Mplayer Map Filename Convention

[Ranger]

Renaming a file is not altering the content or the title. In what aspect is your work (the content of the file and the mission title - both saved inside the pbo, and not in the filename) infringed by changing the filename. That is like suing a store for selling a product in a different packaging. That is at best hilarious, at worst a horrible waste of time.

Jez... get a life.

I know I shouldn't be getting into a debate when I hate debating, but I just found the above comment to be rather ignorant.

Copyright lawsuits occur because a third party took a product, changed the label and package, and put it out on the market.  It's not a waste of time; it's protecting the rights of the original author (in the case of OFP missions).  If the author does not want his or her product to be changed in any way, including the label (i.e., file name in the case of missions), then that is the author's choice, and no one else's.  As Sefe said, you have no legal nor moral right to change someone else's work, no matter the reason.

For the record, I support the idea of a convention.  However, as the others have said, I do not support the way that this convention is being marketed.  Ask, and you shall receive.  Force, and you shall face fierce opposition to even the most beneficial idea.

[Sefe]

Oh I have a life. And in my life I'm a lawyer (with the focus on computer law in the first and economy - which includes IP law - in the second exam). I've been working in an IT division of a big law firm. Do you really want to teach me about copyright law?

Your comparison with the packaging is way off. Apart from the fact that the lawsuit for changing the packaging could well be successful (packings usually are protected as trademarks), a better comparison would be changing the title of a novel, which of course infringes copyright law. The filename is part of the file, which is covered by copyright law in all of it's parts. The rule is that you are not allowed to publish missions from anyone except yourself - wether you change the file name or not. You need the permission of the author to do so (that's what's the subject of the license). However, the author's act to submit the mission to an OFP site implicitly allows you to publish it (and only to publish it - you could even argue if the right to publish is limited to the OFP site you have submitted it to, which, at least for multiplayer missions, does not seem plausible). You can hardly interpret it as a permission to anything else (ie. you can't imply the permission to publish a modified version).

You simply have to accept the fact that the law is on the side of the mission makers in this case.

[joltan]

You simply have to accept the fact that the law is on the side of the mission makers in this case.

Tell you what - sell your mission for a hundred bucks and it may sound less silly. Also I want to recommend you going to our server site, checking our missions list (all missions are available for seperate download, so its easy to check) and point out any mission that belongs to you. I will be happy to delete them on the spot.

Same goes for anyone else having problems with it. You do not want your missions on our servers, just tell us what missions you made. As it would interfere with running our server we can not accept missions that we may not rename.

BTW: To me the file name is the wrapping around the original packaging (the pbo). A very good comparison might be a public library that changes a books binding to make it more sturdy and then attaches a code to it so it can be registered with their database - that would be illegal according to your definition. You might have another interpretation of that - and maybe the legal experience to know better. That does not mean I have to share your view.

It's nice to see people fight so aggressively for principles - but it's always very sad to see them forgetting what's important. The filname isn't, people playing your missions are. Shoot yourself in the foot to prove you are right is ok with me, tough. It's not my foot.

You people had 3 month time to participate in the discussion (just telling no, we do not want that would have been participation, too). Terox asked for your input and nobody got his ass up to do so. Excuse me, but what more could anyone do?

As far as the convention having been concluded privately by a few: the discussion took place in a public forum - the official one for this game btw. - and you have been asked here in this very forum to take part in it. The discussion was open to everyone, and just because you were to lazy to participate does not make it any less a community wide effort. Terox post was to inform you of the discussions result, asking for support of it. Oh, btw: does OFPEC accept addons that do not have an authors tag? I do not think so.

Nobody is forced to follow the convention - its a proposal that you may use or not. But no, you act like we just stole all your creative work.

As I said above - tell me what mp missions you made, and we will remove them. This discussion is extremely silly, so I will end it now for my part.

[Noon416]

Joltan,

You're not doing yourself, Terox or the convention any favours by "firing up" and getting angry or personal. Remember, you started the "angry" tone in some of the posts when you got started insulting those trying to help.

People are offering their viewpoints (whether you agree with them or not) .... which from memory (and correct me if I'm wrong here), is what people do when you ask people what they think of something.

Since you state the intention of Terox's posting is to find out what we think, why are you getting upset at us for offering responses?

This discussion is extremely silly, so I will end it now for my part.

How is it silly? We raise valid points about how this convention is being implemented, and offer help on how to resolve the points we raise, and you brandish a flaming torch at us...

