ip_rights_violations

[hasty bough]

Why do so many people try to repack mods?

Like I had an interaction with someone on the Steam Workshop where they wanted to repack my texture mod and I said no

He got snarky but I've made it clear my mod uses Arma Public License No Derivatives (APL-ND)

Unsure why they do it versus just adding mods to a modlist?

[rustic copper]

Because they still think it's 2013 and servers have a tiny limit of the amount of mods it can transmit to clients, while "needing" 100 different mods by default on their server... Or because they don't want other to know they haven't created the content themselves...

[hasty bough]

Ah

[loud socket]

The reason I commonly see is actually they don't trust or want people to manage a very large amount of mods or if something corrupts or goes wrong, they have to hunt down which mod it is

So they repack to just have a single, easy to manage process

[echo orchid]

easy in this case is such an overstatement

[loud socket]

I don't repack because I trust people to be able to handle mod management

[rustic copper]

but if something goes wrong in a repacked mod, they have no method of trace back which mod causes the issues... but I guess they're expert modders who can fix everything 🤷

[hallow idol]

Someone might want a small part of a mod rather than the entire thing

e.g. if somebody just wanted a CUP Mi-8 skin on an RHS helicopter - they don't want to be forced to DL 23 GBs of mods

[echo orchid]

lol

[coarse lantern]

Friends, I want to show you the facts, I wrote them to introduce the Turkish Mod Team.

Model Owners;
The T40 Grenade launcher models in the M60T-Guns do not belong to them, they have written Turkish Union in the upper part, but the Turkish Union does not know, they took the models without permission.
Otokar Cobra Model: It belongs to Yavuz Demirbağ, they show it as a model by themselves. https://www.moddb.com/mods/turkish-union-mod/images/m-60t1-sabra-turkish-army - http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/addons/TU_newunits4.jpg
BMC Hedgehog Model: Zakir Akil shared it for free.
Nurol Ejder Yalçın Model: Zakir Akil Shared it for free.
Unimog Models: OFP BW Mod - Owned by Turkish Union Mod. http://ofpr.info.paradoxstudio.uk/addons/vehicles/1067-bw-mod-unimog-v-1-1.html

Landrover Models: Arma2 belongs to the DAF Mod. https://www.moddb.com/mods/dutcharmedforces/images/daf-v096-landrover-ambulance
ACV 300 Models: Arma 2 belongs to the DAF Mod. https://www.moddb.com/mods/dutcharmedforces/images/dutch-armed-forces-aifvypr765
M60A3 Models: M2 belongs to Cold War Mod. https://www.moddb.com/mods/cold-war-rearmed/images/m60a3-tank
Leopard2A4 Model: Arma2 belongs to FDF Mod. https://www.moddb.com/mods/finnish-defence-forces-mod/images/fdf-leopard-2a4
M113A3 Models: Arma Armed Assault - owned by Turkish Union Mod https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/989904397259644969/989925826113982474/1404472_10202162525891687_167762131_o.jpg
AH1W Model: Arma 2 belongs to AH1Z.
Vests: They belong to the Arma 2 or Tac Vest mode.
Helmets: Belong to the PJS Mode.

All the models are all broken and they show themselves as having modeled themselves without permission and they are deceiving everyone, they are the model thieves themselves.
One of the team members told about them in the last video they shared, most of the weapons, helmets and vests do not belong to them, don't be fooled, there is no labor. We wish the Turkish Mod Team the best luck in theft, most of the models you stole have labor and you are labor thieves.

[pure oyster]

Z Markings on RHS Vehicles. RHS Commented before and gave the mod Creator a Warning but i guess the forgot and then he added all the markings used in the War in Ukraine. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2816240214

[fluid elbow]

-Z, V and Ø grouping of troops signs.```

[pure oyster]

they clearly have the BTR with the sings allready and to my knowledge RHS does not want those symbols to be displayed.

[fluid elbow]

i know, there is written - Z, V and other grouping signs, coming soon, will be removed soon (should be removed now would be better xD )

thats how i understand it

[pure oyster]

yeah xD got damn Ztards lel

[fluid elbow]

Ukraine stuff is also not good

[pure oyster]

they dont seem to mind that tho. and i dont either. those symbols are just super hateful Ukraine just shows of their flag.

[drowsy niche]

Is that not aloud or something? It's just unit designations isn't?

[loud socket]

RHS has specifically put into place a request that textures from RHS or being applied to RHS vehicles have any of the operational markings on them

[echo orchid]

our (RHS) license is non derivative. As such, retexturing is tolerated as long as we (RHS) consider it to be decent. ongoing war markings doesn’t fit here

i’ll personally DMCA everything that doesn’t respect that

[winged barn]

@echo orchid what if someone made a Extended Arsenal Compat of RHS Items?

[echo orchid]

again, we pretty much tolerate most things. We keep our licenses non derivative so we have control over the content we release and modifications done to it

[crimson ingot]

say if the war is over (hopefully soon), is it allowed to use those markings on RHS stuff?

[echo orchid]

that's left to be seen, and if ever, will make sure we do let everyone know

[cedar flint]

have dm'd you regarding a such item a few days ago. hasnt been acted on yet, just in case you missed it!

[urban hatch]

What’s wrong with having zs etc on Russian vehicles

Like why aren’t people allowed to mod that

[fathom bone]

See here.
At the moment other retextures are tolerated, however the RHS team currently does not want to have any connection to it. Perceived or otherwise

[echo orchid]

feel free to create and inject your own vehicles then do whatever you want with them. We (RHS) do not allow it.

[urban hatch]

Ah ok

Thanks

I don’t support Russia or anything I’m Ukrainian

[native sun]

remember when someone made the isis mod and it ended up on mainstream media news portals

[tulip badge]

ah yeah I remember that too

[valid parcel]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=740727824 did this get removed from the workshop because of copyright

[manic laurel]

perhaps, we don't know what it is

[valid parcel]

TMT turkish forces

[valid parcel]

ah so basically everything in the mod is stolen

[manic laurel]

I see no earlier report of this URL in this channel, so IDK

[valid parcel]

very cool!

[manic laurel]

hehe - well, indeed then

[valid parcel]

sigh. I was literally about to play arma w/ TMT

idk why people can't just. yknow. not steal other people's work =)

[sudden hare]

Hate to be that guy, but teams won’t admit to stealing if there’s no damning evidence

[carmine folio]

so this is the group that remove PP and Aftermath huh?

[faint nacelle]

Things can fly under the radar. I don't remember ever hearing of TMT before this but I recall seeing other same themed mods with same problem. Or maybe it was in fact this.

Anyway, if there are issues, the team behind it need to address those issues to make it legit if they want to continue.

IP issues should not be new to them if the mod has been around for long time.

[faint nacelle]

Group?

[carmine folio]

yeah this channel

[faint nacelle]

This is official Arma discord from the developer of the game

[carmine folio]

didnt this channel somehow reported PP and Aftermath for IP violation?

[faint nacelle]

Why do you ask

[carmine folio]

so i guess im already stating the obvious

tmt got removed so i guess i see why

[crimson ingot]

and your point is?

[faint nacelle]

If you have complaints I suppose you need to address those to the makers of mods who use ripped models. They know totally well what they do and still risk it.

[carmine folio]

my point i dont see the point reporting them like project purity

as well as aftermath (God rest that mod)

[crimson ingot]

there is nothing pure in ripping

[faint nacelle]

Anyway

[carmine folio]

how about star wars mods?

[crimson ingot]

pinned messages

[faint nacelle]

I'd you got any with ripped models you can link them here I suppose.

[carmine folio]

you mean models like pin ups?

man isnt a simple credit is already suffice? like the author is most likely retired from modding

[faint nacelle]

Nope.

[carmine folio]

like i remember finding the author of this ARMA 2 model and he's nowhere to be found

[faint nacelle]

Then it can't be just taken

These have always been the rules.

[carmine folio]

like his name is there but he's like nowhere in the internet just hat name

[faint nacelle]

It's nothing new

[carmine folio]

how about new vegas mod?

[faint nacelle]

You would need to make new model.

What new Vegas mod?

[carmine folio]

aftermath

[faint nacelle]

They used models stolen from fallout games

[carmine folio]

why was it removed? removed by these watchdogs?

yeah watch dogs i said it cuz some yall are barking at a wall

[faint nacelle]

If you are here to insult you can just leave

[carmine folio]

so youre saying id rather defend a multi million company than people put their hearts to this mod so i can feel good?

damn man i dunno about that but thats just sad

[faint nacelle]

What heart is in stealing stuff?

[crimson ingot]

if they have permission, and make their own stuff without ripping then it's good

[carmine folio]

yeah thats my point

or at least credit the og author

[faint nacelle]

No

[crimson ingot]

no

the keyword here is 'Permission'

[carmine folio]

yes permission but what if that author is like a needle in a haystack

like gone nowhere to be found

[crimson ingot]

then you make your own ip

[carmine folio]

at least credit him or her

their mods are gonna be lost media soon

[faint nacelle]

No.

That's not how it works.

[soft escarp]

If you would have painted a beautiful picture, and someone would simply use said picture and attach it to theirs to enlarge theirs. Would that be fair towards the original artist ?

[manic laurel]

if they have permission, and make their own stuff without ripping then it's good
the two required conditions that none manage to gather.

If you are here to defend rippers, it's a permban. Watchdogs wish you a nice day.

[echo orchid]

you make your own…?

[echo orchid]

and if you carry on with this any further you’ll end up going buh bye

[manic laurel]

regarding that I wanted to write a paragraph in Intellectual Property so nobody has to repeat oneself
@chilly silo, @echo orchid, any take on this perhaps? 🙂

[chilly silo]

Will have a look later and get back to you. Bit busy atm

[manic laurel]

whenever you can, always! and thanks in advance 😉 but hurry up! 😄

[molten kraken]

By "Intellectual Property owner's permission" do you mean the copyright/trademark and other legal stuff owner, or the model maker?
What about the artist recreation that was cited before? (As in I make the model but don't own the copyright/trademark)

[manic laurel]

I mean trademark owner → yeah you can use my fiction (absolutely random example, Star Wars)
then the artist recreation (model etc) is point 2

[smoky saffron]

I know this discussion has been had in here before, but is there any chance there could be a paragraph on there clarifying what is meant with this section of the Arma Reforger and DayZ EULAs as well?

For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download. You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.

Recently there seem to be a bunch of people using their own interpretations of this as a permission to steal and re-upload the content of other modders as they believe that they are "allowed to do whatever they want" with someone else's mod/copyright due to this section

[manic laurel]

amma do one better, I am going to ask legal what they mean by that

[chilly silo]

Now that i would like to know. Because it does not read clearly in or out of the context of the full license. I know that particular statement is discouraging people from using Reforger.

[manic laurel]

and trust me, I understand why

as I read it, it means (to me!) "free for all"

[smoky saffron]

thank you, that would be great
especially on the dayz workshop a lot of people have just been pasting a link to the EULA with their own interpretations, and whenever they receive a DMCA complaint they file a counter-claim since they think they are in the right legally, even if their uploads are just repacks of someone else's content
here's an example, doesn't take long to find mods that have this kinda stuff in their description when sorting by new

Translation for people/s with no legal background:

Автор сообщения: EXPLANATION
Lets start with Bohimia:
You AGREE that we allow other users to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.
This gives everyone the same rights when it comes to user content for dayz. You can download and upload whatever you want. You do not need to pay or ask for any kind of permission from a legal perspective. However it is a common courtesy to ask the author for his/her permission but again from a legal perspective you DO NOT need this.

[elfin heron]

Honestly using star wars as examples for IP rights is probably not the easiest to accurately represent because of how vague disney are

[manic laurel]

yeah well, any other will do then.

[elfin heron]

Their terms of use and such get overwritten by other publishers' terms of use whenever they make games, so theoretically if EA or whatever were to allow a mod with content out of battlefront 2, people could rip stuff out of BF2 and upload it

It's really confusing for anyone who isn't an attorney to understand which is stupid

[manic laurel]

yyyep

security by obfuscation never lasts long anyway

[elfin heron]

Seems to have done so for Disney, but I think that's because they know trying to take a fan project to court could end up putting the final nail in the coffin for most of their die hard fans 💀

[molten kraken]

so wouldn't the case about Activision and GM be applied in the case of trademarks? Or am I miss remembering things from the past?

[manic laurel]

no offense meant at all, but you should ask someone else about this topic

[chilly silo]

The final ruling wasn't really about trademarks. It was a specifically about tradedress vs artistic representation. "Trade-dress" being a registered appearance of the model/object that makes it unique. Not a specific logo or the brand name. In this case they used the registered design features of the HMMWV's 'X' embossed doors and wiper positions (Im not joking) to prove that that Activision had used their product designs to make a profit.

The court disagreed that those features alone made the difference between profits. They also ruled that since the model was an artistic representation of the AM General HMMWV and was not made using any part of a AM General made product there was no merit in the claim.

