Maps posted by others...

[moyackx]

Something like this: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/f564/spirit-vengeance-76569/

A dude post a map instead the creator, and it gets approved, is that right?? If a map is good enough, you should at least offer something like a big link, and only an admin should be able to add this link threads to these resources.

Why?
- Respect to the author
- Only the map author will decide if the map will have mirrors
- Avoid multiple versions of the map.


Many resources are here in this way without the author consent, and if the policy of this site is to respect the user's work, then this is something that should be done. Just my thoughts.

 

[Septimus]

You have the creator's permission to upload here. A map publicly hosted on battle.net is considered permission to upload

Yes, we approve resources that are posted by the other user if it was publicly host or have the creator permission. But, we would remove it to the origin author account if the author have request it to do so or delete it.
And if there is a another user upload the same resources, they would be remove.

It isn't necessary to have a big link, we already provide the search function that would show a list of good resources.

 

[Mechanical Man]

How you even know who is the author?

 

[Ralle]

It gives you a pretty good idea if the username isn't the same as the author (written inside the map itself)

 

[Rui]

I believe some of the users that post known maps are trustworthy. I do not recall who ArcticInferno is, but the people who play it should notice differences on the map, if the submitter did indeed change it. Our rules also state that the original author may order the map to be removed at anytime.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

This is absolutely wrong. I will not stand while this cinematic, one of the best I've ever seen and made by a good friend and respected person of mine, is put here without either his permission or him posting it.

The mapmaker must specifically say that it can be hosted somewhere. You can't just bloody upload it and assume that because it can be found on BNet he is giving his permission. That is horrible.

Imagine if the scientific community worked like this. "Oh, that journal was posted at an AIAA conference! Because it's public, that means I can, even without being the author, put it in the Geophysics Journal." You would be sued and would never get a job for the rest of your life if you did that.

This needs to change. Now.

 

[2-P]

A map publicly hosted on battle.net is considered permission to upload

It's a singleplayer cinematic, you can't even host it on battle.net...
Just besides the fact that that's a completely retarded rule.

 

[HyperActive]

Since the creator is active, it would be best to ask him to upload or at least his permission to upload.
But if that isn't the case, and there is a map with an non active creator, I think it would be fer for the map to be uploaded, crediting the original creator.

 

[Septimus]

It's a singleplayer cinematic, you can't even host it on battle.net...
Just besides the fact that that's a completely retarded rule.

Tell that to Rui, the last rules update was make by him.

 

[Rao Dao Zao]

But if that isn't the case, and there is a map with an non active creator, I think it would be fer for the map to be uploaded, crediting the original creator.

If I'm inactive and my map can't be found on the internet, maybe I'd rather it stayed that way?

 

[Bartimaeus]

This is absolutely wrong. I will not stand while this cinematic, one of the best I've ever seen and made by a good friend and respected person of mine, is put here without either his permission or him posting it.

The mapmaker must specifically say that it can be hosted somewhere. You can't just bloody upload it and assume that because it can be found on BNet he is giving his permission. That is horrible.

Imagine if the scientific community worked like this. "Oh, that journal was posted at an AIAA conference! Because it's public, that means I can, even without being the author, put it in the Geophysics Journal." You would be sued and would never get a job for the rest of your life if you did that.

This needs to change. Now.

It's a map. That's not even a fair analogy.

 

[MasterHaosis]

Tell that to Rui, the last rules update was make by him.

Yes, Rui is charge for map section, he is doing ,,great job" there, having lot of moderators who watch resources,who moderate them, Rui and his team are cleaning pending pages just like that! I am specially ,,impressed" by him!

 

[Callahan]

I think It's not respectful for Infrane and Anitarf to redistribute their map without touching them a word.
Even if they would'nt mind it's a bit abusing of someone's laxity.

 

[Gilles]

This is absolutely wrong. I will not stand while this cinematic, one of the best I've ever seen and made by a good friend and respected person of mine, is put here without either his permission or him posting it.

The mapmaker must specifically say that it can be hosted somewhere. You can't just bloody upload it and assume that because it can be found on BNet he is giving his permission. That is horrible.

Imagine if the scientific community worked like this. "Oh, that journal was posted at an AIAA conference! Because it's public, that means I can, even without being the author, put it in the Geophysics Journal." You would be sued and would never get a job for the rest of your life if you did that.

This needs to change. Now.

I can't believe you just compared a wc3 map, to a scientific journal.

However I agree that users should not upload other peoples work, unless they have explicit permission from the author.

 

[Bartimaeus]

If they host the map on Battle.Net, then that's permission 'nuff. If they don't want it here, then they can come and say that.