You people had 3 month time to participate in the discussion (just telling no, we do not want that would have been participation, too). Terox asked for your input and nobody got his ass up to do so. Excuse me, but what more could anyone do?

As far as the convention having been concluded privately by a few: the discussion took place in a public forum - the official one for this game btw. - and you have been asked here in this very forum to take part in it. The discussion was open to everyone, and just because you were to lazy to participate does not make it any less a community wide effort. Terox post was to inform you of the discussions result, asking for support of it. Oh, btw: does OFPEC accept addons that do not have an authors tag? I do not think so.

The 21 pages (and 3 months) of discussion on the official forums are about the methodology for the convention, not about how to implement it into the community, which is focus of this discussion.

Read what we're saying: We are not debating that the intent behind the convention is a bad idea.
The points being raised here, are that it is your methods for implementation that are generating the resistance, not the convention itself.

(just telling no, we do not want that would have been participation, too).

Given what I read in that thread (yes, I read it through front to back), a negative response wouldn't have been greeted ... politely.
Especially given your demonstrated attitude now.

Oh, btw: does OFPEC accept addons that do not have an authors tag? I do not think so.

No, we don't. But we would let the author know why, and advise them how they can implement the TAG system into their work if they want to be hosted with us.
If they still do not wish to use the system, then we won't host it. Simple.

What we will not do is take the author's addon and just change it to meet the TAG's requirements just to suit our system.

So the author still has the final say and choice.

Read what I said earlier:

OFPEC TAG: "This is our system, this is why we want you to use it. If you don't, we won't force you but will suggest how you can implement it for use with us, but if you refuse you unfortunately cannot host the addon with us"

MP FILENAME CONVENTION: "This is our system, this is why we want you to use it. If you don't, we will make you use it anyway"

Spot the difference?
In the TAG system, the changes are made prior to submission, or voluntarily by the author after consultation with us.
In the MP system, the changes are made prior to submission, or involuntarily by the server without consultation with the author.

OFPEC has experience in implementing something like this into the community (which is why I use the TAG system as an example), why not draw upon that experience rather than destroying 3 months of hard slog for the sake of ego?

[Sui]

...Also I want to recommend you going to our server site, checking our missions list (all missions are available for seperate download, so its easy to check) and point out any mission that belongs to you. I will be happy to delete them on the spot.

Fair enough. But how does one know if it's their mission when you've gone and changed the file name? ;D

Same goes for anyone else having problems with it. You do not want your missions on our servers, just tell us what missions you made. As it would interfere with running our server we can not accept missions that we may not rename.

And that's the point right there... it's YOUR responsibility to ask to change the names of missions, not the map makers. If you can't accept missions which you can't change the name of, it's up to YOU to ask the maker if it's ok to change the name. Not for the map maker to:

• know you guys exist
• know you guys run an OFP server
• know that you have their map
• Request that you stop using it

I think having a universal file naming convention is a good idea. I don't make MP maps (not as yet anyway) so this issue doesn't effect me in the slightest.
However the method to which you've gone about implementing this is why people are so pissed off at you. What gives you the right?

The reason you're getting so much hostility is because you've trampled over everyone's intellectual rights, and you're expecting everyone else to go to the trouble of asking you not to.

Technically you've breached copyright law. Realistically... this is the internet and there's no money involved, chances of you getting sued are pretty much zero. However you don't seem to care at all that you're pissing all over people's hard work here.

I suggest you get your head out of the sand, and start messaging people asking them for a bit of permission. Just because a mission is posted up on a mission site does not give you permission to modify it... and you are modifying it, there's no question of that in the author's minds.

Please take this as friendly advice, I'm not directly involved in this (as I have no MP missions in circulation) and I have nothing against you guys. It was a great idea, but to think you've consulted the whole community about this is just naive

[Chris Death]

Well spoken SUI - exactly what i was thinking here.

As for the apologise: some maps do not show information
about their Author to ask him -> then there are three reasons:

a) the Author doesn't want to be contacted

b) the Author forgot to mention, where to be contacted

c) you did not receive the complete mission.zip, including the
readme file (probably by ingame download)

None of these gives anybody else the right to modify the
mission (even if it's just that filename).

In my case: ask me for permission and i would say YES
don't ask me and do it without permission and i would
probably say nothing because not being aware about it

...BUT - always keep in mind: finally Death's gonna get ya  ;D

It's so simple to ask, that there's no reason to heat up
the discussion that way.