Id have to go and check the exact wording so I'm only paraphrasing here
Since Activsion did not include logos on their models = No trademark infringement there.
The "unique" shape/tradedress of the HMMWV was not registered in the computer game category = No Trade dress infringement could be supported by law.
The use of the "HMMWV" name which is a registered trade/product name was considered a government identifier and could not be protected and fell under "reasonable public use".

The "HMMWV" name fell into the same case law as "M4" - it cannot be protected as its a government issue designation. And similar to "AR15" they are commonly used to describe many different products from different manufacturers so no one can reasonably protect the AR15 name. Its considered generic. "HMMWV" is commonly used to describe what AM General itself uses many different designations for so its considered generic now.

You can legally call it a "HMMWV"

You cannot legally call it an AM General "HMMWV"

...atleast without permission.

https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/2020/01/battle-over-hmmwv-hummers-vipers-venoms.html

/walloftextfromrock

Good summary of the ruling https://moellerip.com/trademark-infringement-am-general-vs-activision-blizzard

Actual court ruling - https://www.aipla.org/docs/default-source/news/am-general-llc-v-activision-blizzard-inc.pdf?sfvrsn=7f1d561d_0

[elfin heron]

In regards to the AR15 name, I believe Colt now owns the right to that after purchasing from Armalite

[chilly silo]

But its legally Generic

[elfin heron]

Upon further checking I believe it now refers to the family of guns based off the AR-15 base from Armalite so that'd be correct yeah

[chilly silo]

The problem comes from Colt's patent expiring in 1977. meaning that anyone could use the design without paying a licence fee. While AR-15 is a registered trademark it means anyone can make an "AR-15 Style" weapon. Legally they cant call it an AR-15. But the "public" will refer to it as an AR-15

in much the same way vacuum cleaners are often referred to as "hoovers" even though they aren't made by the Hoover company,

Its become a generic term.

[elfin heron]

I mean, AR-15 is generally accepted as what armalite made based off of stoner's AR-10 system

[chilly silo]

But that proves the point doesn't it. its a generic term now for a style of rifle.

[elfin heron]

Yeah, I suppose -- think I just had a brain fart tbh

[chilly silo]

That describes my entire day

[soft egret]

Nillers was already working on getting clarification on that.. about two months ago now. And still nothing

But wasn't it also that the game eula and tools eula were different in that respect?
And people are incorrectly trying to apply the game eula to the tools and workshop? Don't fully remember what the discussions were there in may

Yes indeed. Here is the snippet from the Tools EULA, The Tools you use to upload content to the workshop.

https://store.steampowered.com/eula/1874910_eula_0 Reforger
https://store.steampowered.com/eula/830640_eula_0 DayZ Tools

USER-CREATED CONTENT
If You create any content ("content") using the software, You may do so, but there are rules.

• This content must not infringe anyone's copyrights or author rights, it must not be offensive to people or illegal in any other way.
  If You do not want to accept these rules, do not create and share any content using our software.

People are trying to apply the game EULA, to the Tools that have a different EULA.
They saw a "free candy" sign on a van, and use that as justification of going into a candy shop and just stealing all the candy.

[chilly silo]

If You do not want to accept these rules, do not create and share any content using Our game.```
It was this passage that upset everyone.

in or out of the context of the rest of the license people would like some clarification.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

Going through the original discussion it looks like the terms have been changed - https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop-terms

Nope the ambiguity is still on the Game EULA not the Workshop EULA

[rustic copper]

hmmm.... it's just that last sentence which is messed up...

You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.

the rest is pretty basic

[chilly silo]

Agreed, but i cant tell you how many people asked me about that and how it applies to modding. A lot of people I interact with have flat out refused to use Reforger just because of that line.

They dont want to lose control of their creations. Rightly or wrongly, it does seem to force "open source" on the community and not everyone is down for that.

And this:
If You do not want to accept these rules, do not create and share any content using Our game.
is seen as a slap in the face of anyone that objects. My own response when I read that was "F you then - i wont be modding for Reforger". Something a lot of my friends have said too.

[rustic copper]

I fully agree; the reason why Arma got big is because of modders and how BI is helping modders to keep doing that.
And with things like this I can imagine that people don't want to provide free content to BI (or anyone else) just because the license forces you to let it happen

[chilly silo]

Either way i think it would be good if BI's legal team clarified their intent.

[elfin heron]

hmm yes we will now bring the workshop off of steam. everything you publish onto here is everybodys 😃 👍

[carmine folio]

I think the sole reason for having 1st party workshop is so the consolers can install mods, still doesnt stop them from demanding things or asking how to install mods in a 3 step procedure...

[chilly silo]

Personally i dont mind the BI hosted workshop. Its just the EULA terms that concern me.

[carmine folio]

I dont see anything bad. as long as they dont take your stuff and try to profit from it. if someone wants to take someones Btr and add a new turret that they made I see no issue really.

[molten kraken]

The pride of people

[chilly silo]

Not really the place for this particular debate. But its the fundamental moral right of a creator to decide how their work is used. Forcing "open source" onto the modding comunity this way after 20 years of "choose your own license" is not well received.

[elfin heron]

And there isn't an issue with modifying other people's work, provided they want you to. This stops you being able to enforce your preference

In theory ^

[carmine folio]

is it tho? its kinda of like a semi public domain.

[elfin heron]

No, it's BI's domain which they're giving you permission to use

[manic laurel]

#ip_rights_violations → #enfusion_workshop perhaps?

[elfin heron]

This is still related to IP rights, so #other_ip_topics probably

[chilly silo]

Not really. Public domain/Open source/Whatever you want to call it. it still impinges on the creators Moral Rights. The caveat of "Dont like it, leave" nothwithstanding, is still a - in my opinion - great way to discourage your loyal modding userbase.

[chilly silo]

Sorry, yeah #other_ip_topics might be better for this

[elfin heron]

How long have most A3 players gone since they last played total vanilla?

[sharp void]

I still dev on vanilla except 1 or 2 QoL dev mods. I played the campaign again a few weeks ago if that counts lol

[crimson ingot]

2 hours ago

[soft egret]

This passage doesn't exist in the tools EULA's.
It doesn't apply to the tools you use for publishing content to the workshop, its the Game EULA where that passage is in.

[soft egret]

"You create using Our game" That is in the Game EULA, And the Tools have a seperate EULA that don't say that.
That means things created in game, not in workbench, not in the modding tools, not mods.

Things created in game would be screenshots or videos I presume

I would also prefer legal to be less ambiguous on that, if they assume that people will understand that game and tools have different EULA's, and one doesn't apply to the other, its not a problem. But thats a big assumption and as we can see, it was a wrong assumption.

[chilly silo]

Regardless it needs official clarification as its already being used to justify misbehaviour. Game or tools eula it states "anything you create". From a contract pov that's pretty unambiguous statement and strongly implies a wider scope. I would prefer BI Legal to make a statement about the limit of that clause before I commit my years worth of work just so anyone can rip it.

[soft egret]

Game or tools eula it states "anything you create".
no tools does not
and also it doesn't just say "anything" it says "anything You create using Our game"
In the game eula, that applies to the game, not the tools you use to mod the game as they have a seperate eula

"our game" and "our game's tools" are two seperate legal entities with different rules for each, or atleast thats what whoever was writing these EULA's was thinking.
But its way too easy to missinterpret, it should be clarified that it explicitly talks about the game itself and not the game's modding tools (even though when you think about it, it should already be clear enough, atleast from a legal pov. But that doesn't help against wilful ignorance that a certain group of "modders" have shown to be very proficient at)
And especially the "You also agree that We allow other people to use," NEEDS to be fixed. Because I'm very sure thats plain wrong.

The game EULA only specifies about content you create in the game.
Both DayZ and Reforger you cannot create content in the game besides screenshots and videos. Modders don't create mods in the game, so this doesn't apply to modders (except modders that want to forbid people to take screenshots of their work)
And as long as modders cannot actually create any content in the game, the clause will not be an issue.
But it will become one if uploading missions or compositions to the workshop (like A3 can) becomes a thing, because at that point you would be creating content using the game. I don't know if Reforger has plans for that, and DayZ cannot do that so not a concern there.

[chilly silo]

Are we going to do this again....

You know full well what I mean

[soft egret]

It seems like you didn't understand what i meant by there being two seperate EULA's with different statement.
The game EULA doesn't apply to the tools and creating modded content.

Yes the Game EULA is still bad, but its seperate and doesn't apply to the case that people are missusing it for.
Legally speaking it should be clear that they are seperate, but thats not stopping people from willfully mixing them up

[chilly silo]

And from a legal aspect the question or where the scope of our game starts and ends is debatable since the workshop is fully integrated to the game.

[soft egret]

Yeah.
As I said legal expected people to know that "our game" and "our game's tools" are two seperate things.
But for a user just casually reading the EULA's and not knowing that, its hard to get to that understanding

[chilly silo]

Your non legal opinion may well be correct. But it's not legally binding is it... Unless you've added a law degree in the last few hours

[soft egret]

No what I say is not legally binding, but I'm just explaining how the EULA that is legally binding was intended

[chilly silo]

Is that what legal actually said is it or is that your opinion?

[soft egret]

Thats what my opinion is, as far as I know legal hasn't reacted to this enquiry since may.
But to me it's obvious

[onyx iron]

It's about time for the EU directive to pass that forces companies to write non bullshit EULAs that the average customer can read and understand 😄

[chilly silo]

OK as a BI rep you should be making sure you preface your opinions with "in my opinion" rather than making sweeping statements

People have asked for legal clarification why not get it for them

[soft egret]

One thing says "everything you create using product A you give us all rights to and allow us to give others the rights to"
Second thing says "everything you create using product B, you cannot infringe other peoples copyright"

Now people come along, using product B, and applying what was said about product A to their creations that were using product B

Why else would game and tools have seperate EULA's if it wasn't intended that they have seperate rules applying to each of them

[soft egret]

Nillers has asked for clarification in May and said he'll get back to us when he gets something, he didn't get back to us.
Lou brought it up internally again today, now we're waiting again

[chilly silo]

But product B is a child of product A and cannot be used exclusively. That implies they are integrated. Its exactly how the majority regard it. So let's wait for legal to clarify the intent before making sweeping statements based on an assumption.

[chilly silo]

So why keep making statements without confirmation?

[soft egret]

Because its obvious if you don't assume that BI has malicious/harmful intent versus modders.
Which they certainly don't.

Do I believe BI intends to give everyone rights to do anything with any modded content? hell no, and I know that legal knows how bad that would be.
Do I believe that BI would reserve themselves the rights to do anything with game's screenshots and videos, while keeping the modding rules mostly like they were the past decade? yes.

I don't worry about getting burned for believing and stating that my company has no malicious intent.
And if my statements are actually wrong, then I'm at the top of the list of people that advocate for it to be changed immediately, and I know its a long list of people.

[chilly silo]

And it's obvious that A contradicts B. I'm not assuming anything hence why I wanted to see a clarification just like many others.

Until we get that clarification it's a pointless debate

And given the multiple incidents of misuse or confusion if we are being polite. Then it's a good PR move to clear things up don't you think...

And for the record. Because you obviously want to assume my position is malicious toward BI. I am not suggesting that BI want to steal anything from us. I am suggesting people in the community will abuse the licence confusion for their own ends.

I've previously asked for clarification whether it was Bi's intent to force an Open source ethic on the community. Since that is strongly Implied in the eula

Again not an unreasonable question in my opinion.

[echo orchid]

neither of you will win this, you know..
can we agree that for reforger

1. the eulas as it stands are at the very least confusing and poorly written in accordance to copyright laws
2. the fact that tools have a different EULA is weird, considering you sort of can play the game directly from the tools to begin with (so a screenshot from tools is going to be treated differently by BI because the tools were used instead of game, really?)
3. BI should already be well aware of the existing issues in regards to copyrights
4. i would definitely wait on @hollow rain to get back on this topic

[soft egret]

Because you obviously want to assume my position is malicious toward BI. I am not suggesting that BI want to steal anything from us. I am suggesting people in the community will abuse the licence confusion for their own ends.
I don't, yes same for me.
As I said, to me the EULA is clear, but that obviously doesn't protect us against the "willful ignorance" presented by users that want to misuse it

The game EULA should be cleared up so that just ignorance won't be enough to justify missconduct

[chilly silo]

I'm not trying to win anything. I agree with you on all points. I really don't see why asking these questions is so difficult. Dedmen's opinions are not enough. A lot of others have asked the same thing. The confusion is obvious and needs clarification yet a BI employee with no legal responsibility is making statements that will impact on how people will use/misuse community made content.

[echo orchid]

that’s why i said that in order to win there needs to be some written clarification from BI legal department that came up with such EULA to begin with

[chilly silo]

Which is all we asked for. Yet the opinion keeps getting repeated as apparent fact. I'm happy to wait for that clarification if he is.

[chilly silo]

And what ive been saying all along 😛

[echo orchid]

that i get. and that’s why i have just asked questions myself, i didn’t throw my 2 pennies in the mix

[coral torrent]

This is correct. Wording like this has to be read very carefully. Based on my small background in IP (Copy- and Patentright) I would like to point out that:

You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download.
Is a clause found in this wording or another in a lot of content platforms such as Youtube, Facebook etc. The intend is that the platform can for example show your screenshot or model etc in an advertisement that would otherwise constitute commercial use without proper license and BI wold need to explicitly ask or could be sued. It is often (not always) in the interest of content makers to give the platform the rights to showcase them like this.