 

[Vegavak]

If I'm inactive and my map can't be found on the internet, maybe I'd rather it stayed that way?

I don't think many people care if the map maker went inactive and doesn't want anyone to play the map anymore. If someone wants to play it, it will be played, regardless of the author's wishes.

 

[Rao Dao Zao]

I'm not arguing about it being played, I'm arguing about it not being found on the internet. I've got plenty of things I don't want hosted here; I'd rather they didn't all spring up the moment I shift my gaze to something else.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

Psst.. I got some cheap RDZ XXX maps.

No, really.

You should get permission from somebody before uploading it. Its not yours 'heck.

 

[moyackx]

Yes, we approve resources that are posted by the other user if it was publicly host or have the creator permission. But, we would remove it to the origin author account if the author have request it to do so or delete it.
And if there is a another user upload the same resources, they would be remove.

The thing is that you're taking the freedom of hosting a map without the consent of the creator, that's bad. You have no right to do it.

So you propose that the map makers have to check in the map database regularly to see if a noob has submitted her/his map?? just avoid the problems and don't do this. Respect the map makers.

I believe some of the users that post known maps are trustworthy. I do not recall who ArcticInferno is, but the people who play it should notice differences on the map, if the submitter did indeed change it. Our rules also state that the original author may order the map to be removed at anytime.

I'm not talking about him specifically, I speak in general (an example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/members/public+resource+provider/). As I said, avoid problems with the map makers, and do not accept maps in this way.

It's a map. That's not even a fair analogy.

It is a fair analogy. A map implies time to develop, implies use your brain to develop (or copy) an idea. It requires adjustments and revisions before submission, like an article, therefore it's fair and accurate the comparison. If you work hard in a map, or in an article, you have the right to expect respect by linking from the sources so all the people can see it and ensure the author can give updates or comments about that. All that I propose is to remove all those maps and change them by links (big, small, normal, whatever), it's too hard for this site???

 

[Bartimaeus]

It is a fair analogy. A map implies time to develop, implies use your brain to develop (or copy) an idea. It requires adjustments and revisions before submission, like an article, therefore it's fair and accurate the comparison. If you work hard in a map, or in an article, you have the right to expect respect by linking from the sources so all the people can see it and ensure the author can give updates or comments about that. All that I propose is to remove all those maps and change them by links (big, small, normal, whatever), it's too hard for this site???

Anything that's put into the internet STAYS on the internet.

...and, it's not like it's going to make them a million trillion dollars. It's a Warcraft 3 map that doesn't make any profit, and it doesn't even legally belong to anyone besides Blizzard, anyways.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I can't believe you just compared a wc3 map, to a scientific journal.

I can't believe you don't see the similarities when they're both intellectual property of the respective author.

 

[Vegavak]

I can't believe you don't see the similarities when they're both intellectual property of the respective author.

But this is the internet.

 

[Bartimaeus]

I can't believe you don't see the similarities when they're both intellectual property of the respective author.

And intellectual rights belong to Blizzard.

 

[moyackx]

Anything that's put into the internet STAYS on the internet.

...and, it's not like it's going to make them a million trillion dollars. It's a Warcraft 3 map that doesn't make any profit, and it doesn't even legally belong to anyone besides Blizzard, anyways.

Money doesn't have anything to do with this, is the fact that it's implies time and work to do it.

Of course, my arguments won't be valid if the users of this site fart maps and resources... is that the case??

 

[Rising_Dusk]

But this is the internet.

Maybe you weren't aware, but even you have access to AIAA papers on the internet. That they are available on the intertubes doesn't make them any less protected as intellectual property.

I'm totally with moyack. Allowing users to submit other people's work is utterly despicable and there is no excuse for it. If the Hive wants to be regarded on any level as a respectable resource carrying website, this needs to be addressed.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Maybe you weren't aware, but even you have access to AIAA papers on the internet. That they are available on the intertubes doesn't make them any less protected as intellectual property.

I'm totally with moyack. Allowing users to submit other people's work is utterly despicable and there is no excuse for it. If the Hive wants to be regarded on any level as a respectable resource carrying website, this needs to be addressed.

It already IS a respectable resource carrying website, and it isn't, "addressed". Nobody's complaining about how it allows users to submit maps they like.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

No, it is a resource carrying website. The respectable comes from following internationally regarded and accepted standards for the rightful authorship and rights associated therein for intellectual property. Period.

Nobody's complaining about how it allows users to submit maps they like.

I am. It is obscene that this is allowed. Maybe no one else on this confounded website shares my regard for intellectual property, but that they don't in no way makes this any less wrong.