~S~ CD

[Sefe]

BTW: To me the file name is the wrapping around the original packaging (the pbo). A very good comparison might be a public library that changes a books binding to make it more sturdy and then attaches a code to it so it can be registered with their database - that would be illegal according to your definition. You might have another interpretation of that - and maybe the legal experience to know better. That does not mean I have to share your view.

That proves that you have no knowledge about the subject. This comparison doesn't need a comment. Just inform yourself before you try to teach people about things you obviously know nothing about. To make it perfectly clear: Your opinion in that matter is not relevant. Relevant are the facts, which you won't change by ignoring them.

You people had 3 month time to participate in the discussion (just telling no, we do not want that would have been participation, too). Terox asked for your input and nobody got his ass up to do so. Excuse me, but what more could anyone do?

Here's what else you can do: Ask the authors before you change their mission names. I don't really see a problem here except your lazyness. Most authors wouldn't say no to changing their names if you'd only ask them.

And the participation in the discussion is not a fact that is valid in the discussion. No-one loses his rights just because he doesn't participate in the discussion. My personal interest in the discussion about a file name convention is close to zero. That's a subject for server admins, not for mission makers. However, I will not stop to defend my intellectual property. I'll always step in in a discussion that violates my fundamental rights. When you are having that discussion you should make sure that you don't tread on others who either don't know about the debate or who (for any possible reason) don't want to participate. I couldn't care less what you do with your convention as long as you make sure that you don't violate my rights or the rights of all others who weren't part of the discussion.

This discussion is extremely silly, so I will end it now for my part.

Thank you. I don't think the discussion is silly. You want to know what's silly? It's silly not to inform yourself before you try to argue about things you lack the expertise for.

[Terox]

Apologies for any violation on your rights


1) If you do not want your map filename changing.

Then simply post the names of those maps in the thread linked too below

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard301/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e40e1cc4538ffff;act=ST;f=2;t=26817

and we will endeavour to remove the maps from our servers if they do not conform, in their original state, to the convention that we use

Unfortunately without this information, we may not be able to resolve your issues


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it politically beuracratical that some folks, having been given ample oppurtunity to comment on the 3 month discussion, decide to voice their opinion now, after the convention has been completed.

I find it even more odd, that they find having the filename changed, is against their principals, yet they dont encrypt their pbo, to stop hackers ripping into them, changing their content and reproducing a different version
Nor do they refrain from posting scripts, which are then more than likely going to be changed and renamed

So i am beginning to think, this is just typical beuracratic rubbish i am hearing here.

So, if it really does bother you that much, then rather than discuss this anymore, simply go to the link on this thread and post the filenames of you maps and we will endeavour to meet your wishes

The actual name of the map will not have changed, for those that have been edited to conform to the convention

eg
2_24 warcry ctf
2_24 warcry
warcry

doesnt become

ctf 24 geronimo

it becomes

ctf 24 warcry

So finding your map on our servers is not a problem
I cannot however comment on any previously hacked versions of your maps

[Noon416]

Terox,

Please read what's been written on this subject first, before you put yourself into the same hole that Joltan has dug for himself, which was the argument that what's best for the mapmaker is your decision to make, not his or hers.

The resistance is not due to the convention itself. Hell, everyone has voiced that its a good idea and they're all for it.
[size=2.5]The resistance is arising because of the approach you've all taken towards integrating this into the community.[/size]

The points raised and discussed by myself and the others here need to be addressed and understood by you and the others pushing this convention, before you will get any large scale recognition of this convention.

Please read what we've posted first, and only then make a judgement on whether you think our points are purely political, as I don't feel like quoting endlessly the same points over and over.

[Sefe]

Terox, that's the wrong approach. You have to contact the map makers, not vice versa.

And how do you think I would react if someone would publish a modified/hacked version of my mission? I would react extactly the same if not more determined.

And calling this debate beurocratical reveals the attitude which pisses off so many map makers. Without them, you could dump all your servers. How come you are able to host hundrets of missions on your servers when there are comparably few official missions? Because there are map makers who publish their missions. So you can have attractive servers with many missions. They have no obligation to spread the missions but they do it for the community. Now you come and say: "There was a thread where a dozen people defined what's for the good of the community. That involves you mission makers giving up your rights. And don't expect us to ask you."