You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.
Is NOT the same as "You also agree that any third party is granted a an irrevocable permission ...". You allow BI to allow others the use of your work like BI does (e.g. external production companies or platforms such as Xbox or Playstation). BI still has to give permission. The text can not be interpreted as you granting rights per default to a thrid party. So no, I can not use another persons mod without their consent - unless BI has give me the permission - which they could in theory, but would have no interest in in practice.

I wanted to point out the difference because the discussion here was missreading it. Regardless the license differences were probably an accident and surely be matched soon.

[chilly silo]

Its not the "irrevocable permission" clause thats causing the confusion.

You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.
This does read as, for want of a better phrase as 'forcing open source upon the community' whether that was the intent or not. So people have asked for clarification. Is that unreasonable?

[coral torrent]

Also I want to point out that all of this only applies to creations through the software the EULA applies to. You might have used workbench to script, but maybe you did it in notepad. So for example even with this legal framework BI can not allow a thrid party the use scripts. Same goes for ogg, .png etc etc. BI can argue that files types exclusive to workbench such as .et, .acp, .edds etc were made using the tools but often these are wrappers around other source formats (.c, .png, .blend) which you are not able to work with unless you also have the rights to the source format. You can not change an animation if you can't reimport from blender etc. Extracting the source back from workbench files can and will be considered reverse engineering if they do not provide an export button. Since a mod is unlikely to be 100% BI only formats and with thrid party tools eventually popping up that are able to create some of the BI formats without the use of BI tools there is not really a real world scenario where BI could force open source a mod even if they wanted to.

So people have asked for clarification. Is that unreasonable?
No absolutely not, it is a very good idea to come and ask about it. I did not say the question was unjustified, quite the contrary. For the avg user the legal wording is impossible to understand with certainty. I just wanted to give some background on the interpretation in hopes to give you an acceptable answer to the question 🙂 And I was referring mainly to the whole conversation here, and nobody personally.

[onyx iron]

really a real world scenario where BI could force open source a mod even if they wanted to.
They could make that a requirement for the mod to be uploaded onto their workshop, regardless of how that mod got created, no?

[chilly silo]

Also I want to point out that all of this only applies to creations through the software the EULA applies to.
No that is very valid. But its not what the average person here is seeing when they read the EULA.

Its more something like:

Reforger EULA
legalese blah, blah
Blah, di-blah, blah
Titles
Blaahhhh de dum blah
You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license. < OPENSOURCE!!!! We can do anything we like>
bla.... <dont need to read past this point>

Okay so im being a bit flippant but it tracks with a lot of the conversations I've been a part of recently.

I've been asked for my opinion alot regarding this and I do agree that its pretty ambiguous. And while I do not believe BI are planning to take our models <insert Braveheart meme here> I do think that line gives people the impression they can do what they like with addons on the workshop, within the confines of the workshop.

Now to be clear i've had several people from BI (not one in the legal team) tell me that is not the intention. But none of them can definitively make that statement and it be legally binding. Now I know several people have emailed BI Legal but gotten no reply as yet. So until we do my position has been "Wait for BI Legal to respond and don't assume anything." I just think in this issue at least, that should be everyone's default position so we don't cause more confusion than there already is.

[manic laurel]

and nothing prevents a group of concerned modders to email the address in the channel's description to inquire clarifications regarding the situation if no more details have been obtained in, let's say, October? 😎

[little pasture]

On behalf of the Turkish Mod Team, I’m here to reply to that guy who joined this discord recently only to accuse us of stealing models(suspicious, isn’t it?). We’ve been a modding team since 2010 and we worked with many other teams. I’ll explain all the actual facts now.
The said M60T tank have been used with permission, we acquired it back in 2019 through emails, but the team member responsible of our mail address deleted the said mail. We contacted the support of the email servers to recover our conversations with the author of these models. Our mod got taken down directly by the salty author and his puppet with the reason of the m60t tank model being stolen. He hasn’t done anything for 3 years but one day, out of nowhere he filed a dmca. We’re in contact with steam support to lift the dmca, once it’s done we’ll upload the mod back without this author’s models.
When it comes to the Otokar Cobra model that is said to be of Yavuz Demirbağ’s, he used to work in our team and the model was made specifically for our mod, our conversations are here

The BMC Hedgehog and the Nurol Ejder are open source models, so I don’t see any point here to make any explanation. We also have the modeller of them, Zakir Akil in our mod.
The landrover models in fact belong to the project reality team from bf2, and we have their permission. We contacted Stigger(pintura) back in the day to obtain the models, same as the aforementioned DAF Mod. There are also anti-air and open back versions in our mod that weren’t in the DAF Mod, anyone that knows of the project reality could recognize the source of these models.
The ACV300 and the Leopard 2a4 models belong to the great modder Vilas who shared his models with everyone back in the day as an open source, and the DAF Mod uses the same models.
The M60A3 models were given to us with permission by the members of the cold war team back in 2012, we got it directly from Rygugu and w0lle as we credited them on our modpages.

https://www.moddb.com/mods/turkish-mod

All the arma 2 models are open source as you guys know, it is a clear indication of all the false accusations being done with bad intentions with such an ignorance.

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

In no way or shape does the m113a3 models belong to the said team, they are directly taken from the older arma games as anyone can see by inspecting the wireframes. The model claimed by the Turkish Union mod belongs to BI as well.

The author of the Tac Vests mod, Zabb is a good friend of ours. Even though we don’t have any of his models in the mod, just wanted to let you know.
Now when it comes to labor theft, the ones that’s been damaging the modding in Turkey by stealing and claiming credits are the kinds of this kid’s. We have dealt with that for such a long time, the models were ripped and ported to many other games like gta, roblox etc. You are only making the good modders quit by messing up their motivation to make mods. We are on the verge of finishing our last and biggest update with new, high quality models and that’s what we get. Even the RHS got a false dmca, is there anything else left to say?

And why would we give props to everyone if we stole the models? The respected authors are included in the contributors on both arma 2 and 3 pages of our mods.

[crystal talon]

Was there a ban/dmca wave recently?

[crimson ingot]

only those violates the rule.
pinned messages may helps

[crystal talon]

Not arguing that, just noticed a bunch of the long standing ones suddenly gone

I'm simply surprised it hadn't happened sooner.

[lunar coral]

RE-UPLOADS

Re-uploads of any RHS content (in part or in full) on Steam Workshop is PROHIBITED

So the 3rd Infantry Division has a mod that retextures the RHS OEF-CP uniforms does this ago against this rule?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2247944213&searchtext=3rd+Infantry

[vivid wave]

Does the Mod have the data from RHS directly? If it is, that's a no. Does the Mod have the retexture from RHS? That's not a forbidden act

[lunar coral]

its looks exactly the same so yes its from RHS, I was curious because Im working on some retextures to put on the workshop

[sharp void]

It looks to be a retexture only (no models, etc). PuFu has stated in the past that retextures are allowed om certain assets so long as they deem it appropriate.

[lunar coral]

Alright thanks!

Ive heard no putting Zs on stuff

[sharp void]

Correct

[lunar coral]

thank you very much for the reply

[wooden ingot]

https://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA#list-of-files-we-do-not-allow-3rd-party-re-textures ad list of things that are allowed to be retextured

[vestal verge]

What's license type from content ported from A2?
And is there any chance of edit such content? For example: Remodel T-55 for better quality

[carmine folio]

The t55 model from arma 2 is pretty bad your better off starting from scratch honestly

[hallow lark]

A2 content from the data packs is clear for use in reforger

[vestal verge]

And for A3 too?

[hallow lark]

But it's not as straight forward as porting from a2 to a3

No

A3 data packs not released yet. No word on when

[vestal verge]

But I don't mean Reforger

[hallow lark]

A2 to a3 is fine as well, as long as it's the assets from the a2 data packs

[vestal verge]

So in nutshell. No , I can't edit any model from A2 data packs

Correct ?

[hallow lark]

You can edit them, you just can't use them outside arma franchise/dayz

[vestal verge]

Yeah, that's obvious for me.

Thx

[pliant oar]

noticed some reports on AR workshop in style "stolen content" , "IP theft" , "ripped from Sketchfab" ... in case anyone who writes such reports here, please always include more details

[gusty pulsar]

Hello, I am from the Turkish Union Mod. you have switched the M60T to its own mode without permission. and here you say that permission was obtained by e-mail, and then you say that the messages were deleted. What's your problem?

[gusty pulsar]

Does the T40 Grenade Launcher in the hk33 gun also belong to you?

@little pasture ?

If you want, I'll dump all the evidence here, it won't be good for you, stop deceiving people.

[low pebble]

@fiery shore Maybe read a bit more here when you accuse others of being wrong when you and kfb clearly are. This channel holds numerous conversations where you can pick up on how IP works and who has what rights. I'd strongly encourage you to learn a bit more.

(Just letting somebody know where to get a idea of how IP works by showing him this channel)

[fiery shore]

I don't remember asking. Why are you using multiple discord accounts? What are you trying to hide WomboComboYasou#4241 ?

[faint nacelle]

please take your personal drama elsewhere. @fiery shore @low pebble

[fiery shore]

There is no drama, he came at me out of nowhere, haven't written in here ever I believe.

[faint nacelle]

continue in DM if you must

[low pebble]

Not creating drama. I really only wanted to point out the vast amount of information here on which he claimed he knew better. There is no anger or any other motivation other then showing somebody where one could get a better understanding of a situation on which he thought he was right. I closed that discussion with him and this was/is my last say about it. I sincerely hoped he could have stayed on-topic regarding IP rights or we would have switched to # off-topic_ip.

[fiery shore]

We were talking about IP rights when you started insulting me and then blocked me. Isn't that what happened @low pebble ? @faint nacelle Sorry for another offtopic, just clearing his lies up.

Why 2 Discord accounts btw @low pebble ?

[queen badge]

I think you guys misread this msg

[faint nacelle]

this is is the personal drama that needs to stop here

[low pebble]

I think you both are dragging this on...

[faint nacelle]

you both take this to your DMs if you need to. no more on here

[fiery shore]

Just stop adressing me please @low pebble . I don't want nothing to do with you and don't need any of your input on IP laws or anything else for that matter, ty. Have a good day yall.

[hasty gale]

you may have @'d the wrong person or maybe its a language barrier issue but the person you @'d was saying that the models were ripped by other people and that the mod reported here has people that are the original creators apart of the mod team or gave permission to them to use their models such as presumably yourself, the person they are replying to is the person to DM informing them you gave permission Edit: i didnt see they lost their evidence to how they got the model so i may have also misunderstood and you are offering a copy of the email

[tulip badge]

[urban nexus]

You're done my boy

[urban nexus]

Here are all the evidence I got on TrPolice, he's running away rn

https://imgur.com/a/ReEfYQ3

https://imgur.com/a/mmHgAhi

All the models that are claimed to be bought are stolen

Either from me, the actual customer, or directly from the authors

The descriptions are in Turkish but you can read the conversations

[faint nacelle]

@urban nexus like above this is not place to fight out this kind of stuff

[urban nexus]

Sorry for that, but that guy has also stolen from RHS, malaysia armed forces mod, psz etc

Which means it also concerns the arma modders

[stiff jasper]

You can send proof of that to owner of each mod, there is no real reason to have both of you fight each other. If one ripped RHS assets, send pictures and links to PuFu and you did your part. Same for other mods

[urban nexus]

I have contacted most of the modders directly, but that guy keeps lying, even in here. So I wanted to prove it for the last time

Again, I apologise if I kept this channel busy

[faint nacelle]

We just try to keep the channel for reporting purposes, yours did end up having a report too it was just started in suspicious way.

[uncut jasper]

hello, I'm eray we parted ways with TrPolice, but if you examine TMT's files, you will see everything.

[plain rivet]

Let’s also cease this

We don’t need this to turn into drama rights violations

Handle it privately

[elfin heron]

most of us couldnt care less about a random mod and yet the amount of essays that have been sent in this channel over it rather than dms seems to suggest you think the contrary 💀

[muted grove]

The problem is it sounds like someone on the team got salty and started reporting it for no reason? If they can dig up permission emails like they said they can then their mod is perfectly fine.

[jolly basalt]

[echo orchid]

@urban nexussend me proof in regards to RHS via DM please

also, if you have information about ripped content, contact respective owners directly. secondary, if you have information about BI content being misused, contact BI directly - see pin messages.

@uncut jasperdon't make threats here. if you have information in regards to ripped assets, send it to the respecive owners

[carmine folio]

is it okay to add songs to my mod like some song from 1976?

[stiff jasper]

if it's not public domain then no, even if the author/performer is dead the copyright still exists, probably have been ceded to some UMG or other company too

[tranquil dagger]

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/military/military-vehicle/lcu-1610-series-landing-craft somebody I think is selling CUP's LCU for 15 bucks. Anybody know about this yet?

