playing by the rules and their lawyers have all ducks in a row.
If this isn't good enough for the OP to install the games on his/her computer, then that's the OP's loss. At this point, there's no reason for anyone from Beamdog to respond unless the OP has a specific allegation to make. The company has answered the question as clear as possible regarding the legality of the games and their sales.
That being said, if folks want to keep engaging the OP I'll still lurk and watch the show.
Well, maybe not every post could have been avoided. Elminster's link to that Tweet was essential too. It showed Beamdog's efforts to obtain the rights modders had in their own creation.
I'm not even going to dignify subtledoctor's conspiracy theory with a reply. So as far as I'm concerned, this thread/discussion is over.