Aren't you missing something? Especially you server admins should defend the interests of the mission makers, not attack them. It's in your vital interest that each and every mission maker can be sure that the server admins will respect their intellectual property. That's the only way how both sides can benefit. The mission makers will have the trust that the integrity of their missions will be respected by the server admins. And the server admins will benefit because this trust will make the mission makers continue publishing missions.

With your approach you're acting against these interests of the community. That's why it annoys me that you claim to act for the good of the community.

[joltan]

And calling this debate beurocratical reveals the attitude which pisses off so many map makers. Without them, you could dump all your servers. How come you are able to host hundrets of missions on your servers when there are comparably few official missions? Because there are map makers who publish their missions. So you can have attractive servers with many missions. They have no obligation to spread the missions but they do it for the community. Now you come and say: "There was a thread where a dozen people defined what's for the good of the community. That involves you mission makers giving up your rights. And don't expect us to ask you."

Ok, one last comment - I'm a mission maker myself (Daddldiddl - for those that have played one of my missions), and only help in the administration of our squads server. Most of our maps are our own creation or shared with other servers (Vetserver, Gameplanet) who also have most maps created by their own members (Junker, Harkonin, ACT, Lolsav, December...). These servers have all used some kind of naming convention for a long time. It has always been our policy that everyone submitting a mission would know that we have to rename them - be it the mission maker or whoever. And we never accept a mission if we can't.

As a mission maker myself I could not care less if somebody renames any of my mission files to fit on their server. I'm happy if people enjoy the missions, and I'd rather not be bothered with emails asking me for my ok on that (and yes, my missions all contain contact information). I got enough other emails to read and too much spam to delete each day. I can understand getting angry about people changing the content of a mission (and would not accept that for my own missions either without being asked first), but everything else is in my opinion really a waste of time and energy (both better invested in creating/improving missions).

If you do not want your missions renamed, do not submit them or state it clearly in a readme or the mission notes. Most missions do not even come with any contact information - neither in the mission notes nor do they come with a readme (which will not be transmitted anyways if we get the mission because one of our members got it by playing it on another server and liked it).

BTW: about the law issue - no, I'm not a lawyer - I call it "gesundes Rechtsempfinden". And yes, I definitely think you all clearly overreacted - claiming very aggresively a breach of fundamental human rights when its all about adjusting (not completely changing) a filename...

I'm sorry if you felt my reaction insulting, that was definitely not my intention - in the contrary, I was trying to keep it reasonable, while feeling insulted myself by your harsh comments. You should read your comments and ask yourself if you could not have reacted in a more mature way than flaming right away (which is exactly how I see your reactions). I cannot see the reactions we got as constructive comments, not in the way they were presented.

If you feel left out, I'm sorry about that, too. But after three months of hard discussion - finally having reached compromise everyone can be happy with - I don't intend to start from scratch again.

At least we tell you that we use this naming scheme, and why we are forced to use it. If you were running a big server yourself, you would see that it is not possible for us NOT to rename the missions, and you would also understand how hard/impossible it is to contact every mission maker about such a small change. We do all this without being paid for, on the contrary paying our money for running a fast server where you could have your missions hosted. We play with open cards, but in the end you just have to accept that we run our servers that way.

Edit: I'd also like to apologise if the way the convention was presented hurt your feelings - this was meant as constructive contribution that the community may accept and use or discard, as you like. We are not inventing something new, but rather trying to find a common standard for something that is already reality on most servers.

[Sefe]

If you were running a big server yourself, you would see that it is not possible for us NOT to rename the missions, and you would also understand how hard/impossible it is to contact every mission maker about such a small change.

Don't make the mission makers suffer for the fact that you have a big server. The OFPEC is a big internet site. It's our responsibility to run it in a way that doesn't violate the rights of others. That's why we have a comparably big staff and an organisation structure that allows us to work effectively. And none of us gets paid for what he does. When you have a big dedicated server, then you have to make sure that it comes with the administration that's requred for such a project. It's not anyone's fault except yours if you are not capable fo doing what you have to do to avoid braking the law. Don't take your lack of organisation out on the back of others who can't do anything about it. You would be pissed off, too, if we at OFPEC would do the same with you. If you think writing one template of an e-mail and sending it to all the guys with maps on your server is so much work, then get a staff that does that for you.