[merry kestrel]

the name of the seller is @wheat wave

unless the seller is using the name to try and legitimize the page

[tranquil dagger]

Maybe CUP bought the model from him since it's not in Arma 2?

Would in that case love to buy it myself lmao

[faint nacelle]

you can buy it. Chairborne made it and put it in CUP and on sale.

I think it made its way to some other game too if I recall right

[tranquil dagger]

Ah shit my bad for posting about it here then. Thanks so much

[manic laurel]

better safe than sorry! 😉

[faint nacelle]

yeh sure its always good to ask

[wheat wave]

I can confirm its mine and i put It on sale there 🙂

Its just the 3d model, youll have to write most of the encoding yourself

[vivid wave]

Converting it into a p3d is your job! 😄

[frail osprey]

Hello to all
I have a question, why exactly my Mighty Dreadnoughts mod got flagged as incompatible and then got deleted from workshop?
I received a message on my Email saying that this post has been removed because it violates the guidelines for behavior and content on Steam.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2416375818

Sorry if thats a wrong channel for that

[stiff jasper]

gotta ping @pliant oar for that

[frail osprey]

oh i didnt knew who i need to contact, thanks

[pliant oar]

contact the email listed in this channel description

[frail osprey]

Thank you

[carmine folio]

Another server open to the public who didn't understand that you shouldn't put the TFAR on the Workshop...
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2773274046

[sweet gulch]

not sure if this was seen yet, but theres been a reupload of SWOP

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2846503461&searchtext=

[crimson ingot]

https://tenor.com/view/crying-jessie-pinkman-breaking-bad-he-cant-keep-getting-away-with-it-gif-5612942

oh it's already deleted

[atomic edge]

To people who reupload workshop mods without the author's permission: Putting the mod in private does not prevent us from making DMCA requests... Just ask if you want to reupload the mods.

[hallow idol]

Sure it does. How do you plan to file a DMCA request on something you can't see?

[atomic edge]

I have the link to the mod. Even if it's private, it's still the same link.

[hallow idol]

Well, if you have the link it's not private anymore now is it)

[faint nacelle]

The original message talked about trying to hide a previously non private reupload by making it private...

[atomic edge]

exactly

[small nexus]

That's some double think right there

[tranquil halo]

Does the Arma 3 license allow for editing the .paa for vanilla textures?

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Retexturing_with_setObjectTexture

[rustic copper]

Well, since the source of Arma 3 PBO's aren't (officially) released yet, the proprietary license stands. Which means not allowed to use or modify (even within Arma games), with exception of the sample files of course.

That said; I don't think that BI is gonna knock on your door if you create an Arma 3 mod with retextures of Arma 3 content. (source: hundreds of retexture mods on the workshop)
Although they could and have all rights to do so.

[faint nacelle]

generally retexturing is allowed for vanilla Arma 3 assets that support hiddenselections

[tranquil halo]

thank you for the feedback

[plain rivet]

Yeah, there’s plenty of base game retexture mods out there

Retexturing base game stuff isn’t an issue

All good there

[little pasture]

As everyone here witnessed, TMT mod got a false dmca last month. The steam support not only lifted the dmca after a brief inspection, but has also banned the person who was responsible.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=740727824

[hallow idol]

The good ending 🙏

[muted grove]

NGL that screencap is hella sus, but it's a good ending if true.

[earnest mirage]

Not Hella, türkye

[soft escarp]

Would they really write "Regards, DMCA" ? Sounds off tbh lol

[echo orchid]

they do, yes

[storm veldt]

Does the IP violations team also handle issues related to merchandise being printed with infringing logo's such as a toy being created with an Arma 3 logo on it (along with other "brands")?

[fallen gale]

yes

for that you have to contact bohemia directly

see the email in the description

[storm veldt]

With the above email in the channel summary?

Got it

Already on it

I've sent them an email on this item, seems to be in Algeria from the original "Reddit post" - https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/wyc7em/teaching_algerian_kids_the_fun_of_committing_war/ Not sure if its okay to post this.

[carmine folio]

I doubt anyone can do something about that besides prevent its import into US, and parts of europe / asia

what are they gonna do fly to long dong china or punjab india and tell them to cease and desist? lol

[plain rivet]

It’s in Algeria

And BI can very well enforce their shit in other countries

[carmine folio]

doubt

[plain rivet]

I’m just gonna let the people who’ve explained this many times jump in

Bruh, it’s in Algeria. I’m just telling you it’s not in China or some other country…

[carmine folio]

ok go tell china to stop making knockoffs, go to russia then tell them they cant use pirated software. you seem to think such laws are enforceable everywhere. also algeria doesn't make anything, cheap toys like this come from south east asia in the overwhelming majority of times.

[plain rivet]

If it was my job to police a brand and stop illegal usage, I would

But Its not

[carmine folio]

im not saying you directly, I'm using hyperbolic speech to show the futility in such endeavors

[crimson ingot]

the money better used for Game developing instead of taking care cheap toys

[molten kraken]

I didn't knew BI had Marvel in it's IPs

[echo orchid]

they can take legal steps no matter where. and this is algeria, not rusia, not china

[echo orchid]

well done

[cedar flint]

@echo orchid Uploads of that good old collection I know you love to hear about.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2850877380
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2824111513

[dusk dagger]

Oh damn

It actually contains everything

[honest gust]

Bros gatekeeping already public mod

[faint nacelle]

These are not proper mods, their contents are stolen from other places.

[honest gust]

I know that but removing that isn't going to make much of an effect

[rustic copper]

Not doing anything will most certainly not help, so shutting down such mods will (hopefully) let people know it's not worth the time and efforts to do something stupid like this.

[honest gust]

Fair enough

[elfin heron]

people who dont know how requiredaddons works

[wild stone]

It will if the workshop uploader is banned from the workshop.

[honest gust]

Perhaps, but the mod is still floating around on Google drives

[rustic copper]

Which can be DMCA'd as well, so not sure how that would help...

In the end, it's not allowed (and under copyright laws even illegal), so everything on the internet can be removed one way or another.

[fallen gale]

Google Drive can be DMCAd too

[echo orchid]

i dmca anything that contains ripped parts from rhs.

[echo orchid]

not sure what you mean by that…

[echo orchid]

tnx, will be handled

[honest gust]

Public as in the sense still around on Google drives that anyone can access, although I understand taking it down from the workshop

[honest gust]

You take down one, two more will pop up

It's a never ending cycle really

[chilly silo]

But if you let it continue without challenging it you will eventually lose your rights.

Ask yourself how you would feel if someone stole credit for something you spent 3-400 hours making,
Or if someone reuploading a hacked version of your work caused you to waste weeks of time troubleshooting an issue for your community, only find out it was all caused by some idiot badly hacking your stuff

If people actually followed the rules life would be far easier.

[dusk dagger]

Fair enough

But is just a mod tbh

[chilly silo]

But its not "just" a mod though is it. It a mod made up of other people's content. Its stolen work. How is that fair to any of the authors involved?

[dusk dagger]

Promoting the authors mod

[chilly silo]

By not listing them? Or asking permission? By actively removing the author's tags and identifying marks?

[dusk dagger]

Good point

But as flightsimulator said, this will never end up, rn everyone has access to the drives, so the people will continue posting those TFL,TFN, TFW… in the workshop

[chilly silo]

Fine, and everytime an author finds them expect them to be removed

There is a tool that can quickly and easily scan the workshop for matching files, models and textures. Its not hard

[dusk dagger]

Yeah true, but why should we continue fighting this “war” even tho this “war” will never end

[chilly silo]

Well if "We" do stop, then you won't be getting any new mods because all the decent authors and artists that know how to make the cool new stuff that people want (ie the stuff that keeps getting ripped) will stop making free stuff.

If their rights are not respected they will leave

[dusk dagger]

That’s a great point

[chilly silo]

and all you will be left with is rehashed and poorly ripped content

We've already lost a lot of great modders from this community due to the theft.

Many more do not publicly release stuff anymore - only modding for their own groups.

Steal, re-posting, hacking, and supporting hacked mods damages the community in the long run.

[dusk dagger]

👍

[chilly silo]

Follow the rules, support the modders make them feel appreciated and supported and you will get great new free high quality content.

If you don't then, watch the standards drop.

[faint nacelle]

Also you can report these googledrives to the mod authors directly so they can take action. It is indeed pointless to just say those exist, but you have a chance to make things better instead of just watch from the side silent.

[dusk dagger]

At this point everyone has private mods and 80% that owns private mods, has a back up of every mod

So no point

[soft egret]

"People who want to have stolen stuff, already have stolen stuff, so why try to punish people for having stolen stuff just let em be"
Sure, if thats your opinion then continue to live that, I know noone can change what you want to believe, but just because many do illegal things, doesn't mean these things automatically become legal.
And over here, we follow the laws.

[faint nacelle]

There is very much point if you want to support the actual mod makers and eventually get rid of the people stealing. It's slow work but it works. So do send those links to the relevant mod authors

[ashen lantern]

Most private mods aren't stolen content tho. Just pointing that out in case someone reading this assumes that just because they see others talk about their group having them, that the only reason anyone would have them is to steal other people's stuff.

Like the vehicle and clothing re-skins many have made for their own group, or stuff that might not fly in the workshop like those fentanyl lollipops. Or something they just can't be arsed to maintain for the public, only to get whined at by pricks for problems that turn out to be caused by them having something else than the latest official version of their mod.

I'd say like 10% of Arma players have the skills to make at least a simple re-skin mod, or something more advanced.

[echo orchid]

actually from my experience 90% of said private mods is made out of stollen/ ripped assets

[ashen lantern]

hmm, I was just basing that on my own exposure with communities.

Also, does something like CUP terrains but half the maps removed to make a smaller package count as "stolen"? idk if it even requires any config-stabbing if it's properly modularized?

[cedar flint]

https://www.cup-arma3.org/faq

[ashen lantern]

*No. The CUP packages come as it is and nobody is allowed to create smaller (light) packages. The reason is simple: When we allowed people to create and distribute smaller subsets of CUP, these packages that are not maintained by us get outdated by the next update. In the past we received numerous bug reports and tickets about broken missions, already fixed bugs and missing content by users that were unable to distinguish between the official CUP packages and third party packs. As we don't want to spend our spare time with separating false from justified bug reports we decided to forbid custom CUP repacks completely.

If you are worried about the download size of CUP, see it as the reincarnation of the previous Arma games in a new engine instead of "just" a mod. With CUP you are basically getting four games for free. *

☝️ See, this is why.

Related, I once caught an ACE3 dev in the wild on Discord and asked if they could put some of those splints into medikits. Except by that point, splints had already been in medikits for more than 6 months. Just my group hadn't bothered to update ACE3 because nothing was really broken 💀

[faint nacelle]

these are the things

on the askers perspective its not really a lot but the answerers perspective it can be tens or hundreds of times answering the same question

[ashen lantern]

And asking shit that's already been done and fixed.

[cedar flint]

I got a great response for you to use next time you hear why update, whats the point

https://i.gyazo.com/3a0280b3950424a666a10d43ac385c00.png

[ashen lantern]

Man, I try to pester our server admin to update everything asap just cos I love new features and fixes but getting them to touch the Repo seems like a really unpleasant operation.

[cedar flint]

I personally try to update our modpack as much as I can, for the very reason of staying ahead.
yeh new updates can cause issues with things breaking, but I prefer having new issues from new mods than old issues from old mods.
(usually new issues can be fixed directly by the mod author as they as usually more active!)

God knows how many issues TFL stuff have. Its a mixture of several mods, without compats and I know some parts of the "mod" are just present to compat something else.
Like a big spaghetti of mods.

[elfin heron]

Literally just drag and drop a .html file from your file explorer onto the mods page to create a new preset, really no need to repack other peoples mods without permission into a bigger one 🤷

That even stays updated for the latest mod versions too, who'd have thought

[dusk dagger]

Well I mean this started with a unit that got separated

[cedar flint]

Anyone know anyway to contact Yura Petrov, https://forums.bohemia.net/profile/739804-yurapetrov/
Its regarding a reupload. (Not mine, but someone who claims to have permission (which I am double checking as I cannot find any public info from recent years))

[teal tide]

“Troubleshooting an issue for your community” wouldn’t the offender have another mod completely different and different upload user? How could a knock off of a mod cause the main mod to be caused by a hacker when he has no ability to modify your own files, especially locally in the mounted p drive? Not 100% if I read your info, please correct me if I’m wrong.

[teal tide]

The workshop crawler doesn’t work on developer/unlisted mods unless found. I believe that was my last convo with siege.

[keen trout]

😉

[chilly silo]

There are several ways this is a problem. Typically Scenarios are:

1. Someone trying to run an out of date or hacked pack on a server and the client using official addons. The Client get errors and bitches on the official steam page or discord.
2. Someone downloads the Reuploaded mod collection and keeps it loaded while playing with other mods, creating a conflict. Reports errors or CTDs.
3. Repacked/Hacked addons are so poorly hacked with config errors that cause issues people report them.