 

[~Void~]

If they give full credit where it's due, I think it's fine. It's like in a retail store, major companies don't mind if small stores distribute their products, but the companies put their brand names on them and get all the profits (in the case of maps, all the recognition).

 

[Vegavak]

Maybe you weren't aware, but even you have access to AIAA papers on the internet. That they are available on the intertubes doesn't make them any less protected as intellectual property.

I'm totally with moyack. Allowing users to submit other people's work is utterly despicable and there is no excuse for it. If the Hive wants to be regarded on any level as a respectable resource carrying website, this needs to be addressed.

As long as the original work is credited to the creator, I find little wrong with uploading or submitting something that's been publicly available. I also respect a creators wish to remove his work, as long as he goes through the proper channels to do so.

But then again, I also know that this is the internet. If you ever plan to stop allowing people to use your work, you should have had the sense not to have made it public to begin with.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

If they give full credit where it's due, I think it's fine. It's like in a retail store, major companies don't mind if small stores distribute their products, but the companies put their brand names on them and get all the profits (in the case of maps, all the recognition).

You do realize that the companies ship their product via suppliers to those stores, right?

I also respect a creators wish to remove his work, as long as he goes through the proper channels to do so.

Yeah, except it shouldn't be required that a user have to find and then report their own map to get it removed. It should only be there in the first place if they put it there.

 

[~Void~]

Actually, a lot of products are purchased directly from the factories in large numbers by stores such as Wal-Mart and are then delivered by one of Wal-Mart's divisions or a third-party service rather than by the company that made the product.

This is a rather strange tangent, though.

 

[moyackx]

Proposing this is simply useless... this site has no remedy.

My apologies for disturbing your bubble.

 

[Vegavak]

Yeah, except it shouldn't be required that a user have to find and then report their own map to get it removed. It should only be there in the first place if they put it there.

The world we wish for wouldn't be worth wishing for if we lived in it already.

The author makes his work available for public use. It is his job to ensure that it is kept private if he ever chooses to make the transition, as it becomes then his mistake to ever have publicly released it to begin with.

But perhaps a submitted work by another author should require the original authors contact information, so that the hosting site may get permission to do so?

 

[Rising_Dusk]

The author makes his work available for public use. It is his job to ensure that it is kept private if he ever chooses to make the transition, as it becomes then his mistake to ever have publicly released it to begin with.

He releases his work to be used precisely as he has released it. It is not his job to ensure it is kept within the framework he has released it within, it is respective communities' jobs to respect the author's release conditions.

If he releases a map anywhere publicly, it is under the precursor notion that it will be enjoyed by users on its proper mode of enjoyment - in this case WC3. If he releases it at a website, it is because he wants his map made available on said website so that the users there may download it. It is perfectly within the author's jurisdiction as author to release it to specific websites only because those are the only websites he wants to promote. Putting your work on a site is an endorsement of a website by an author. Having your work put on a website without your explicit permission is therefore claiming that you endorse such website when in fact you have not by not posting it there yourself.

I cannot make it any more crystal clear than that. This is not an opinion, this is the objective regard for intellectual property as is accepted above all else as law by any respected community in any scientific, inventing, or engineering forum in any modern and/or industrialized nation. If you disagree with that, then I really have nothing else to say to you. Sorry.

 

[Vegavak]

Words.

Christ. It's like I'm still using this font.

I'll quote myself:

perhaps a submitted work by another author should require the original authors contact information, so that the hosting site may get permission to do so?

To say that the author holds no fault in his publicizing his work and then regretting it is foolish, but I think this suggestion is a fair middle-ground. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

[Rising_Dusk]

The hosting site should not go and ask for permission. That should be a prerequisite for submission by the person submitting the work (not the author in this case). If that, however, is not done, the resource should be automatically and without question rejected.

 

[Vegavak]

The hosting site should not go and ask for permission. That should be a prerequisite for submission by the person submitting the work (not the author in this case). If that, however, is not done, the resource should be automatically and without question rejected.

I strongly disagree.

How easy is it to forge permission? How would the hosting site even know if the author truly approved it or not without actually asking the author themselves?

Think about it. Seriously.

Require contact information of the author if it's not an original work, if the author cannot be contacted, the submission is terminated. No questions asked. Make submissions of another persons work unavailable for download until they are approved.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

How easy is it to forge permission? How would the hosting site even know if the author truly approved it or not without actually asking the author themselves?