As for your "gesundes Rechtsempfinden" (which freely translates to "healthy approach to the law"), you should probably rethink it. What you're doing with the convention is a "Vertrag zu Lasten Dritter" (="contract to the disadvantage of third persons") which is unanimously considered to be "sittenwidrig" (against good morals). Even if the convention is not a contract in the legal meaning of the word, it still is "against good morals" for the same reasons. When you're doing it against better knowledge, you're commiting something that's called "sittenwidrige vorsätzliche Schädigung" (deliberate damage against good morals), which makes you liable for compensation and forbearance. How can it be a "healthy approach to the law" not to consider the rights of the other side?

As Sui has pointed out, the legal side is not the most important aspect. Important is that you "are pissing all over the hard work of others" with your approach. Respect the mission makers and I don't think anyone would not allow you to change the name. The payoff will be trust in you and a continuos stream of new missions. It's a win-win. Your approach is a lose-lose.

As for everything else you said: Read what's written above, I also don't feel like repeating myself all the time.

[WhisperOFP]

Hi,
I just jump on the discussion to raise a few points

Don't make the mission makers suffer for the fact that you have a big server.

That basically means "do not run a big server."
You can add : "do not run a big server, unless you have a big staff", which is very rare (using you're example, there is only one OFPEC, should there be only one big server).
Facts : Having a big server means having many missions (on my mid sized one, there are 211 missions), and having a way to sort them for the admins is required.
Facts : Often, file access to a OFP server is not easy (once more, I'm the only one allowed to access my server and for example change names, so my staff is.... me)
I just CAN'T ask permission to every mission makers of the maps on my server, missions which where given to me by users for 80%, in the form of a .pbo.
Please, tell me, ooooh experienced community members   , what should I do?
Renaming? Well, it is forbidden, I delete the missions (80%), do not have any mission left, ok, I shut the server and do something else.
Let the missions as it is? big server for 3 mns where pple are coming, after what they disconnect 'cause they were waiting hours for the admin finding a correct mission. 3 pple stay.... Why running a big server? Ok, I shut the server and do something else.
Keep in mind that pple able to manipulate files on the mpmissions directory of an OFP server are usually few, for obvious security reason.


Second point :
Name changing on servers has been done and continues to be done WITHOUT MAPMAKER CONSENT NOR ASK FOR CONSENT since the first dedicated server appeared. I've never seen ANY complaint.
1 guy tries to says it to the community, to say that it is done and having a convention would simplify everything. All of a sudden map makers (well, some of them...) go in hostile mode   . They did not say anything when they saw their missions renamed on servers, but do not wan't them to be renamed "officially"      

I fail to understand.

Whis'

[joltan]

You would be pissed off, too, if we at OFPEC would do the same with you.

With an addon yes - because it would lead to incompatibilities. With missions that is a non-issue, so as I already stated, I don't care if someone changes the filename of my own missions - be it OFPEC, or any server.

How can it be a "healthy approach to the law" not to consider the rights of the other side?

How can it be to his disadvantage ("zu Lasten")? See, that's the point where we will never agree - the creative work of the mission author is not reduced in any way, he does not 'suffer'. He is given a plattform for his creativity for free, it does not lead to incompatibilities (as it would with addons), and if the author states that he doesn't want us to rename them (just stating 'any changes to my mission require you to ask me first at myname@somewhere.dot' in the notes section would suffice) we don't host the mission. No mission gets changed or credits taken of anybody, so we assume to act in the interest of the author - unless we find an indication that he wishes differently, in which case we respect that and remove the mission asap.

Unfortunately your only argument so far has been the legal aspect, presented in a way that can only be considered agressive and insulting (I consider this a friendly forum and not a courtroom) - and it is the one point where we unfortunately can only agree to disagree.

As Sui has pointed out, the legal side is not the most important aspect. Important is that you "are pissing all over the hard work of others" with your approach. Respect the mission makers and I don't think anyone would not allow you to change the name. The payoff will be trust in you and a continuos stream of new missions. It's a win-win. Your approach is a lose-lose.

As I stated before, it was never anyones intention to 'piss over' (nice language you're using) anybody. Missions being renamed on servers is nothing new and definitely didn't start with us or the convention. And mission makers participated in the discussion (for example Blake/Kegetys of the Kylikki squad, and myself). OFPEC is not the only forum for mission makers in the whole world, and you were all invited to comment and didn't. Seems most mission makers don't see the issue as a problem.