All of the above require me to try and replicate the issue to fix it. That takes time. I waste more time when people lie to me about using said hacked addons. Or dodgy uploads so that i wont DMCA their community pack. So I waste even more time building a pack that uses the official mods they claim they are using. No errors. Then it comes out that they are using their own pack with their "own modified versions".

I've now wasted hours/days/weeks chasing down an error caused by someone hacking my addons and doing a piss poor job of it. The whiners have taken great joy trashing my reputation and none of this was caused by me. And you question why people do not allow reuploads or repacks?

😉

[chilly silo]

@teal tide ^^^^^ this. There are ways.

[jovial crown]

ppl don't repack mod because want to steal something and say is from them, like always in the modern world is because it solves a problem, and the biggest one will be always version control and a lot of ppl prefer to load 1 mod rather 36, it doesn't matter is the same, 1 is less than 36...

i really hope that version control exist on arma 4, just with that you will se a ton of less repacks.
And something that will help too, is that the server show you need to download 300mb of content rather than server running with 87 mods

[chilly silo]

Well i disagree there because Ive had several people in the last 2 months removing my tags and repacking content.

I get that people want to make concise packs containing just what they want or need which is why ive chose to release individuals addon not full packs. But repacking and re-uploading is a HUGE problem. Hacking addons to get advantage over others - bright reskins etc remains a problem on unsigned servers.

People making little changes to suit their own needs and repacking without changing tags and causing conflicts is an everyday thing.

I get 2-3 support requests a week. Over the last 3 years 99% of these were caused by someone either "tweaking" values or "fixing" an error (real and imagined or caused by their own mods). Yet none of the people "fixing" these issues ever thought to come to me and report them and get it fixed.

So no sympathy and zero tolerance for re-uploads.

[elfin heron]

Dude it's literally drag and drop for the html preset

Not hard at all to do, so reducing mod count is bs to be frank

[onyx iron]

I'm sure there's still a lot of admins out there thinking you break the setup mods and join function if you run more than ~30 mods

[teal tide]

I don’t think I ever mention reuploads or repacking allowing it

[chilly silo]

“Troubleshooting an issue for your community”
Im replying in the context of troubleshooting for a community with real world examples for the last 2 months.

[jovial crown]

arma playerbase is quite old in general, this was a real thing for 90% lifetime of arma, it was solved on 2.00... so yea, solving a problem 8 years later, takes time to make all ppl notice it

[elfin heron]

K and that's a reason to steal content how

[jovial crown]

its not steal, is problem solving, if you dont reconoice where the problem is, youhave no chance to solve it... is like taking pain killers when you lose an arm, waiting to it grow

[elfin heron]

It's stealing plain and simple bruh

[onyx iron]

I don't steal content 😄 we use A3Sync

[teal tide]

You did say my question was not allowing reuploads and repacks. I just asked how it affect troubleshooting from a rando that has no official ties. Your info gave me some understandable points towards the work related issues. Just be careful cause saying I want to allow repacks is not correct nor do I see it as okay of stealing content.

[chilly silo]

Why not talk to the actual author and report the issue

[jovial crown]

im not saying is not "stealing", what i mean, is ppl do it to solve this issue, not because to apropiate the content.
sure, there is ppl trying to do it, but is a really small portion

[elfin heron]

If you upload content against the owner's wishes you are stealing it 🤣

[chilly silo]

Im replying in general. And your tone suggested you supported re-uploading. I explained the scenarios i face - which includes repacking/hacking and theft. If you think i was accusing you of supporting theft then i apologise that was not the intent.

[teal tide]

Text tone is hard to understand, all g

[elfin heron]

Owner: i do not want my content taken out of my control
Random person on the internet: takes it anyway
Owner: takes down mod
Rando:

[jovial crown]

A3sync, an really old tool, solves this problem, but since you are distributing the content outside the workshop, can be considered stealing too...

[chilly silo]

No it isnt. Its a different issue due to the lack of the Steam Agreement

[onyx iron]

I know, set a discussion loose in #other_ip_topics, ended nowhere.

[jovial crown]

yea, i wont follow that road again... is pointless

[chilly silo]

Reuploading to steam is a No-No because as an uploader you have to assign rights to steam to the content you upload. If you don't own that content then its considered "theft".

Using A3 sync doesnt have the same limitation unless the creators EULA expressly forbids it

[jovial crown]

if i upload a mod to steamworkshop, you download it, and re-distribute it outside its not "theft"?

[elfin heron]

Yes make sure you upload all your private mods to gdrive they cant be dmca 😉

😉😉

[chilly silo]

As long as you do not breach the creators EULA no. its not. You may distribute content in accordance with the EULA provided. If there is no EULA attached you may not redistribute as the strictest interpretation of the law applies.

[chilly silo]

gdrive can be DMCA'd 😉

I do it alot 😛

[elfin heron]

Shhhh theyre not supposed to know

Watch their tiny minds melt as their mods disappear

[jovial crown]

all my mods are opensource, so you can do whatever you want with them

[jovial crown]

If there is no EULA attached you may not redistribute as the strictest interpretation of the law applies.

i dont think i ever read a eula where says that you can re-distribute a mod outside the workshop, maybe im wrong... but i dont think that rhs cup and other has this in their eula

[chilly silo]

If you go back and read the RHS Eula for example, It denies you the right to re-upload to Steam. But Section 2.a.1A covers sharing outside of that limitation.

https://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA which leads to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

https://www.cup-arma3.org/cup-license

TL:DR:
You are allowed to
Play with this Mod/Addon in Arma series (Single or Multiplayer). Obviously.

Distribute the Addon/Mod over a non public channel like a private repository.

Unpack the PBOs, see how the stuff is made and learn how to make or port your own Addons.

[jovial crown]

so the only reason why "no listed" addons are forbiden is just because inflicts the steam workshop code

nice, thank you, my english is not the best, but still all this legal thing is quite complicated

[elfin heron]

Not really, if you don't have permission then don't reupload, simple as

If you don't know if you have permission or not, you don't 🤷‍♀️

[teal tide]

Quick question, is Garry mod allowing uploads from other games? Cause obviously cod and such is on it.

How does that correlate with the steam workshop and arma?

[elfin heron]

Garrys mod can't allow it, they just don't enforce it as much

[chilly silo]

Simply put to upload ANYTHING to Steam workshop you must either:

A) Be the 100% creator of the content.
B) Have permission to upload the content (That can be an email or note etc from the author saying you have authorisation or the source mod/mission etc has a license that allows it.)
C) Be the designated person for a collective group authorised to upload on their behalf

[teal tide]

Always thought it was allowed there due to the massive uploads of other games

Good to know

[elfin heron]

No, reuploading content that isn't yours without permission is never allowed, just the amount of enforcement varies

[teal tide]

Surprised gmod doesn’t get in trouble for allowing it

[elfin heron]

Not exactly like it's pulling people away from pulling COD

[teal tide]

Enforcing it to be exact

[chilly silo]

The workshop regularly gets items removed under DMCA

Difference is the authors in GMOD typically do not make their own content. So the modders are less protective.

But a lot f corporate DMCA stikes happen when they can be bothered to do a sweep

[rustic copper]

most Gmod stuff is already ripped, so why would the publisher DMCA the content... he/she doesn't care about copyright laws anyway

[teal tide]

So it’s up to corporate level when it comes to COD ports

[echo orchid]

you cannot re-upload a mod anywhere the hosting platforms ask you to share ip rights with them, because you own none unless you are the author

[teal tide]

Surprise they don’t get in a lot of trouble for them to be able to keep uploading stuff like that within gmod

[chilly silo]

Well Valve/Steam is covered by their EULA - it and the DMCA act make the liability the 100% responsibility of the uploader. And the Publisher's EULA only governs the interaction between the Studios and the User. Not the community. So if you get caught is all on you no one else.

[teal tide]

I think there should be higher infractions on it

[echo orchid]

gmod, just like the defunct facepunch, is full with ripped content. Steam doesn’t act on their own unless they are notified

[teal tide]

Do u believe arma reforger has a better system of tracking dmca and stolen content?

[echo orchid]

game developers do have (on request) access to some moderation of their own steam page. Bi is the only ones i am aware of where they do remove both uploads and they also remove users publishing permission on sw

[echo orchid]

just because is self hosted by BI on their own, yes. They can much easier remove content (and legit mod makers can much easier get rid of their stolen content by simply contacting BI)

that also means that there will be much much less ripped content available for reforger and future a4. no more packes of ripped cars from forza, asseto corsa etc for the life communities

[teal tide]

I Haven’t seen forza mods on arma yet lol

Surprised they do that

[echo orchid]

you have, a3 has quite a few rips, generally shared for life servers

[rustic copper]

Although BI still needs to improve their system to support DMCA's and report content (other reasons), but looking at the progress of the Enfusion Workshop I'm sure this will be implemented. Till then someone at BI has a hard time going through all the emails 🤣

[teal tide]

Self hosting BI seems to be good then, wondering if console would be able to mod in the future.

[echo orchid]

there were a few for reforger as well, but these got quickly removed and there are (temp) bans for his uploading priviledges

[teal tide]

That makes more sense, I would hope bans are longer and more strict on reforger

[carmine folio]

yeah maybe when gimp, blender, audacity and the enfusion tools get added to the xbox... hint its never gonna happen

[teal tide]

Appreciate the answers to my questions, always wondered these in the very first time I played arma

[echo orchid]

what do you mean?

[teal tide]

Self integrated workshop from BI, which means that console doesn’t need to have steam to be able to modify. So it’s more likely console could get the chance to do so.

More of a hope to include more people into the modding community

[echo orchid]

i still don’t understand. modding will remain pc exclusive for the obvious reasons

[teal tide]

Gotcha, I must have misread

[echo orchid]

modding <> mission editor, that is also external from game, and also pc exclusive

and there is obviously no way tools can work on consoles, afaik there are console emulators (even last gen) for pc, no windows os emulator on xbox

but we going ot

[keen trout]

which is not true according to the most common open source licenses

open source != do what you want

[fallow egret]

MIT license perhaps? Ah yeah, ofcourse the "Include this file clause"

[keen trout]

MIT does not allow others to do whatever they want

the license makes that quite clear 😛

[onyx iron]

http://www.wtfpl.net/ ?

[keen trout]

most common

WTFPL also does not allow you to do whatever you want

it is also quite clear in the license 😛

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.

the devil is in the details!

[rustic copper]

reading is hard is something I've noticed in channels like these, so not surprised

[jovial crown]

Ok my mods are DWUW license then

[onyx iron]

but thats talking about the license, not the work you'd license with that 😛

[keen trout]

still you can't do whatever you want 😉

it is also not the most common license you would fine while looking at arma mods

[onyx iron]

Well yeah but thats because of some irrevocable rights you have as an author, not because of the text you cited. Just wanted to make that clear 😉

and yeah, not common

[keen trout]

looking at github I see Apache, BSD, (A/L)GPL, MIT

with AGPL you could be forced to hand out (if requested) any source code modifications for mods running as server only. Same would apply to missions but you're already distributing them to clients so

[onyx iron]

Same would apply to missions but you're already distributing them to clients so
You could obfuscate them, no?

Could in a sense that you could, not that that would be what the license had in mind

[keen trout]

your not really blocking anyone from making changes or running it so

unless you have some server only part needed to run the mission

if your server is passworded the mission files are not externally distributed either, lots of fun gotchas

[onyx iron]

True

[sharp void]

The true "do what ever you want":
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/

[dusty nimbus]

Am I free to use content from Arma 3 Samples in any way in an arma mod?

simply put, I would like to edit the vest from arma 3 samples

[faint nacelle]

yes you can do that

they do have a license file somewhere in there I think

[vivid wave]

Arma 3 Samples is APL IIRC

[faint nacelle]

looks liike it yes

[midnight iris]

I know this was two days ago but this actually happened to me and I still don't know how to fix it XD

[onyx iron]

Steam Max packet size in server.cfg

Set to 10000, check wiki for correct Syntax

[midnight iris]

dude you're a legend thank you

[keen trout]

steamProtocolMaxDataSize = 9001;

[onyx iron]

It should really be a giant info in the server rpt, or just by default in the server.cfg

[cedar flint]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2856452854
Z applied via attaching objects.

https://i.gyazo.com/bdc0ca924d540b6e74c549bef2fc2283.png

[reef gust]

lol

technically not retexturing

well I mean not even technically it straight up isn't

[carmine folio]

are ukrainian symbols allowed on rhs stuff like SS, bandera, black sun, azov? (dont at me either)

[vivid wave]

RHS forbids to depict the war in any ways, any sides

[pliant jolt]

That's a very interesting workaround

[mint ridge]

Why not remove any depictions of war? Just make it a civilian and police sim game

[vivid wave]

Being a war game and having anti-war theme in it are not trade off things

[manic laurel]

pretty much the core of the game indeed

[plucky rose]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2842058429

Is this actually allowed to be up, due to what they call "section 2.D. from the steam subscriber agreement"?

[carmine folio]

yes it is... are you a valve employee that handles IP?

[plucky rose]

Nope, I'm curious since I am building a modpack for my unit and looking for cool sci-fi stuff and don't want to add a mod that isn't supposed to be up

(happened to a MW4 mod that was up for 2 years until someone in this chat mentioned it and it got taken down)

[carmine folio]

well this has been mentioned a few times, but I dislike the snitching that goes on when it does not involve the person reporting it.

