#ip_rights_violations
1 messages · Page 38 of 1
no matter if you uploaded it anywhere
You might need to additionally provide proof that it's yours later.
You only have to show proof, that the content is originaly yours.
What map are you talking about i.e. what workshop-file?
Okay where can i report them on the Flag right under the Picture?
Its a Modification of Lakeside.. selfmade on the base of Applegate
Yep, the flag will lead you to further things.
Okay thanks alot
The flag alone just reports it. It doesn't do a DMCA
when you click on the flag there is a link in the text to create a DMCA
Just one thought: As Lakeside was released as ShareAlike, isnt it the case that any subsequent mods based upon it have to use the same license according to BI-guidelines?
yes
So basically anyone can take that "totally overholed" stuff and develop it further to his likings. Might then be hard to tell/show steam that its totally your own creation (as it is not)
As you cant, as it isnt
And as even when you can show them your own parts, it still has to be released as ShareAlike so anybody can take it and change it further to his needs.
Thats the reason to develop own maps and not change others
You might try, but i think it will be hard to achieve anything here.
The PBO of the Map was not Binarized. They just changed to Config. Overwrited my name with there Server and the project lead of the Server
Off the top of my head the ShareAlike license allows that
also dont share your stuff unbinarized
stuff like maps should be packed properly
I didnt shared it they took it from the ArmA3Sync Repository
Its packed there is no Source shared they cant do anything on the map but the PBO was open
what they might not have permission to do is to upload it on SW
as its not all their work
but the license on the files you used transfer on your work too
are we talking about a terrain or mission...?
Terrain
Lakeside...
theres quite likely some other peoples stuff there who might be interested to DMCA them
ok... i'm out 😄
but thats up to them
Funny to see LifeCommunity turn on each others 😉
I know some of you dont like Life Server buts its the same bullshit for content creators
Always dealing with people who doesnt give a shit and take ur shit 😄
Im gonna try my best
Well they are people who upload CityLife3 and other shit they dont care about it
@safe arrow Lifers hate other lifers more than non lifers do
No its different. As the content was originally and totally created by them, with their own licenses. Lakeside and Kellys are Shared to the public, anyone can take any version and further develop it.
In theory no one of them will be allowed to upload any of those versions as its not totally theirs, without the explicit permission of the original creators. But i am not sure if they are even around.
just make a completely original life map
☝
if theyre not around == permission cant be asked == defaults to no permission
much easier to prove its urs ;P
if it's someone else's map who let others take and modify it
@desert sparrow
to be fair, i know not even one lifer community that doesn't violate in one way or another. i have never seen a 100% clean framework, just copy/pase from other servers
90% chance
they let people take the modified version.
an release that
best to contact the original author
and hear their words
depending on what they say
@dull moon NoPixel did something amazing to the Life Community but knew LifeCommunity is shit and went to GTA
that reupload may be in the clear
you can see on every modserver NP mods
lets not talk about gta modding. Its all wildlands there
Applegate did
let's not dig that s**t up again...
the only way to create a propper lifer server is:
- get a fresh framework with no mods included
- build a new "mission" on it and add only mods that are confirmed original content (impussibru)
you should ask applegate
it is his original work
so he has the final say in a lot of things
@desert sparrow
got a file list of your pack to take a look at?
i have no list atm
well whoever-the-fuck did the original heightmap sat map mask an object placement / whoever was "project lead" or whoever originally has the rights
God knows how many people put their greasy hands on it
just find the original dude and ask him xd
@desert sparrow
mind taking some screens of your folder?
Although they mention @valid sand for the orginal work in their credits
yea i can do it
@mint edge
wait... did you...? did you just mention JACKSON COUNTY MAP?
Jackson County is the remake for A3 of Applegate, yes
0 days since the mentioning of jackson county
Here too? Thought this was only a thing in #arma3_terrain 😉
👍
As a note falcos did not make anything he just asked for permission to post it on the bis forums
my 5 cents lol good night
@desert sparrow lakeside/applegate was made by Opteryx.
but i completly changed it
(Which means you have no claim/cannot DMCA)
i made my own lakeside
yea that was the point i didnt reported it
im gonna try to get in touch with the server owners
You didnt make your own lakeside, you changed it based upon the sourcefiles from the original version.
That still makes Opteryx Applegate the original one and your "just" a modification no matter how much you changed.
well someone at Valve is blind as a bat.
From: DMCA [mailto:dmca@valvesoftware.com]
Sent: 25 June 2018 19:37
Subject: copyright complaint 10060
Hello Rob,
We’ve received your copyright complaint against this content: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1361987046
However, upon initial review we don’t see the Unsung content listed in their mod. Will you please take a second look to verify that your content is still in this mod? If you still see your content then please provide a quick description and we’ll remove the mod.
