@FoxWolf, just ask the mapmaker's permission and they can give you their triggers or terrain. What you're describing is map theft.


No. I've tested quite a few protectors and they could all be viewed.

The only map I ever had Trigger Viewer fail on was a map that also couldn't be unprotected by anything, due to map corruption.

... Wouldn't that fall under cons ?

Let's cease this use of theft, it makes me anxious.

Theft is only something that can happen to physical objects. A "map stealer" isn't actually stealing maps, they're copying it, and the resubmitting it under their own name. This is not theft, this is plagiarism.

And I know "theft" sounds all nice and buttered up of a phrase, but it's flat out incorrect usage. There are instances of map plagiarism and map plagiarizers (plagiarisers for my friends across the pond). This removes the illegal connotation of the word and more accurately describes what is taking place.

First of all, plagiarism is a type of theft

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

"to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

Second of all, that doesn't apply to all cases of map theft anyways, since it doesn't include cases where the person steals your work and then does credit you somewhere for it. They could simply take your map and put their name on it, without removing your name (although generally they also remove yours), in which case it isn't plagiarism, while still being a clear case of map theft.

Third of all, language exists to convey ideas. Even if "map theft" was an inaccurate term (which it isn't), we all know what it means, and therefore using it would still be appropriate to convey the concept which is widely known as "map theft".

Let's cease this use of semantics, it makes me anxious.

Fine, you got me on that. I would still advocate being cautious around the term. Blizzard owns the actual maps, so there is no legal theft going on at all.

Although, I am going to advocate fair use terms. And yes, allow downloads of unprotectors off of this site. Fair use would dictate that mappers, once they release their map, have no control over the following things (copied from US's fair use):



This means, yes, someone can open your map, copy systems and paste them into your map. You do not, and cannot, own the systems that you put into the map.

Maps may be unprotected, but wrongful appropriation or direct use of another person's work should be subject to SEN rules.

Source?

Personal experience has lead me to think you are wrong.
I personally leave the original credits, and I've seen a ton of persons doing so as well.

When StarCraft II was released, Yoshi posted a map unlocked purposely. Can't remember the map's name, but the image was Kerrigan holding a sniper.
The community saw a good 6+ variants (and there were most probably way more published!) that -all- left the original credits. I haven't seen a single one that didn't leave it. Not, a, single, one. And all those variants became popular at some point or another.
It was beautiful to watch, and definitely destroys your pretended statistic. It shows to me that when Open Source is done right, it will most of the times benefit the community. Another good example is Linux I guess.

Also, as Sacrieur, mentioned, you do not and cannot own the systems that you put into a map.
I would personally argue that it is because anyone is capable of doing what you have done in your map "the first", hence I don't see why you think the fact that you were the first to do it should prevent others from replicating it.

Except none of the aspects of fair use, as described above, applies to the original work done in a map. Blizzard may have some clause in their EULA about owning parts of your map, but they'd be the only ones besides the mapmaker that would have any legal rights to its content. It's not even remotely within the scope of fair use.

Not to mention, that's taking a purely legal position, which is only one small aspect of this, and has been addressed numerous times.

I could respond to everything you've said with direct quotes from previous posts. Honestly, at this point we're just repeating what's already been said and responded to. I'm not sure what the point is now that the thread no longer generates minerals.

I will say, good for Yoshi for adding new content to the community in the simplest and most ethical way possible, by providing it himself. It didn't infringe on anyone's rights, it didn't violate the intentions of any mapmakers, and it didn't result in someone else's work being modified or otherwise used against their will or even without their permission. It helped further the Open Source movement (which is the movement for mapmakers to choose to release unprotected versions of their maps).

Don't confuse the Open Source movement with map theft. They are two completely different things on two completely different ends of the ethical spectrum. Open Source is a commendable movement, and it's too bad that even some of the proponents of map unprotectors refuse to contribute to it.

I've personally released a number of Open Source maps with system demonstrations in them, doing everything from identifying and removing hallucinations to identifying and tracking the indexes of units created mid-game.

If I do release a map with protection, there are good reasons, which I don't think I need to explain. It's a lot nicer for everyone when people aren't allowed to link to your protected map and link to an unprotector and tell people to go open it up.

As has been stated innumerable times, we already have programs for any such purposes.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 10:04 pm by Azrael.

You misunderstand, but that's my fault.

I meant adopt a free use policy on SEN, not on any legal base, but an enforcement one. It was an idea, of many.

---

Another idea I had was to create a map registry, where maps could be officially registered on SEN and documented with the creator's names and offer a variety of "license" options. This new unprotector/protector would be uploaded to SEN, and available for download. Keep in mind this can apply to sc2 maps as well.

The download options for the unprotector can vary with a number of options. We can allow anyone to download it, registered and unbanned users to download it, or allow just regular status members to download it. Because members are already reviewed for regular status on a case-by-case basis, it may be the best compromise that involves the least amount of effort from both parties.

I think the best method is for you to just download it somewhere else

there's a vocal minority really against unprotectors, the fact that most people don't really think it's an issue though would lead you to believe either this vocal minority has had a bad experience with the aforementioned situation - or they're just paranoid. either way i don't think guidelines should be based simply on the bad experience of individual users

I really don't know what you're talking about. What minority? Even the people who are for unprotectors are still against hosting them here. I think Sacrieur is literally the only person suggesting they be hosted here, and even he has restrictions on his suggestion.

Either way, I don't think guidelines should be changed in spite of the bad experiences of a significant segment of the user base. There's no potential benefit to hosting unprotectors here, the only possible result is that it ends up hurting the community to some extent.

Other posters have outlined this consequence better than I can. Perhaps go back to Roy's most recent post and read that.

Regardless, as has been mentioned innumerable times, we already host programs that allow you to bypass protection to view a map's contents.

Nor do I believe a resolution should be passed without general consensus.
One of us is right, and we have to find out who it is. The debate shouldn't be closed until that is done.
However, we can apply the democracy's dictatorshippy-rule for the sake of not stalling the advancement.

EDIT: I'm having a real hard time with the fact that you do not seem to have understood I am for it as well.
Azrael, you have proven on many occasions that you have not been following the discussions done here properly.
Me and Sacrieur are not the only ones in favor neither. Someone should make a list, or people should make their vote more obvious.

Gosh.
-.-

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 11:18 pm by payne.

Really?

I'm for unprotectors and I would upload all my maps unprotected if someone wants me to

I would like that, Veta. The more content submitted as unprotected by the mapmaker, the better for the Open Source movement

You could probably make a single release thread for all of the maps, with any disclaimers about how they can be used included in it.

even if maps were intellectual property which they are not as they are owned by blizzard it would fall to reason there is a reasonable expiration on this IP protection as there is for a real life IP protection. reasonable IP protection is 5 years.

if you're just making maps as a hobby or as art it stands to reason under the consensus of IP laws that after a while your map would become a public good.

edit: if it's not clear, after this expiration you cannot "steal" "plagiarize" whatever the IP, because it's a public good like sunshine and blue skies.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 3 2012, 1:20 am by Veta.

I think you summarized that they shouldn't be nicely enough

@Veta, here is the forum for releasing unprotected versions of your maps: SC1 Map Showcase

I think you guys just took it too far....

This is SEN. Inapplicable topics are always brought up all of the time for insignificant things in ironic ways.