retired_volo

radestock,i think you misread my last post. 'Notice the word would' as in i havent downloaded it.

retired_wifey2b

No, i just click the download link and thats it.
I didnt agree nothing when i downloaded something from susie. And i havent been asked too agree to any agreement.
In fact, i dont know what you are talking about.

retired_volo

I dont think most fm players give a monkeys who,how,why or where they get graphics packs from,they just want them.do you honestly think that even if people knew he hadnt credited the original authors that they wouldnt download the file? there is no morals when it comes to things like this.gamers just want to make their game better.I wonder how many people have downloaded pachamamas 'stolen' pack? I reckon quite a few,even after they realised it wasnt his work.

retired_wifey2b

Its seems that we have an virtual agreement that you decided on.

We didnt sign any contract, so everything llegal. Very simple. it is the law. and i might also say that i didnt read the "read me" file, i have too? when i didnt read that file i went over the law? give me a break

retired_wifey2b

550 downloads till now.

retired_nicole2401

I think the moral of the story is that copyright per se is not the main concern, but violation of the author's vital interests.

For example, as between two "big guys", SI games and Arsenal, the vital interest of Arsenal in respect of its logo is its commercial value to the club. Therefore it cannot allow a company such as SI to release logos that add commercial value to SI's products.

There's no conflict as between Arsenal and the compiler of EPL logos for FM, because the compiler does not gain commercially from the compilation. His gaining of personal recognition cannot or insignificantly detract from Arsenal's vital interests.

As between two individuals such as an "author" of a logo pack and a "compiler" of a megapack, the vital interest in question is personal recognition. It is a relationship similar to that of between SI and Arsenal, but instead involving two "little guys".

sarasbluegroove

While I can understand why people are so upset at PachaMama13 I think its getting out of hand. He hasnt killed anyone, to call it stealing is a little strong. Its certainly rude of him to not give credit. But I do have to ask all the photos that have been used are very possibly copyrighted to someone somewhere. All the people who have created these packs are probably breaking that copyright.
After all I'm sure thats the reason SI didn't have the photos in the game in the first place. All the photos in the game by default were given to SI and they had permission to use them. We are all now using photos without permission. Something to think about maybe when everyone gets on their high horse and slags off PachaMama.
That being said I want to thank everyone as all your efforts have made my game more enjoyable

Norfolk_boy

Haha. 'I didn't read the readme so it doesn't count'. Is that honestly your argument?

Ignorance is no excuse. Could you murder someone then claim "but i've never read the laws in this country so they don't apply for me"? No chance.

My example earlier of the Arsenal FC website, they have terms and conditions. You aren't forced to read them but you have to legally accept them.

Also - sortitoutsi does have a more obvious redistribution agreement - you have to click yes that you accept it before it lets you download.

---

Jimmywils - I think FM players have integrity, morals, community spirit and a respect for the people who actually make graphics. Clearly you don't.

Norfolk_boy

As I said previously - taking the Arsenal website as an example, images from that can be used and redistributed to third parties as long as not profit is being made (the difference between graphcis makers and SI). I'm not going to check every website for every team but it's likely that they, along with news websites, other football sites etc operate with a similar policy.

brian_121

I've read this thread with intrest and the thing that strikes me is how complicated the Copywrite law is, so I won't even go there

But a word to the graphic makers - Please continue your excellent work, these problems are here to test us

I just think that this Pach person should have just said "Sorry, I didn't realise I needed permission from the makers" When it was pointed out to him what he was doing was - Not in the best intrest of the community. That's the best way I can put it without going down the legal road

If he had posted a "Sorry" and removed the link and then asked the makers if it was alright to include them in a megapack with credits, then we wouldn't be even at this point.