Thanks for your time,
DMCA
From: Eggbeast
Sent: 25 June 2018 21:05
Subject: RE: copyright complaint 10060
Hi there
I have attached a list of 176 files that are contained in the 819 mod pack, which belong to us at the Unsung mod team.
I have also attached a screenshot of the folder I downloaded when subscribing to this mod pack on the workshop.
You can clearly see our files inside their pack.
I hope this proves a satisfactory response. If you need anything else, please let me know.
Kind regards
Rob
Licensing manager, and Lead developer
The Unsung Vietnam War Mod
all hail the mighty @river spear for assitance wit hthe file lists - what a great tool
I filed this DMCA on 19th May.
That DMCA guy seems to be a nice dude though. ALthough his name is a little weird
I always fear that someday someone files a DMCA for an item and then the steam reviewer says nothing is in there and the whole time my system was giving out false information
I like to think that this confirms my theory that all videos taken down on Youtube is indeed by one man - DMCA.
They’re a famous rap group ... RUN - DMCA
Lots of speculation there.
check the why does people consider ripping bad comment
the fact Valve took a month to get back to me makes me wonder if the 819th guys actually said, "no, we have permission" or something ...
or maybe they just have a lot of work on at Valve. maybe i should apply for a job there lol
- extensive experience with IP issues
- DMCA legal knowledge
- really slow at finding things out
- advanced skills in asking really obvious questions
- as above, without spending any time whatsoever checking customer details (like a mod linked in a DMCA to infringing content)
You'd nail the position
their mod has 176 files in it of which about 150 being uns_xxxx
They must be your biggest fans then
@olive sparrow when you report it to steam always include a side by side screen shot of the infringing content i normally get a response within a week. This could also be the fact I'm assigned to a person now called Dawn and she is very good
I get the feeling that Dawn is an alias. she's also my contact at valve 😂
she was the one that got stuck with all arma 3 complaints 😂
Her name is DAWN DMCA. Strange surname that!
lol
Carved into a tree on the banks of the Vltava in Prague "Dwarden + Dawn 4 eva"
😂
How long, after reporting a monetized server and them not doing anything about it, do I need to wait till I report again?
I would assume 14/31 days
are we still collecting IP violations? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=912838198
@lunar sentinel
YOU MAY ASK TO REMOVE A MOD IF YOU DON'T WANT IT IN THE PACK!
Lucky he gave the content creators the permission to ask to remove something from it :^
Such a charmer. I usually don't care anymore but left a little comment since he gave me his permission
Thanks @dull moon
hm 🤔 searches for "reupload" in the crawler
I like my message on that item up there the most btw.
I don't think people will risk their whole steam account
I don't think that other people other than the authors of the original mods should talk to the guy about removing stuff
I mean
I know he did bad
But lets not bandwagon and all jump on him
it's fun tho
Still it's a step too far for me anyway
Better you tell them nicely about that their are violating the steam rules. Before they get their Steam account banned or DMCA'ed because of something they didn't know about
lol, a server maintaining is like a job...
cough... steamCMD cough...
I like to pretend that my server adminship is like a job, as it gives me a feeling of false importance.
Sort of like middle management.
But updating mods on a server is a bigger job, then reuploading all that stuff on steam...sure.
Is the issue they complain about because the off chance a mod might update so they pack it in a reupload?
Updates only ever happen once in a blue moon lol
especially for TFAR lul
all steam needs is 2 buttons when uploading, if data is already on the workshop the original author can click yes, or they can click no 😃
rip 80% of the reuploads?
Steam probably doesn't care, only begins to care once they receive a DMCA iirc
I was asked by my friend to take a look at this discord I am sorry not very active in the community anymore I have since left the arma community as hole to work other project’s. I will try to set the record straight as some people are misinformed about the AppleGate Community Project and Jackson County Community Project. The original map is called AppleGate and is a Map for A2 opteryx made the terrain data and nothing more, Sirel76 Aka El76 started to work on the roads and few towns and made most of the object pack. I worked very close with Sirel76 and was taught a lot by him I worked on Textures and some of the Building and getting the terrain data to a playable level and ready for A3 and fixing small issues. While at City life RPG I tried to get a new map for the community the owner did not want it or to change maps in A2 after a bit of time I was banned by @astral marlin for 4 months due to Rules I broke and carried on working on the map and number of building that was for Arma 2 life were a number of small dev had access thanks to Sirel76 teaching us. While I was banned I worked with Arma 3 Life map dev schultzit showing him how things worked and ported it to A3 for there community and for others to learn from. schultzit Ported the Map into A3 known as Jackson County Community Project.
AppleGate is an open source project for people to learn how to make maps and all are welcome to use it as they please. If you would like to know more about the map I will try to answer but have since moved on to unity and VR projects.