What approach would you have taken, how could we possibly not have 'pissed you off'? You ask us (actually you threaten us with a lawsuit if we don't) to inquire each mission maker before we rename the missions, but you do not answer what happens if we can't reach them... Well, should we scrap 50% of the old missions, just because the authors have long left the ofp community (email addresses not working anymore) or they never left us a way to contact them? That would be a loss for the community. You see, we know how to contact 'Lolsav' or 'Act' (or many others of our mission makers that are not active anymore and whose maps we still use), but what other server/squad would know that?

About the staff matter - we are a squad, i.e. our main goal is to play the game, not to provide a public service (unlike this website). In addition we make a lot of missions, have jobs, etc. It is not that we reject trying to contact the authors, but if you do not put your email/url somewhere where it can be seen, we will not start searching for you either.

[Sefe]

How can it be to his disadvantage ("zu Lasten")? See, that's the point where we will never agree - the creative work of the mission author is not reduced in any way, he does not 'suffer'.

I don't expect anyone to agree or not to agree. The simple facts are: the mission authors have certain rights. Their copyright does include commercial utilization. No-one wants to sell his missions or make money with them. But at this point the copyright doesn't end. The copyright includes the right to make any changes to the mission, the right to be quoted as the author, the right not to have his mission defaced etc. And this rights reside at the side of the copyright holder. If you agree that the server admin has the right to rename missions without the consent of the author, you agree about violating rights of the copyright proprietor. This is - by any meaning of the word - to the disadvantage of the proprietor. It doesn't matter if you think that the advantages overweight the disadavantages. The proprietor has the right to be irrational (a decision to burn your car may be irrational, yet no-one has the right to forbid that) and if you're only violating this right, you act to his disadvantage.

But the legal aspect is one point. There is also another aspect: Respect.

The basic question is: How do you treat the ones that enable you to keep your server running by creating missions? The filename may be a little detail for you but it sure as hell aint a detail for me. And I'm sure it isn't a detail for many other mission makers. Is it so hard to understand that mission makers want to be sure that their will is respected? It doesn't matter if anyone thinks that things like the filename are unimportant. However, it does matter if the mission maker thinks it's important. Not only is he the only one to decide about the filename, he's the one who puts you in the position to host the missions. It's this attitude which causes the resistance. You owe the mission maker respect. And even if you think it's irrational or "for the worse of the community" to insist to be asked about renaming files, it's a matter of decency to seek the author's permission. Otherwise you act like you're free to do what you want with other ones' properties. As soon as the rights of others are concerned, you have to stop acting like you were the only one who has a valid point.

Just realize what you are doing (legal aspects aside): You're taking another one's property and change it without his permission. Then the other one comes and says: "Hey, could you ask me before you do something with my property?". You answer: "No I can't be arsed to ask you before I do something with your property because I'd had to ask 100 people more then." Is it so hard to understand that the obvious reply is: "That you have to ask 100 people more is your problem. I want you to treat me with the respect I deserve."? And is it so hard to understand that the owner of the mission feels offended or at least gets the impression that he's in a kafkaesque dream? It simply is impudence to treat other one's property as your own.

Do you realize what you're doing? You take a fact that makes things worse (that you disrespect a hundret people more by violating their rights) as an excuse. Is this allright considering your "gesundes Rechtsempfinden"?

I see your practical difficulties. Let's assume you fail contact the author. That leaves you two options: take the mission from the server or leave the mission unchanged. You may want to rename the mission but you simply can't. That may be bad for you. But sometimes we simply have to accept that some things in life are not going the way we would like them to go. If you want to keep the mission on the server, just leave it unchanged and everything is allright. If you stubbornly want to follow your convention to the letter, take the mission down, 'cause it's the only option you have.

And mission makers participated in the discussion (for example Blake/Kegetys of the Kylikki squad, and myself).

And if you'd asked all mission makers but one, you'd still have to ask this one if you may rename his mission. Blake, Kegetys, Kylikki and you are not speaking for me and you are not deciding about my copyright.

What approach would you have taken, how could we possibly not have 'pissed you off'?

Simple answer: The approach to always ask the author before you rename his mission. That's the only point I and the others in this thread are having.

(actually you threaten us with a lawsuit if we don't)

Nobody has done that.

you ask us ... to inquire each mission maker before we rename the missions, but you do not answer what happens if we can't reach them... Well, should we scrap 50% of the old missions, just because the authors have long left the ofp community (email addresses not working anymore) or they never left us a way to contact them?

Scrap them or leave them unchanged. You don't have any other options.