WC3C does this by requiring the following:

• Written consent by the author.
• A screenshot proving such consent's transaction having taken place. (Generally a screenshot of an email suffices)
• A mode of contact where we can reach the original author ourselves if we have any questions. (Generally not the case where it concerns respected users)

If any of these things are not provided when asked for, the result is as I mentioned before - unquestionable rejection.

Think about it. Seriously.

Please read my previous post again. I said the site should not go and ask permission - as in the site doing it in place of the user doing it. The contact information and the staff contacting the original author should only be necessary if the validity of the provided permission is questionable. There's a difference in requiring the site to ask the original author and the site asking the original author purely out of reassurance.

 

[Vegavak]

Words.

• A mode of contact where we can reach the original author ourselves if we have any questions. (Generally not the case where it concerns respected users)

Some more words.

I wonder what that means.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

So unless the uploader is a respected user, you require contact information to verify that the original owner approved. What part of that isn't what I've said?

It is exactly what you said.

I don't see how you're misunderstanding my post at this point, seeing how in both of our examples, the hosting website must be able to contact the original author for permission.

I'm not. I am merely placing emphasis that the user should contact the original author before submitting the resource and then provide the staff such contact information in the event they want to verify the permission.

---

Anyways, since we are in agreement on that side issue, my original point still stands.

If he releases a map anywhere publicly, it is under the precursor notion that it will be enjoyed by users on its proper mode of enjoyment - in this case WC3. If he releases it at a website, it is because he wants his map made available on said website so that the users there may download it. It is perfectly within the author's jurisdiction as author to release it to specific websites only because those are the only websites he wants to promote. Putting your work on a site is an endorsement of a website by an author. Having your work put on a website without your explicit permission is therefore claiming that you endorse such website when in fact you have not by not posting it there yourself.

I cannot make it any more crystal clear than that. This is not an opinion, this is the objective regard for intellectual property as is accepted above all else as law by any respected community in any scientific, inventing, or engineering forum in any modern and/or industrialized nation. If you disagree with that, then I really have nothing else to say to you. Sorry.

 

[~Void~]

I don't think it's that big of a problem. In mostly all cases, the author doesn't mind as long as they get credit. If they do mind, they can just ask for it to be taken down.

 

[Vegavak]

Anyways, since we are in agreement on that side issue, my original point still stands.

My argument to your original point still stands: This is the internet.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

That's not an argument, it's a statement of fact that carries no weight with regard to the discussion at hand. Anyways, I hate arguing, so I am just going to give up on this topic now. I will harass Ralle about it and see if I can't get some change done that way.

 

[~Void~]

Seriously? Even though half the site is against your opinion? :/

 

[Vegavak]

I believe what Dusk and I agreed on will be a positive improvement. You don't, Void?

 

[~Void~]

I don't think it matters.

 

[Hakeem]

When you make something public, you make the decision to forfeit control of it.


However, I'd like to think The Hive is a bit more than a simple file sharing site (for files relating to Warcraft III). I'd like to think it's a place for people developing a map, a place to publish their works. A place for authors. A place for modders. I guess we could be both at the same time, but heck, Battle.net offers file sharing.

 

[Rui]

(...)

I'm not talking about him specifically, I speak in general (an example: http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/members/public+resource+provider/). As I said, avoid problems with the map makers, and do not accept maps in this way.

(...)

The Public Resource Provider is just a name we can write on the resource submitter field so that our name will not appear. It is a way of telling the reader that the map was not uploaded by the author.

As long as the original work is credited to the creator, I find little wrong with uploading or submitting something that's been publicly available. (...)

Around the lines of what I was about to reply. Like Hakeem just said, Battle.Net offers file sharing. It is hypocritical not to submit "DotA Allstars" at the Hive Workshop when you can simply go to Battle.Net and download it, and that happens with maps such as "Footmen Frenzy" too.

By uploading the map here we are only facilitating and speeding up the process of acquiring that resource to our users and guests, as well as letting them know about it, when they wouldn't, otherwise.
The only reason I would have to not want my map uploaded on other websites (granting that they ensure my name is in the resource author field) would be the question of receiving all the feedback in a single place.

I consider the cinematic type of map to be somewhat different from those hosted at Battle.Net (for the obvious reason that they can't be spread through it), and we'll pay attention to that matter if you deem it necessary.

Proposing this is simply useless... this site has no remedy.
(...)

I'd like you to know that we're open to your words. But I don't think you should be saying that the site has no remedy just because a user of ours is arguing with a person that stands for your point. You did not hear from anyone from the administration after your reply to me. I am sorry for the time I took to reply, but I can't be everywhere.

As I said, the Hive's doors are open to you at anytime. Thanks for calling our attention regarding this topic.