So for my bad English am dyslexic and can not spell good.
In a nut shell AppleGate Community Project only works for Arma 2 and Jackson County Community Project was made for Arma 3. opteryx Sirel76 and myself are the A2 map makers and schultzit is the A3 map maker.
Thanks for clearing that up. Problem in Steam uploads and community material like this lies in the Workshop rules where you must have permission from all the makers to upload it
I see very sorry with that am not very good with that stuff or up to date on how that works The main goal for the Project was for people to learn and make there own version reupload this was in A2 were taking content and licence issue were not even thought about when I made the post and upload the files for people. I don't have an answer for that other then "go nuts" lol
Its not really your resposibility. Those using it must make sure they follow the rules. Thats all.
Oh sorry I thought you was saying it was my resposibility lol
yeah no, its problem for those who develop the community material further 😄
Thought I might just check just in case as people here tend to know about arma related licenses more than I do.
There shouldn't be anything wrong (from IP point of view) with making basic instruction videos for an Arma community (but publicly available) that feature modded equipment or even outright focus on it, right?
Examples: what to do during mission briefing (mainly focuses on ACE Arsenal and gear rules of the server) or more focused how to use SR radios from TFAR.
No monetization would be involved. Not for the videos and the community isn't monetized either.
No problem at all.
If you show ads on the video some people might count that as monetization. But Bohemia, ACE and TFAR team don't care about that. Some others might though.
If you don't monetize then that stuff atleast falls under fair-use
Yeah, I don't plan on monetizing the videos (or does youtube put ads automatically?), they're supposed to be a service to new members after all.
no they don't auto add ad's.. Unless... Your audience get's so big that youtube forces you to put ads on the video....
I'm not worried about that lol, thanks for the info
If you're making a TFAR instruction video with the new TFAR beta. Send me that and I'll pin it somewhere
For the purposes of our basic training it's just how to use SR and how to use the interface but sure I'll send it once it's up, we do use the 1.0 beta.
http://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/expresstrade/ here is an example of what happens if you violate the Steam subscriber agreement. 2884 steam accounts with items worth $2 million gone because they violated the subscriber agreement.
Everyone uploading mods they don't own is violating the same agreement. So might get similar punishment
Was anyone banned for reuploading an modification for Arma?
not yet afaik
However it is quite possible that they got the rights removed to upload to the workshop.
at least i know in my case someone lost that right
So he doesn't have the option to upload anymore? Or just no permission?
Like is the button gone or is he formally not allowed to upload anymore
Uploading from that account is not possible anymore
honestly did not stop that server from reuploading with another account. Right now they are on the fourth
found another one https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=803659916
Guys, je careful posting the same msg over and over again. You might trigger steams spam filter and risk a one week ban. Happend to me once
what's ripped there @snow bloom ? looks like a retex of Adacas' Crye uniforms, and the MBAV and USMC/SAF boonie hat from RHS
The uniform looks like the black tactical shirt from DayZ SA
I recognise it from the ripped mod I recently reported
only difference is he's swapped the US Flag for the union jack
Oh wow. That was enough to shut em down completely..
Just another rename of stolen life servers
I DMCA'd their modpack twice
then told them on their third reupload that atleast didn't contain TFAR that it's still breaking rules
and now they are gone
lol... i got guys where i filed 3 times and more and they still keep going......
@snow bloom Correct. However, due to the shitty lightning I can't tell for certain, but that is awfully similar to the SA tactical shirt 🤔
I'm 99% sure it is. It's in a few of the ripped mods floating about
I can understand why, it's absolutely stunning, but it doesnt make it right
I know the guy, he has ported DayZ content multiple times already
What’s his name?
Lerry
And his friends "Funny" etc
There also was an Brazilian guy if I remember correctly
Ah right yeah
AND HIS NAME IIIIISSSSSS.........
JOOOHHHNNN CEEENNNAAA!!!!
insert shittyfluted theme here
*plays cena theme with kazoo
Lerry, Funny and Vasquez - this one is really annoying and ported almost everything from dayz
I recognise 2 of the names, they do screenshots I believe. Leery and Vasquez
@astral marlin am I to assume this is a joke?
oh c'mon, don't be like that. this is actually a pretty good one 😂
some one got me good with it
serious bussinesseses channel
😂
yer i get ya its gone
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1416389859 this is a lot of violations...
Sent to USAF team
identical sound effect to the arma 2 m2 machine gun sound coming from the players with the LMGs
i believe the awm in this game aswell has the same sound effect as an unused le enfield sound effect from OA
Enfield_1 & Enfield_2 from sounds_e
arma 2 did use alot of purchased/outside/outsourced/w.e data but it seems odd that theres multiple account of identical data
i cant help but say that other weapon sounds are also strikingly similar to sounds in the arma 2 licensed data packs however these two i can 100% say its the same sound files
Talked to the developer, he seemed like a genuine guy. I doubt anything is up judging from our quick chat.