[plucky rose]

I totally get it, but I also don't wanna waste a month or two worth of planned missions based around a big mod like that just for it to be taken down from steam

[rustic copper]

Looking at that mod (and some other Valve ripped ones) they all seem to believe that mods are the same as fan-art (by referring to that specific paragraph in the license)... I guess a cleanup round is needed, and some people should be educated about reading official documents.

[rustic copper]

2.D. is about fan art, not ripping models, sounds and textures to be used in other games...

Valve is known to be ignorant about this topic (both for other IP, but also their own), but it doesn't mean it's legal in any way.

[plucky rose]

Unlucky

[echo orchid]

it isn’t.

[runic wraith]

I seriously doubt anyone here cares what you like or dislike. If it bothers you that much, then maybe you shouldn't participate in a channel which is dedicated to IP rights violations, regardless of whether it involves the person reporting it or not. In this particular situation, the user was simply trying to ensure that they weren't adding some illegally obtained assets to their modpack, which would cause them trouble in the long run, and seems like a completely valid reason to bring it up. It certainly doesn't involve you or your opinion on the matter. Unless of course you yourself are a Valve employee and can say one way or another if that mod is legitimate...

[knotty radish]

im simply curious, how would them adding a mod that violates IP rights to their modpack result in problems for them (beyond a broken modpack, of course)?

[hallow lark]

how would creating a mod pack designed for a specific set of mods be affected by one of said mods being possibly removed by dmca?

[elfin heron]

...because youve built your missions with those mods in mind..?

which could have quite big consequences if all of a sudden half your props are gone..?

think before posting its not too hard

[knotty radish]

well that's why I said beyond a broken modpack. the poster who i originally asked about seemed to imply more severe punishments, so I was asking for clarification.

[elfin heron]

No he did not

[knotty radish]

right, he is the person who first asked. I was referring to Siege-A. apologies for the confusion.

[wispy karma]

So about our benefactors do you have any examples of these "ripped" assets? Just asking because I watched the mod being made and it was a lot of custom models and textures.

[carmine folio]

yeah but muh modpack tho

[wispy karma]

Your mod pack should be fine my home slice Like I said was watched the development of the mod and I never saw ripped assets being used.

[plain rivet]

One of our devs who did some Half Life stuff actually found out that Our Benefactors took a sight and his AR2 geo from his mod. Lies

That was why our benefactors was DMCA’d before it was hashed out later

[wispy karma]

I think you don't understand anything about the development of that mod.

Or the reason it was DMCAd

[plain rivet]

I didn’t follow the mod development, but I know for damn sure that they took something from one of our devs. He did a review of it and they matched 100%. And I literally was talking to him as he was DMCA’ing the mod

[wispy karma]

The only mod it uses any stuff from is echos which is a needed for some of the base half life guns like the AR2

[plain rivet]

The dev I’m talking about made that mod

[wispy karma]

Then that is not ripped assets since echos is needed to run that mod

[plain rivet]

We found that the AR2 rear sight was the exact sight from his mod. Ripped. The second was that the AR2 had the geo and everything besides the model from his mod

It was then hashed out later on and he retracted his claim

[wispy karma]

Yeah I am saying that none of the assets are ripped from half life wich would then classify as a IP right Violation wich is what the staff on this discord tried to imply

[plain rivet]

Yes nothing was taken from HL but was from another HL mod is what I was saying

[carmine folio]

I have a quick question for the channel are the mods actually tested for IP violation or is it just a stake it on the door and say it's ripped before looking?

Or is it picked apart in steam files?

[plain rivet]

It’s reported and some testing is done before it’s hit. Or if it’s Star Wars, it’s removed immediately

[carmine folio]

Opposition team at it again?

[wispy karma]

I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about

[plain rivet]

No, just BI doesn’t want Sw mods on the workshop since Disney is ready to smite anyone at any point in time who is using their IP

[carmine folio]

fair enough

[plain rivet]

Also, @wispy karma Wasn’t meaning to come after you or anything if that’s how it came off. Just tried explaining that there was ripped assets used at one point. But none from HL the game

[wispy karma]

Yeah I heard about the DMCA that he got but they came to a understanding about it.

[elfin heron]

its an IP rights violation if the assets are ripped from anywhere without permission, regardless of the source or if theyve been ripped 3 times over

and it definitely is still a violation if its another mod it is ripped from

[wispy karma]

I mean they worked that out so unless they about to stir drama from a thing that was handled by the mod developers then there is no IP right Violation.

[carmine folio]

The assassin helmet seems to be handmade in OB

As I don't remember the assasin helmet having a cone looking front

[plain rivet]

All other models are either legit or sourced from somewhere and the devs who made the public models have been asked that they may use the model. I actually know and talk to one of their devs a fair bit

[wispy karma]

Yeah so in other words the mod is fine and should be safe from being taken down.

[plain rivet]

Yep, it’s all good. Still amazed at how well webknight can work the ARMA animation engine

Anyways, that’s not a convo for here

[lunar coral]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2833771582&searchtext= RHS btrs with the Russian "Z" on them

[plain rivet]

@echo orchid

[hallow idol]

Holy shit, this again)))

[honest gust]

Skill issue tbh

Cope

[stiff jasper]

RHS forbids using these markings, what's so hard to understand

[honest gust]

This was posted here before I'm pretty sure

Gah I can't attach images

#ip_rights_violations message

[hallow idol]

This mod is 0.069 MBs and contains nothing but a config.cpp in the PBO, what's so hard to understand

This is a good answer to the guys question earlier about if mods are tested or just staked to the door before looking)

[stiff jasper]

RHS forbids using these markings with their mod, it has been said numerous times.

[honest gust]

?

My brother in Christ those are your own words

[stiff jasper]

don't call me brother, and why do you quote me if RHS statement is different and final?

[honest gust]

😭

Whatever man do as you wish

[echo orchid]

cheers will have a look, i remember taking these mod down before

[echo orchid]

easy there tiger. read what a non-derivative license is first

[echo orchid]

same as above ^ RHS uses ND license, any and all dependency mods are derivative by nature

[hallow idol]

Ok, now what?

There are no dependency mods, other than RHSAFRF ofc

This was already posted to you before & you said "I'll deal with it", so it leads me to believe that there was nothing to deal with, as only screenshots have Z markings on them - not the mod

[echo orchid]

and that is derivative content.

[hallow idol]

Yes, derivative content of RHSAFRF, which contains nothing but a config.cpp, so nothing that breaks your license

[echo orchid]

i remember DMCAing it, and i always check content of reported mods. This leads me to believe that they have removed the files infringing the Z rule

[echo orchid]

you still don't seem to grasp what derivative is.

[hallow idol]

They never had those files

Not the first time it was reported, not the 2nd time, and not this time

Other than the screenshots I posted and proper memory of other people - proof is even provided in the changelog, as the mod was never updated since it has been uploaded

[echo orchid]

then i might have checked it and figured there was nothing wrong with it, i have several of these reports per week, i'll have a look in my excel file when i get in front of a PC if i have DMCA these or not. that is why i always check, about 20% of reported things are false

[plucky rose]

Can I possibly get a mod/someone who deals with the IP violations to cover the claims about the development of the half-life mod being legitimate?

IMO things are a bit uncertain and it's not taken down yet so I'm unsure what's the final verdict 🙏

[echo orchid]

I have already responded before = it isn’t legitimate. Valve has NOT released datapacks containing assets, and these were not made inhouse either, as such these are ripped.
in regards to it being taken down, that’s up to @pliant oar, when he has the time for it

[plucky rose]

Gotcha, sorry but some claims make sense, and I know things can be messed up on either side of this sort of deal so just wanted to make sure

Appreciate the confirmation

[echo orchid]

no idea what you mean by claims in this particular case

[plucky rose]

People watching the Development, saying they used custom assets supposedly and not ripped ones, etc

[echo orchid]

to my knowledge crowbar collective (black mesa devs) had an agreement with valve directly.

section 2d doesn’t from steam agreement does not cover mods. 6D stipulates that you own the content in order to share your own ip rights with valve/steam

[carmine folio]

Valve approached them and pretty much I believe every asset they had they made themselves.

for black mesa

[echo orchid]

just having a look over the content of his mods, a most if not all of the assets are not his own

[carmine folio]

If you take down a submod wouldn't looking into the original mod be a nessicity too?

[gloomy summit]

Gamebanana approached Valve with intention to get a clarification on this. Based on what they claim was the resolution of their informal agreement, Valve made a statement that porting of Valve assets to other game engines as mods is fine,provided it is on a non-commercial basis, is not defematory and properly credits the IP owner. It is also stated that Valve may remove any such content with or without a reason at their will. Is there any official Valve claims that contradict this ,specifically in context of modding?

https://gamebanana.com/blogs/17948

[manic laurel]

Please note - This is an informal agreement between GameBanana and Valve employee's, it does not offer any form of legal protection, or allow you to use Valve assets on other websites or services. This agreement may be subject to change at any point.

so it does not concern anyone else and is irrelevant to the conversation.

I might even question its reliability. "between us and Valve employees" Valve employees do not own the Intellectual Property, so they would need a statement from Valve itself
Which they don't.

[gloomy summit]

Yes,its basically GB's way of saying they will not answer random people's queries or even worse take responsibility. Not that Valve has issued a special license for GB users.

I will try to contact Valve and see if they can back up what they stated as true.

[manic laurel]

don't bother (unless out of personal interest)
if you contact them, have them issue a statement regarding Arma, about which this server is

[fast wagon]

If you don’t want to build a mod pack with mods that could potentially get taken down (though likely not) then why go around questioning the legitimacy of the mod in the first place?

I’m no valve developer, I can’t speak for how valve would view the mod, but I know for certain that it’s not just some copy paste ripoff mod. A lot of hard and long hours we’re spent into the development of this mod and into bringing it into the arma 3 workshop, should we not at least debate the worth or quality of the mod itself, or at least regard whether or not it is actually right to debase the existence of this mod?

[plucky rose]

to me it's just as simple as me not wanting to waste months of work regarding making stories, missions and ops for my unit.

I understand the grand scheme of things but they kind of go into eachother either way we go about questioning this.

If you want to truly argue for the mod's existence, best bet would be to talk to the big man himself or contact valve themselves or whatever- I just saw cool mod but didn't want to waste my time if it's gonna go down the same way the MW4 mod did

[fast wagon]

The chances of the content getting removed if it weren’t brought up is significantly lower than going out and publicly questioning it’s existence.

If you think the mod is cool and want to keep it, but you think it’s at risk of some kind of issue in terms of copyright or whatever, usually you wouldn’t go out of your way to shine the spotlight on it.

[carmine folio]

its like going to police and telling them that she lied about not being under age. a big brain move

[plucky rose]

The mod was on the workshop frontpage for over a week.

Even if it was around for 2 years from now, I don't want to dread the day when I wake up and launch up the server just to get a whole console filled with red text. all of the mods I currently have in the modpack don't make me paranoid that they'll dissapear

[fast wagon]

I wish that the effort put into taking down these mods were diverted into creating new content or ideas for newer games or more content on stuff like A4 and/or reforger.

[plucky rose]

People who download the mods aren't ones who usually get in trouble, especially when they have't even downloaded the mod or whatever

[fast wagon]

Well I’m sorry for your loss, it’s not like people had to work on skeletons and animations, sounds, and artwork to fill the content of the mod itself

How do you think they will feel when their work they wanted to share with the community gets taken down?

[carmine folio]

BI only takes down mods because they have to when it gets presented to them.

[fast wagon]

^

[plucky rose]

bad but.. they know what they're doing?

No one is going to give pity to someone who dealt partially illegal drugs just because they didn't know it was illegal.

[fast wagon]

Drugs damage and destroy people

[soft egret]

Many people spend long risky hard hours breaking into peoples homes, or scamming elderly people on the phone.
Yes its hard work, doesn't change anything about whether its legal though. If there is ripped stuff in there, its bad no matter how much work went into making it look good.
if there is no ripped stuff in there, then no problemo

A user asked "is this legit or risky" and he got the correct answer.
Don't turn this into some kind of witch hunt

[fast wagon]

I don’t think actions that destructive should be compared to video game content, especially if it’s over a decade old.

I don’t know

It’s a cool mod, it didn’t waltz in intending to do harm and I didn’t see any monetary gain from it. If valve wants it removed so be it, I just don’t understand the gripe people have with its existence. Can’t have nice things I guess.

[carmine folio]

honestly the majority of reports are not from people getting hurt by these mods, its someone getting butt hurt at the people making the mods or a group who uses it. I find it very anti social behavior since its business that does not concern them in the first place.

[soft egret]

I don’t think actions that destructive should be compared to video game content, especially if it’s over a decade old.
And many people do. But these people don't make the laws

I just don’t understand the gripe people have with its existence
Scroll up and read? I think all the issues with it were listed

[plucky rose]

This is like the equivalent to basically borrowing a bike for as long as I want to use it and getting to mod it or maintain it for as long as I want, but there's a chance of that bike being reported as stolen and I get it taken away from me as a consumer, no matter how attached/invested I was in that bike.