Anything Arma IP related should just be sent to BI. They would be able to tell if something is theirs or just a 3rd party asset.
Hi I'm working on a proper license page for swedish forces pack and have run into an issue with how to list the things we have that fall under APL-SA. Instead of being smart like rhs and doing rhs_a2port_* we regrettably have them bundled into for example sfp_static_weapons.
Would it be better in this case to list them per item (podnos mortar, mk19 gmg etc.) or is there another way that is more suitable?
I don't expect our implementations to be the best source for someone who want to remix these things, but as the license clearly states that they are to be open for modifications even if part of another package I'm quite stumped how to proceed.
static weapons do not require APL-SA afaik
only some sounds, animations, terrains and things were made SA
this may be useful for you
feel free to modify and adapt it as you see fit, if desired.
it works as a one-size-fits-all license
note: if you have just imported some arma 2 animations directly, and they are the same as the samples, i wouldn't worry about SA. as the user can access the originals easily.
so no need to jump through hoops to make "your" animations available ifthe yare already present in the sample data
Thanks, the original plan was to use the creative commons by-nc-nd 4.0 license much how RHS has done.
We've also looked long and hard at the CUP license but it turns out that license texts are hard to wrap your head around without some practice
@a2 content: that's good to know, I've spent some time trying to figure out exactly what has been loaned from earlier armas, which turned out to be quite a challenge. Not least because we have original stuff that has been with us since SFP4 for OFP and SFP5 for Arma 1
wouldn't it be easier to pull out the .p3ds out from that pbo bundle/
keep the configs separate, then you can have APL-SA on the content ported
and whatever other license for the parts you made yourself
Probably, I've brought it up internally but haven't got a clear answer as to why we have it that way. Either way I will be refactoring a bunch of stuff on our svn during the summer too, so hopefully that issue will be solved as part of it
you don't need APL_SA on almost any models (except for TOH)
only APL
u ca nsee on this page which materials are covered by the more strict SA license.
applying SA to all your Arma 2 imports is an unnecessary burden
so unless your pack contains derivatives of the APL_SA content (typically terrains, animations, cutscenes, or anything from TOH, etc) then you can just mirror the APL license terms.
Got a E-Mail from BI legal department about PsiSyn. We have contacted server owner and requested removal of your Intellectual property from his server. They did comply with our request
Looking at their current modpack. Nothing changed. They did not comply. PsiSyn directly lying to BI legal department?
And they are still leaving them their monetization license and are still not doing ANYTHING against them.
They are also still running HLC and Kickass and others.
Thats quite a slap in the face of the modding community... especially since they did obviously violate their monetization terms (ask before use etc)
What did you reply after finding out, that the stuff is still in there?
I sent back proof that they did not comply
Seems like BI really wants to continue letting them do whatever they want. Even after numerous violations they still seem to just say "Just remove the mod and everything will be fine"
Lol. While trying to help someone with a modelling question I found this: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/192135-how-to-import-a-model-into-arma-3/?tab=comments#comment-3081461
That's the guy taking care of PsiSyn's modpack
Let's hope BI realise their mistake and address your complaint properly 😉
And all the other complaints that they seem to be ignoring so far
@pliant oar Not sure who to report this to, but looks like this guy is trying to sell the Arma 2 US Army Model as his own work on turbosquid https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-soldier-heavy-weapon/636168#
Google Drive of another Life server - ALRP
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UJp7fx63xFsuuba7nXyWpLDcq3dX20ML/view
CUP
FHQ
HLC
Ivory
KA
TRYK
CBA
Task Force Radio
The list goes on
@tight bloom do u have any comparison pics the a2 uniforms are less then 10k and he's claiming those are in the high 20s, hard to think a theif would put that much extra work especially for a soft model into a stolen model to sell
@mint edge I can make some and post. I don't think there is any doubt that it is indeed the A2 US Model. But I'll post some pics
when I send stuff to infringement at bi I always post comparisons
and where to find the data in question in BIS data that's been stolen
also, juast checked his beretta m9, not the same as BI texture, so he didn't rip that one
could have reuv'd it
you really need to check the model for identical points ect to get a much better idea
lol IP infringement for KA 😄
Again, just let BI handle it’s own IPs they can do the proper comparison.
KA gets abused, I bet he won't stand for this 😄
Isnt KA notorious for stealing content from other games?
"freedom of speech" crusader is he? It would be funny if someone went to his house and packed up his PC int oa van, and said "I'm going to distribute this to the community"
Where should you report violations to the monetization rules?
depends on which community
There's different systems for different communities? 🤔
There is a report button: https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3
What if said server doesn't have approved status..
There is one different system for one big community that violates daily
yikes
Oh wow. That was easy monetization@bistudio.com 😄
provide server name, link to where they monetize. Maybe some screenshots as proof
Just like to report an IP violation of disney/starwars name - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1392359293&searchtext=Legion.
just here to help
You would be better off reporting it to Disney, if they even care
They usually do
@stoic beacon would you be able to help me with this?
I've never reported anything to Disney or any other company. All I did so far is filing DMCA's with the Steam Workshop template. If you do some research you might find some sort of IP rights Email from Disney.
@carmine folio
Over 100.000 reuploads? There might be something wrong with crawler?
https://imgur.com/D9biQeH
Uhhh
Is that a deep search? If so maybe you have a readme.txt or something in there and the crawler found that in many other repos
yeah someone needs to give me run through deep scan, would be nice if i could search just parts of it, because as it is, with the amount of results i get it is pretty useless
Optix added filename based include/exclude filter recently.. I think. Maybe not recently
i can only add a filter but cannot customize that filter's search behaviour.
go to filters, add a new filter, click on the filter type and use the one you want from the dropdown. after that, add the filter value. if you choose an exclude filter for example, add the extention as value, like TXT, HPP, whatever.
it's some time ago i added filters, you need to experiment a little
So... Teach a old dog new tricks? (/s)
@dull moon i have no option to add any values to any filters
got an account on the crawler?
since i can not post videos, PM...
add new creates a new filter for me
not for me :D
I was very confused when I tried that thing the first time.
But right now it seems to be working for me
ahh yeah, went back and then again to it, now i can add filter values
pretty weird\
i had a fuckton list of filters with no filter settings
@dull moon cheers man, yeah seen you PM just now
also cheers @soft egret , new toy to play with now
👍
Brace your self guys i feel out my seat when i see this
https://pastebin.com/XaAMqTht
Cobra.. I've heard that name already
He sold that modpack to that Life server that I DMCA'ed twice which shortly after shutdown completly although it only existed for a couple months
I'll make the interface a lot more user friendly when I redo it 👌
Shhhhhh > >
@astral marlin
because... why not? almost as funny as adding an admin console backdoor to a mod, that if used without permission allows the autor to open the admin pannel, gives him millions of credits, ect
no whats funny is there whole mod is stolen content and they have the cheek to add that
E.G.
_layer1 = "normal" cutText ["Files stolen from ALRP - www.armaliferp.co.uk. Files are not permitted to be used by anyone other than ALRP.","PLAIN"];
who wrote ASDG? are they aware?
Robalo.
He probably doesn't care much
but using ASDG is just dumb. And reuploading it even more
someone lookingforglory no doubt
glory's down in her hole, with the beer, where she belongs.
They are really doing it. They really plan to go back to a TFAR version from early 2015.
And BI is really gonna let them slide with that.
They use mods without permission repeatedly and get reported repeatedly. Then they directly lie to BI legal department saying that they removed the mod they were supposed to remove.
And BI is just like "yeah.. Okey don't care. But now do it pls or we'll have to do stuff cuz we'd look bad otherwise"

@soft egret Forums next perhaps?
Make enough of a ruckus about it and they'll have to do something, this was proven when the whole Caden thing went down a few years ago.
sad to hear Dedmen .. sadly not surprising to hear ..
@soft egret does that version have permission for monetization? can they prove it?
are RH weapons now removed also?
has BNAE commented about it? does he want his weapons removed?
do any other mod makers have a complaint?
HLC was in there when I checked on Friday. RH don't remember didn't check for it.
Their A3Sync is down now as they are moving to a different server. And I won't download their full google drive archive now..
Don't know about any other mod makers.
Won't give further details about TFAR in public till this is over.
last time I was interested I think bnae doesn't allow monetize
last year
he's easily contactable tho to get his word
His mods are licensed as CC NC ND sooo...
ah
pretty sure every life mod and their mom has his stuff packed away in a release somewhere
he allowed us to use his bolting function, but not his animations. I imagine he wouldn't want monetizing going on with those, but might be worth letting him know about this server also..
Shouldnt it be the server that has to provide and prove, that they got all the needed permissions for their included mods? I.E. whenever BI asks, they have to provide them with emails or whatever showing the permission for each file (as stated in the monetization licenses). ATM it sounds rather strange, that they could get away that easy with all the other mods and just changing TFAR to an older version (where i am sure they cant show a permission too)
it should be yeah
but apparently they are saying "we don't have proof" so BI goes and asks the author if they agree.
BI is doing everything they can so that the monetized server stays happy and alive
is proof that they straight up lied to BI a good enough?