I'd rather make sure and ask if that bike is 100% legit or whatever, you know? Even if the place i borrowed it from customized it / added tons of new features or paint, it doesn't matter if it is basically that same bike that was stolen. If you are making something new, just make the very base yourself instead of re-purposing someone else's bike

Very far analogy but you get it

[soft egret]

Yeah looking at it

Valve, Crowbar Collective - models, sounds, textures and awesome games [section 2.D. from the steam subscriber agreement]
They give credits to valve/crowbar for models/sounds/textures and quote section 2D (which doesn't apply here)
To me that sounds like content was taken from Valve/Crowbar, without actual permission (as they seem to use section 2D as permission here)

That is the gripe people have with it

[soft egret]

Simpler analogy, when you buy a car its recommended you check its VIN number with the police to make sure its not stolen before you buy it.
Because if you buy it, and its stolen, its taken away and you are without car and money (if you cannot get to the seller)

[carmine folio]

your logic if flawed . any mod can go down by the authors choice or from it being abandon and broken from a update.

[manic laurel]

one doesn't prevent the other, don't worry about it
from now on if you try to justify ripping or taking down rippers, we can show the door

this channel is not to discuss why or why not or is it just to DMCA.

[soft egret]

But that basically never happens

[carmine folio]

robbert hammers mods are like that

[soft egret]

They were never uploaded to the workshop (so also cannot have been taken down)
And I am using them in my units modpack and they are not broken.

[carmine folio]

ok but mission break when changes are made. I should clarify

[plucky rose]

if we're talking about trying to make it so that mod is technically allowed.

I think that a broken mission file is better than the mod not existing all together

[manic laurel]

let's find back the channel's topic thank you.

[echo orchid]

this sort of mentality is flawd on so many levels...

1. you can indeed have nice things if the content is yours to begin with. If you want to spend so much time on other's people work (and you have no permission to do so), then you better be ready to have all that work removed
2. using content that is not yours (monetary or non monetary, irrelevant) leads to the same place, the difference is if used for monetary gains, you might also be in for financial damage.

[echo orchid]

why wouldn't he do just that? it's the normal thing to do. just because you can have ripped stuff from insert game here in gmod or whatever else you think is fine, doesn't mean it isn't. If you really want that content, either make it yourself, buy it from places that sell these sort of models with a proper license, or hire someone to do that for you

[echo orchid]

but of course it is their business. Just like it is my business to report an accident, or a crime i have witness even thought it has not affected me directly. It's simple common sense...

[keen trout]

a car might no longer be usable due to new constraints on emission or other new rules being put in place 🙂

[echo orchid]

^^it has nothing to do with china, most diesel cars today have a very tangible expiration date in most EU countries, same for petrol cars, for the same exact reasons (maybe longer exp date)

[keen trout]

some cities are already moving to ban certain types of vehicles within their central areas

[knotty radish]

ok, so you all are in agreement that the mod needs to be taken down. any chance you are going to reach out to him and have him remove it himself? or are yall just skipping straight to getting steam to do it.

[carmine folio]

im saying its government over reach against citizens, yet these countries who do that also allow ships with bunker fuel to pass into their waters / ports

[keen trout]

and no amount of complaints about having to put in effort to keep the car clean will help you there

[knotty radish]

since it seems the issue is the HLA models, since there are other HL themed mods on the workshop that have been up for years.

[keen trout]

mods which are flagged for having content which they do not own the rights for can be taken down by valve, what's so strange with that?

valve governs the steam workshop, they ultimately can decide what must be removed

or they will end up having to with a DMCA strike from some legal entity, as the maintainers of their steam workshop

[echo orchid]

i neither an owner of said infringed content, neither a BI employee. If he has the permission for that content he didn't make on his own sure then there is no issues with it. He needs to have proof of permission or ownership.
The alternative to flagging it for valve to check it is to have someone from BI removing it directly....

[carmine folio]

Doesn't valve not really care about its models being used long as it's not monetized without their permission?

[plucky rose]

inb4 he has permission but he just doesn't properly prove it or smthn

[soft egret]

Yeah I think so, that means it should be easy for them to get a quick ok from valve if they just ask

[keen trout]

sending an illegitimate DMCA strike is illegal, is not like people just do it out of the blue for lolz

[carmine folio]

Unless you're on YouTube

[knotty radish]

I am aware of this, my apologies for the confusion. I am merely Asking to figure out if BI will do it, or if they will look to Valve's lead on this, as it is their IP and their workshop. apologies for any confusion my previous question caused.

[carmine folio]

then they just don't care

[echo orchid]

that is very unlikely...

[keen trout]

you should ask valve as they are both the IP owners and steam workshop owners 🙂

[plucky rose]

true

[echo orchid]

in general BI only does when said they have confirmation from a credible source party - example all these MW ripped content etc

[carmine folio]

I imagine when BI devs send a dmca request someone just looks over it real quick and see if it infringes on anything?

[keen trout]

DMCA ends up with Valve AFAIK, BI won't see them?

if we're talking steam workshop

[echo orchid]

again, neither BI, nor anyone else besides the author / owner of the infringed IP can send any sort of DMCA...

[carmine folio]

so if valve never sends one not much will be done

[keen trout]

the future will tell 🙂

[manic laurel]

DMCA, no
report & flag, yes

[keen trout]

but I wouldn't place any bets on illegal content to stay up 😄

[carmine folio]

It's only illegal if valve deems it as IP infringement, no?

[echo orchid]

BI can also manually remove it from the existing A3 SW

[knotty radish]

ah thats what i was getting at

[echo orchid]

no

[keen trout]

it's illegal if it's not legal 😄

[carmine folio]

Anyway aren't all MW ripped mods now private and thus BI can't do anything about it?

[knotty radish]

so even if valve never sends anything, BI can still remove it?

[keen trout]

wrong

[plucky rose]

I want to mention, WebKnight has made a lot of good legitimate mods before and I am 100% certain he probably has dealt with this sort of DMCA thing, which gives me a doubt about him not realising what he's doing

[keen trout]

yes, they maintain workshop for arma 3 and other bohemia titles

note can, not will 😛

[knotty radish]

that seems like its just an inference, not really much of a statement of fact.

[carmine folio]

But if valve deemed it not worthy of being DMCA'ed

[echo orchid]

false, there is nothing actually private on steam workshop to begin with.

[carmine folio]

Bohemia would do nothing then?

[keen trout]

now you're mixing up concepts

[echo orchid]

irrelevant....

[carmine folio]

Private as in they're on some 3rd party website

Not on steam workshop at all

[keen trout]

DMCA is just a modern way to handle IP infrigments in a world with CDNs and other third party hosting without puting the hosts into harms way

[carmine folio]

Or a big legal battle

[keen trout]

DMCA is one way to have illegal content removed but there are (many) other ways as well

[echo orchid]

people do not realize that any hosting website is legally forced to remove content if that content is disputed (a DMCA takedown / IP infringement ticket is deemed as true)

[knotty radish]

ah I see.

so theoretically, a mod can not be taken down by the IP owner, but still be "taken down" or removed from the workshop by BI. not saying it will shake out that way, but merely asking if that scenario is a possibility.

[carmine folio]

Cease and desist order

[keen trout]

anything is possible 🙂

[knotty radish]

well no shit lmao

[keen trout]

😉

[carmine folio]

The Nintendo files prove it

[knotty radish]

by that logic, I could become CEO of BI

[carmine folio]

Though they took it a step too far.

[echo orchid]

yes, BI has direct moderation / admin control over their own part of SW

[knotty radish]

gotcha, makes sense.

[keen trout]

including being banned from steam workshop ⚠️

[echo orchid]

as such, considering BI legal stance in relation to content that is infringing on 3rd party IPs (as in zero tolerance towards it), they have taken action before, they will do it again.

[echo orchid]

that is generally the cherry on top

anyways, back on the topic - the said mod has been already reported twice already, if BI or valve deems necessary to take any legal steps (including contacting the author about it) they will do that on their own

[knotty radish]

mod was reported twice, but the first time was rescinded before takedown, and the second was settled with a withdrawled claim after takedown iirc. I may be misremembering.

[echo orchid]

there is also a big button these days on the A3 publisher withing A3 toolset that you need to click to confirm the content of the addon you are trying to publish is yours to begin with...so there's that

[knotty radish]

this is my first time interacting with IP rights and DMCA legal... well anything really, so thats why im taking an interest in this. not trying to be a stick in the mud or too much of a bother.

[echo orchid]

and this is why this channel exists, so no bother

i would rather explain this for the nth time before someone steps sideways, than having to explain after that one wasted his free time to get content he doesn't own in game just to have it later removed and now he joined this discord and is having a fit about it

[hallow idol]

Again
It never was, & it won't be this time either

[elfin heron]

Any sort of depiction of RHS content with any sort of Ukraine war symbolism isn't allowed, from public screenshots all the way to mods and compositions as all are derivative works... so yes, it will be, and yes, it was

I'm really not sure how hard it is to grasp that mod makers are allowed and entitled to control what contexts their mods are used in

[carmine folio]

what about videos of them in use?

say rhs with z,v,o on youtube?

[manic laurel]

from public screenshots all the way to mods and compositions

[elfin heron]

A derivative of content is anything which uses the content to produce new content -- screenshots, videos, retexture mods, compositions... If a license doesn't allow any derivatives -- at all or of a certain kind -- you are not allowed to produce further content using it where it is not allowed...

[cedar flint]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2857271685
KA / CSW reupload

https://i.gyazo.com/59a75d7998f1b2c6c7425f6d1bc94dfd.png

[elfin heron]

You'd have thought just changing all the prefixes wouldn't be that hard

[hallow idol]

Ofc it is. You can't change a pbo name without breaking the paths of all materials and textures, meaning you would need to redo every model and material

[hallow idol]

This mod has never been taken down.
Nor does it have anything in it that will have it get taken down this time either

I am really not sure how hard it is to grasp reality

Ofc the mod can be DMCA'd just out of spite just for having a screenshot on its page, but I still have some belief that nobody would be willing to stoop so low

[fallen gale]

pbo name has nothing to do paths

[keen trout]

Unless prefix header is missing 🙂

[fallen gale]

if they used pbo manager to pack sure.
in which case they deserve to have their assets ripped 😏

[keen trout]

If you know your tools doing bulk changes to such stuff isn’t hard either

But such reuploads will still be found

[manic laurel]

why not, since it is a forbidden derivative work?

[manic laurel]

making rights respected isn't "stooping low", thanks

[elfin heron]

Please stop talking like you know what you're on about when you very clearly do not

It is frankly embarrassing and frustrating

[hallow idol]

Howso? Most p3d models use paths tied to the folder(pbo) they are in from my experience

Even more so - all that I've seen do, I've never seen the opposite

[vivid wave]

It is valid only if the pbo have no pboprefix, which usual pbos have

[hallow idol]

That would require now editing the contents, not just renaming PBOs, which is smth far less rippers know how to do)

[vivid wave]

which usual pbos have

[hallow idol]

In PuFus own words "then I might have checked it and figured there was nothing wrong with it"

There is nothing in the mod that breaks RHS rules.

This statement is both from my understanding of the written license and the fact that it wasn't DMCA'd before, and isn't being DMCA'd now

If I remember right - there is a part of RHS license that says "We may take down any content based on ours, but we don't do it" - which would be the only "justifiable" way to take this down.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if that isn't part of the license somewhere.
That is what I was referring to when I said "stooping low"

[echo orchid]

i didn't get to check it so far, there is no textures in the files, just config files

will do so ingame

[hallow idol]

Here is the screenshot from last time somebody tried to have this taken down

The mod hasn't updated since (or ever)

[pliant oar]

[knotty radish]

so im curious, what was wrong with KA/CSW? obviously they are blacklisted, im just personally curious what happened with them.

[pliant oar]

ripped stuff from many games (and mods)

[knotty radish]

ah gotcha, thanks

hope your recovery is going well

[small nexus]

[rapid fox]

So, question
I’ve found a mod on the Steam workshop that I’m 99% sure contains a lot of ripped content from other games - what would be the process to go about reporting this?

[vivid wave]

From which game? Which Mod?

[knotty radish]

well given preivious instances of how this place works, assuming its an Arma 3 mod, you can post it in here to let the people who handle that stuff handle it.

[rapid fox]

It’s a private unit mod for ARMA 3, I can link it here in a second, but they’ve made it private so you have to friend their unit steam account to view the mod page.

[soft egret]

you can use the report button on the item

[rapid fox]

Alright, thanks!

[carmine folio]

I'd check the files to be sure.

[rapid fox]

I have looked into the files, and it's only made me a lot more suspicious. The UVmaps for the textures are really suspicious, there are something like a few hundred UV islands on them. There's also a very clear quality difference between assets that are definitely original, and stuff that's suspiciously high-quality and also has the exact same geometry it does in the games I think it's ripped from.