Fly to BI's office and report them in person
future content validation, the owner must visit BI studio and leave DNA, eye scan and sign the "i'm the author" with own blood and agree to get injected with chip for Sol position tracking incase he isn't 
Dwarden can you explain this behaviour? As it basically is a slap in the face to all mod creators
the paper has in nano print that violators are neutralized , for good
(and contradicts the terms for monetization)
overally the whole monetization system is quite hard to enforce due to no access to server master and workshop backend etc.
so if it was up to me, i would toss the whole scheme over the cliff as it's too much work for too low gain for either side
Didnt you have possibilities to lock them down via BattleEye? Thought i heard something like that before
so they will disable battleye or keep switching IPs endlessly
yeah. If the loose the license and continue monetizing
which of course doesn't happen if they don't actually loose the license
So in fact the whole system and reporting-tools are useless and there is nothing a modder can do to protect his content other then calling a lawyer or something
unfortunately that's real world problem
no.. If you stay penetrant (not correct word) then BI will take care of it
but you really have to keep at it for a couple weeks
Id say a butt print should be taken too when they register.
definitely
Considering they said themselves that the responsible admins didn't even read the monetization rules... Something should be done when they register....
Well you dont need the whole list and registration including the rules, when BI doesnt do anything to make them follow the rules
At the moment, this list is just advertisment for those servers earning money with stolen mods
I'd say most servers are probably legit.. Because most servers are vanilla ^^
Vanilla? What about KOTH? That's technically a mod
Wasn't that revoked recently?
I think KOTH was an exeception
That exception has since been removed.
There was a twitter or facebook post to drive home the point that it was a "legacy verbal agreement" and then I believe it said had been revoked
@RHS Guys - Guy on the right holding the flag looks like he's wearing retextured ACUs? Your mod is the only one I know with them? https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/949580410981134685/65F798887152D5875D8D82A7D7CE9CE0F793F011/
@echo orchid
@snow bloom looks like it, where did you get that image from?
He didn't upload it on workshop afaik, so is it actually "illegal"? Isn't it allowed for personal use?
Well imo, if the license says you cant retex something I don't think it matters whether it gets released or not
I totally agree, but if I remember correctly, then you can do alot of stuff as long as you don't share it with anyone. I'm not trying to say Lerry didn't do anything wrong.
But sharing the image is doing something wrong.
afaik about other things, in some countries (eu) you can download and edit stuff as long as it's for yourself. This was like movies and video games
pictures and videos too
Also, changing the configs with my own pbo and leaving the rhs.pbo to be original. I can just retex like that, can't I?
@eu and personal use: people like to cite "fair use", it's commonly seen on youtube video descriptions, but that doesnt stretch to sharing afaik
Yeh, I just know they told us we can download (pirated) games and movies and it's not illegal here, as long as you don't redistribute. + all data is treated equal
publicly sharing a limited depiction of remixed material isn't sharing the remixed material
and if it's a completely custom texture it's technically not even a remix to begin with
but if it's using original texture parts then it's a nono

@ebon ruin we have expressed our desire not to have ACU retextured whatsoever http://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA#re-textures
you cannot really re-texture stuff without using the base texture in any way or form, because you have no clue where the UVs are, so all retextures are definatelly remixes if you want to call them that
technically, if this shit carries on, we can simply disable ACU hidden selections altogether and that would definatelly solve it. we choose not to, simply because it makes out own job harder, but still some people are too thick to follow a simple fucking license
why some of you feel there has to be some middle ground and some justification beats me, when things are black and white in this case
if you don't agree to EULA you are free not to use the product that comes with that EULA
I think they don't understand why, there for they don't comply.
The why is, this is not compliant with the EULA.
I get it 'tho. Given a free product, the least one can do it is respect the EULA and rules set by the creators of said product
I was about to suggest make a small list of donts with the license
Then I looked at the license and was like "wait this isnt a long license"
And back to
That ACU looks like from one of mods on SW there was like 10 configurarions of rhs acu, mod got updated and removed all of them but i dont remeber when, anyway i gotta ask if someone retextured it, someone download that but author removed it after short period of time, but downloader has local copy of it and is taking pictueres who is guilty here pictureman or uploader?
@delicate ember Both? That's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
I think as a community, it might make sense to have a small site for all the major mods to upload “summaries” of their licenses for everyone to see. If it was done correctly it’ll give people a clearly understandable set of rules for these mods
I’ll use RHS for example; you are allowed to retexture assets, with credits given, HOWEVER the ACUs may NOT be retextures
if you think RHS license is a long read...then dunno what a short license is
@echo orchid i gotta ask, RHS have wiki but its totaly incomplete i miss US ammo categories like russin ones
Are you going to update it soon?
Just a note on the class thing you guys have, would there be any way to display the magazines that the weapon can use? Just a thought
well there will be some changes in what magazines many of the weapons can use, since there's a bit advancement going on in Arma 3 with regards to that
@delicate ember nope
@snow bloom the class thing is one of Soul Assassins pet projects. It can pull in theory whatever entries are defined already in the config.
also this is unrelated to IP infrigements or rights, so please stay on topic
@tulip nexus what? Are they adding cusom mags support? Like Veteran mod has or HLC?
@delicate ember magazineGroups now renamed magazineWells. Google it. As PuFu said. unrelated to this channel.
PsiSyn now got asked a second time to remove TFAR. After they lied about removing it to BI last friday.
Today I look into their repo. It's still there.


😢
jeebus discord is flooded with rippers today. 😮
@soft egret can i get a link to that repro once more plox/
ftp://93.115.26.134
who asked about bnae a.. ah @olive sparrow
lots of bnae stuff yeah
do you want to report that to BI? Else I'll mention that in my next mail to them
who are you talking with from BI legal?
i wanna report the MELB thing, would be lovely to land to the same person
Karel Novàk
for bnae, should first try and contact him via BIF i think, i have no other direct contact
You don't really need to contact him though. Just tell BI they are using his mods. The community then has to provide proof that they are allowed to do so.
No reason that only the author of the mod could report that
true, then mention MELB as well please, would save me an e-mail 😃
PM me a link to the mod that I can reference. And which pbo file that is
melb.pbo
I guess I'm playing mailbox then 😄
be my secretary plox ty 💙
Use any of the material for commercial purposes. This includes running any Swedish Forces Pack content on servers that employ any monetization schemes, including but not limited to donate-reward systems.
@sonic blade
Yeah yeah.. Come on guys. Throw stuff at me :D
Do you want to see the mail before it goes out?
porobaly not a good idea to show the mail before it goes out
no, but you can trow a CC (legal at rhsmods dot net)
Why? ^^ Will just say "also other mod makers told me..."
Yeah will do that
cheers
lol. A guy PM'ed me about a Monetized Life server.
TFAR, RHS MELB, RH weapons, CUP weapons. Maaan..
How not to be allowed to monetize 101
which ones?
are monetized servers allowed? Im guessing no since ive never heard of them before
Yes, monetized servers are allowed but you do need a license / application for it and you cannot monetize any mods you do not have permission for.
I see
Im feeling left out
😢
can I just clarify....so, even if you get monetisation approved by Bohemia, based on a set of options that Bohemia have scrutinised to not be game changing, you then can only run vanilla arma because all the mod makers will claim you are in breach of their EULA even though your donation options are ok with Bohemia, not game changing nor, selling any of the mod makers' assets?
or have I got this wrong...
You can't violate a mod maker's EULA just because BI approved monetization..
but, players follow the mods so, server owners have to run the mods to gain population. Most and I mean nearly all, server owners are struggling to meet overheads, they're not for profit, just trying to ease losses so, doesn't that seem a bit harsh?
btw, I'm not looking for a ruck, I'm just literally clarifying
do mod makers grant permission ever or, is it a blanket 'No' when asked?
I feel like this is an epic game with a great number of truly superb mods but, I worry that it's success may be being thwarted by overly restrictive 3rd party terms and conditions. Surely, if Bohemia give the OK that they're happy that the proposed donation options are within their very strict guidelines and not interfering with game play, then why should the mod makers be concerned beyond that?
As it stands, I now understand why many communities will fly under the radar and not seek monetisation approval...they simply can't because, even if they get approved, they then have to strip their server of all mods and then they'll lose population. So, all I see is a lose or, lose situation for server communities which create the population around the game.
bi doesnt own the data that a modder produces
thus modders have their own licenses
which are compliant with bi licenses
however they modder still has the final say
and its "success" isnt determined by server owners raking in cash from idiot players while modders cannot recieve compensation without breaking the tools EULA
there should be a total overhaul to the eula for tools aswell as monetization policy
its simply unfair in the server owners favor, modders are stepped on essentially hence why most modders just blanket "no"
@wide bobcat
this community was way healthier before "legal" monetization was introduced
monetization killed it
or is about to......
¯_(ツ)_/¯
why not just get someone to MAKE mods for your server...? my server runs 3 mods ive made myself supplimented by some other quality mods, i dont monetize but if you want to monetize, that is the way to start, it takes me barely an hour to do a quality and acceptable port of a gun from arma 2 for the masses, in less then a week of 1-3 hours a day i could create an entire arsenal to use standalone + vanilla guns, i dont see the issue here for server owners as i am one, not to mention a healthy community has no issues funding a server and then some out of the goodness of their hearts, my server will run well into 2020 with charity donations alone
☝
@wide bobcat It's not so much as "third party modifications aren't allowed, period, on monetizated servers. It's about them respecting the license which the mod is distributed as, which is usually what the problem is around here. With explicit permission from the author(s) (provided they own the work of course) you're free to use them on your monetized server.
the monetizing servers are the smalles number of servers compared to non-monetized, but the highest number of fubar
its a typical vocal minority
so to say, yes
The problem is, we've had plenty of creators the last few years who has gotten fed up with their work being ripped and unattributed, or in some cases, someone else has claimed they created someone else's work. It's a fine balance to keep, but I know most creators here will either give you a straight answer or they'll be open to discuss it.