[carmine folio]

well find the game devs and tell them about it

[fast topaz]

I have question, i have a guy who claims that he can use anyones 3d model (RHS/Burnes, whatever) and reupload it to steam because he changed some config and its fine, and can't be DMCAd

[queen badge]

He's lying

[fast topaz]

he says that GNU/GPL and APL allows him to do that

[elfin heron]

He's lying

Send any reuploads of RHS content in PuFu's direction

Ditto for other mod authors

But no, you cannot use anyone's models just because you change some config

[fast topaz]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2849968002

here it is

[queen badge]

It doesn't look like the workshop page mentions which license its under. There is a comment from your friend asking to reach out. It's possible they got permission from the author. Would have to ask the author to find out 🤷‍♂️

[fast topaz]

asked him, he said that license allows it and dont need permission

[queen badge]

How does he know which license its under?

[fast topaz]

🤷

[queen badge]

Under the APL license he can modify and distribute the content freely, as long as the other is properly attributed. But again, no idea which license that mod is using

[fast topaz]

me neither, there is no info about it in files and on page

[plain rivet]

1. This guys an idiot

And 2. He's about to be banned from the workshop

[fast topaz]

for my question about permit from Katie he answered "i am a lawyer with 20 years of experience" so you are not far off

[queen badge]

[elfin heron]

Asks for permission
suddenly starts saying he doesnt need permission
I think I know the answer to their request 🤔

[faint nacelle]

🙈

[plain rivet]

Ok, checked the files, he's at least smart enough to not literally just pull PBOs

[faint nacelle]

burnes one does not contain license though

so hes not allowed to do anything with it

[fast topaz]

anyone have contact with Katie? her profile is private and other guy don't accept invites

[faint nacelle]

shes left Arma matters behind as far as I know.

I can see your friend tried to contact them couple months back. Id wager without success and then decided no answer means he can do whatever he wants

[elfin heron]

Which is the very opposite of what it does mean

[faint nacelle]

@carmine folio meaning she lost interest in modding etc and moved on to other things

[carmine folio]

wait isn't that mod author a man, i remember seeing tutorials about that boat

and a scar too

[small nexus]

[keen trout]

yet more proof that repacking is causing extra work for creators
https://github.com/gruppe-adler/grad_trenches/issues/130

[cedar flint]

https://i.gyazo.com/a4b86191d40aa84c5c0a47e880215985.png
Sent directly via DM.

[echo orchid]

seen thanks, will most likely handle it during we. i am way behind on spanking

[honest gust]

No FLB?

Based...,,

[dusk dagger]

I agree

That’s racist

[rustic copper]

man... didn't check for a while, so I checked for reuploads again... 50 reuploads found!!!

Another night of filling out DMCA's...

[fast topaz]

so only content creator can do something about it?

[faint nacelle]

no BI can remove the mod and in worst case ban your friend from using workshop

[fast topaz]

"friend" - he is worst type of arma player aka " i have 10 years of experience in arma so i know better"

[elfin heron]

people like that are why the block button exists 😄

[cedar flint]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2858082924
"Others do it, so its okay"
https://i.gyazo.com/9ee672dd2deac8351c5aa78147757aaa.png

[plain rivet]

Reporting it here is one thing, you need to let BSG know via email

Also, he did that “work” for no reason

Rip shit get hit

[cedar flint]

I put it here for the same reason I report everything else here.
To let others in the community know & be wary of it, and also to add extra weight (if several people report it then its more likely to get looked into)

[carmine folio]

great work trooper

[plain rivet]

Reporting ripped content. That’s basically this channels purpose

[carmine folio]

yeah and? where is the problem

[faint nacelle]

There is no need for that thanks.

[small nexus]

I mean keepin it 100, it's not that good of a mod

[dawn kettle]

Arma community try not to cry about uploaded assets challenge 100% impossible

[stiff jasper]

Arma community trying to justify stealing stuff because muh effort challenge 100% impossible 🥸

[dawn kettle]

So true

[faint nacelle]

We don't want that kind of attitude here thanks.

[manic laurel]

!issueWarning @dawn kettle flaming/baiting about IP theft - or worse, praising it. Only warning: don't play that card here.

[edgy coral]

Done.

[manic laurel]

Now you know

[dawn kettle]

(No jokes are allowed here)

literally 1984

[manic laurel]

nope, we are very serious and 1984 here yes - we have a Minister of the Truth etc

just don't, we have enough wannabe trolls in this channel trying to defend the practice

Thanks

[dawn kettle]

Why delete, literally apologized

[manic laurel]

lame troll is lame, stop it there
unless I misunderstand you, you trolled people for reporting stolen assets
don't, period.

[dawn kettle]

It's modding idk, honestly i'll defend it. Stuff has been ported for ages, why everyone so against it now?

[manic laurel]

porting and ripping are different, get over it

[elfin heron]

Dont be lazy and make your own content instead, not that hard

[manic laurel]

besides, both are forbidden without permission

we are strict about it in order to protect the Arma creative community

[dawn kettle]

How are they different? Porting is the practice of taking assets from a game and putting them into another. Ripping is the practice of taking assets from a game and putting them into another.

[plucky rose]

Doesn't this also border rights though,

If what you want is too similar to another thing, aren't you technically cornered anyway?

[manic laurel]

You got it wrong

[elfin heron]

yes

[dawn kettle]

I myself ported shit from fallout 76 to 4, it being "prohibited"

And stuff from warthunder to arma 3 as well

Hence i'll be here to defend it.

Simply.

[elfin heron]

Damn bro is just straight up admitting ip violation 💀

[dawn kettle]

Never released it publicly, so it's a private game modification

[elfin heron]

It's still not allowed xoxo

[manic laurel]

as long as you share it, it is not personal use

[elfin heron]

Uploading to the workshop or even taking screenshots counts as sharing it

Regardless of how the mods visibility is listed

[dawn kettle]

Yeah, but i never shared it. Me saying that, you know i could be lying right now, you'd never know.

I'm defending the weapon mod here because i personally know how fucking hard it is to mod ANYTHING into arma 3. The dude adding guns, i got huge respect for it. Even if it's ported.

[elfin heron]

Hes not creating them

Hes putting a few lines of config and proxy positions over a model

[manic laurel]

!ban @dawn kettle 0 publicly taking a stance for IP theft - worst hill to die on. Have some respect for true creators

[edgy coral]

*PewPewPew!!*
RIP @dawn kettle
Artycular#4399 now has 2 infractions.

[manic laurel]

I have seen enough

[elfin heron]

I give it a few hours before he is back on an alt

[manic laurel]

np, hammer is ready

and that remains public so everybody can know and see it

[small nexus]

This man

[carmine folio]

So is it a IP violation if it isn't ripped content but remade into arma 3 by a team of modelers and such?

[small nexus]

I'm pretty sure that's fine

[soft egret]

remade from scratch is not a copyright violation atleast, but might still be trademark

[echo orchid]

• porting - author porting his own models from A3 to Reforger
• ripping - extracting via (dx) reverse engineering 3d models / textures from 3rd party products

[echo orchid]

it can be a trademark violation = any disney product

[carmine folio]

Disney and Nintendo seem to be infamous for their policies

But least Disney doesn't do what Nintendo does to modders

[elfin heron]

yet

[knotty radish]

https://tenor.com/view/runawaybrain-mickeymouse-evilmickey-badmouse-deadmau5-gif-24476038

^the mouse after suing every single A3 modder who did anything related to SW.

[elfin heron]

It'd be a pretty difficult case tbf seeing as theoretically EA can let people use assets from BF2 without needing Disney's input

All their SW shit is left really vague intentionally

[heavy moon]

@stiff jasper I have deleted your previous message, as it was pretty racist and derogatory (#rules no.3), please have a bit of respect for people from all nationalities and ethnicities here.

[vocal patio]

so small question
by the terms of APL-SA (https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license-share-alike)
you can only release the mod you make with APL-SA data as APL-SA?

[vivid wave]

That's what I understand

[vocal patio]

can we get someone bohemia directly to confirm?

[echo orchid]

they already did in the license file you linked

[vocal patio]

ok so following this All Take on Helicopters Data is only available as -SA Licenses
from both the wiki (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Take_On_Helicopters_Data_Pack)
and the main site (https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages)

following the -SA licenses and the license guide any content made with that data is only able to be release as that same license

so is something like this allowed which is licensed as No Derivative works despite using -SA data
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1707773570&searchtext=take+on+helicopters+medium

[echo orchid]

answer = toh license is apl-sa so any derivative work should also be apl-sa, so the answer is nope, the license provided in that linked steam workbench addon is not ok

[vocal patio]

thanks PuFu
should I include all of this in an email to BI legal?

[echo orchid]

you can do that, you can also flag/report for review the respective addon

[vocal patio]

does this also have the potential to impact CUP as they use the Superhinds/TOH Medium (Donated by Joker)?

eg being
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/701719500642582589/1018430349094690836/20220911175732_1.jpg

[keen trout]

Note that not all PBOs in a mod needs to be same license

So any specific CUP license would most likely be for their own content

Best to check with CUP

[vocal patio]

They don't make a distinction with that currently

[keen trout]

Sure they do

Its on their website

But check with CUP directly and ask them to clarify

[vocal patio]

just quickly checking the website
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/701719500642582589/1018436356860543046/unknown.png

the items from TOH are included the CUP-L PBOs

going to ask in cup now

from CUP
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/701719500642582589/1018437813080965170/unknown.png

[soft egret]

Afaik CUP also got access to files outside of the data pack, which may be shared with them under different restrictions

[faint nacelle]

I believe so too.

[echo orchid]

what dedmen said, they have a different relation with BI than the average modder (and that sort of goes for most larger modders btw)

[vocal patio]

They directly credit joker for the TOH Medium port

who is the uploader of the one which was made using the TOH LDPs

and also wouldn't this restriction still apply to anything they make with the data packs content irrespective of their access to files outside of the packs (which themselves are subject to other restrictions)

[echo orchid]

@serene loom + @stable ferry + @dull moon ^^

[molten kraken]

If they have "special authorisation", restrictions doesn't apply in the scope of the "special authorisation" which might or might not include content from the data packs.
Until someone from CUP or BI employee gives more info on the case, it's just speculations whether CUP is doing things lawfully or not.

[stable ferry]

👀

[vocal patio]

unless they have been given permission (aka a new license) by BI to use the contents of the pack with a different license i'm 90% sure they would have to still abide by the packs original license

dedmen only metioned additional items being given to them, not a relaxation of restrictions

[echo orchid]

i pinged 3 CUP devs, try and not speculate on the subject. Also, considering the size of it all, things might have been missed like external people using the wrong license on top of existing APL-SA attached to the data package rather than being done on purpose

[vocal patio]

^its more than likely an oversight than malice

[serene loom]

I'm the wrong person to ask, I did not touch any of the ToH content nor did I do anything concerning licenses. I do remember though that most of it was binarized when we got it and we had asked for permission to debinarize it. I have no idea of the specifics though, it's been a long time and I haven't been involved. If the stuff falls under APL-SA, then this is an oversight on our part. With all the different sources that CUP material came from, it's becoming quite hard to tell and I am not ruling out that we missed that.

It was my understanding that the "normal" data (units, vehicles, weapons) was all shared under APL (at least for the Arma 1 and Arma 2 stuff) and that only the Terrain data was APL-SA, but that might be wrong.

I also seem to remember that for a certain period of time the Licensed data packages were not available at all.

Bottom line, I don't know. I think @dull moon mostly handled the legal stuff and he also ported the medium and heavy choppers IIRC.

[vocal patio]

It was my understanding that the "normal" data (units, vehicles, weapons) was all shared under APL (at least for the Arma 1 and Arma 2 stuff) and that only the Terrain data was APL-SA, but that might be wrong.
just to clarify this is referring to data shared by BI directly?

[serene loom]

The original downloads from the LDP page, yeah.

[vocal patio]

they are available as both APL and APL-SA one set is exclusively APL-SA on the page

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

[serene loom]

I know. as I said, there was an earlier page that was gone for a while and later replaced by this.

[vocal patio]

taken from the page
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/833366904655183942/1018478751358664755/unknown.png

ahh ok

[serene loom]

For a good while all the links were dead, too. No idea what happened there TBH

[vocal patio]

was it this page originally https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Licensed_Data_Pack

since they have the broken links

[serene loom]

Ugh, possible. This is like, six or seven years ago. I really don't remember.

I can't even remember if I downloaded it from there, I think someone else set up the original files. Like I said, it's been a long time

[cedar flint]

Got another for you 😅

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2838697242

https://i.gyazo.com/d71ce35586e059cda6d971daf2192c73.png

[vocal patio]

Also related to our previous discussion ToH Map data
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1571581816

[vocal patio]

so i've gotten this from audiocustoms
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/833366904655183942/1018516971597336676/unknown.png

so unless Joker states his port is pre-2015 it can only be APL-SA
since https://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=Take_On_Helicopters_Data_Pack&type=revision&diff=329712&oldid=88773

the history for the page itself shows the links were only ever APL-SA

and Joker's Mod released in 2019, and the CUP version 2021
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/833366904655183942/1018517382521688104/unknown.png

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1707773570&searchtext=ToH+medium