@wide bobcat you don't need to be approved for monetization if you only take donations (as in 100% voluntary, without anything in return)
the moment you get approved for monetization, you need to get permission from all the individual addon makers to use their content
👆
mod makers are not killing arma. time is.
like with all games.
however, with arma, like only with a few other great game titles (elder scrolls for example) the work of mod makers making total conversions and tons of quality bonus content, and new game modes etc, is what is extending the life of a game which would have been dead already otherwise.
people who monetize servers are free to do so if they have permission for the mods they use (as pufu explained). If they don't have permission and they make $30k or $100k (and they really do make this kind of money in 3 to 6 months), from abusing the non commercial use licenses of those mod makers who created their work, then they and not the mod makers are behaving harshly. often mod makers have non-commercial sourced third-party content, so they MUST enforce their licenses, e.g. RobertHammer or Unsung, and so it just puts extra strain on the mod makers to have t oactively enforce their license on these miscreants who are taking money out of the community but not putting anything back
so who is killing arma? the mod makers who extend its life? or the one or two monetizers who instead of just accepting donations and running a cool server, decide to cash in and make $50,000 and then cause a shitstorm over stealing other peoples content to do it.
them's the facts folks...
who made $50k ?
@wide bobcat simple. If you are a monetized server. You need permission for EVERY mod you are running. That's it. You are breaking the BI monetization license. Not the Mod maker's license (Though in some cases you are breaking both)
but, players follow the mods so, server owners have to run the mods to gain population. Ask the mod maker if you can use it. If yes you use it. If no you are screwed. So be nice.
I allow anyone to use the mods I have rights on. Unless they ask after they already got reported and if they also run tons of other stuff they don't have permission for.
The only problem is server that simply don't care. Like that one "Oh. It's not our fault because we didn't know that we are not allowed to. We didn't even read the monetization rules or the licenses of the mods that say they are clearly not allowed to be used comercially"
not permission for just every mod, every script every mission and any and all assets used on the server (that includes even stuff like music)
that's only proper route to do monetizing, even if there were no BI rules, the same does apply in the real world ...
@narrow slate A3Life had £102,000 in their paypal account when we saw a screenshot of it. I heard a rumour that psy had made over £30,000 when he launched his new server, KOTH servers have made over £100,000. These numbers are fairly normal for the popular monetized server teams.
pretty sure A3PL made more than all of that combined
in taxation law terms, they supply a service to users who pay for it, and they make large sums for supplying this service. They probably shouldapply VAT (sales tax) according to their national rules, and the yshould certainly declare the income to the tax authorities and pay their taxes on it.
this supply of a service is CLEARLY commercial use, which breaks the licenses of MOST mod creators.
which is why BI added the monetization rules
....with a complet lack of infrastructure to control, verify and enforce these monetization rules
Hence why I think we should make a big stint of it on the forums to see it improved.
dude, most of the old farts like myself that have been around modding since OFP have voiced our opinions
the monetization rules were bound to get reviewed by first by the end of 2016 and based on the feedback and impact changed
there was no change done, same stuff remained the same, was simply pushed the way it was
Hence why it's more aggressively enforced by the modders in what few ways there are?
We've had some issues with life servers breaking out our sfp_wheelchair and sfp_bas90 from their parent mods, but this is apparently way way bigger than people being dumb about what you can do with things that aint yours to decide over 😮
the main issue is the lack of fucking education
just because something is free doesn't mean it is open source
or that can be used whatever way one feel like
it's just dumb that this is even a topic because of you just made the mods yourself that you plan to monetize nobody would even say a word about it let alone attempt to go after you lol
if I plan on doing any kind of long term project I wouldn't burn my bridges with those around me whom I could benifits by atleast being cordial with
@olive sparrow maybe. they haven't shared any with samatra though it seems. he told them to fuggoff
So can you use RHS on a public server aslong as you dont edit the pbo's and dont monetize?
@signal hemlock http://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA
Same with unsung. Dont monetize and dont repack or modify
@signal hemlock yeah of course you can. you cannot repack, edit and redistribute it. The content is available via SW, of course you can use it on either public or private servers
we are releaseing mods just so you cannot use them, but we do not allow monetization - again, donations are fine
It wouldn't make sense to publish a mod and not allow anyone to use it
@soft egret Explain to me whats happening with this PsiSyn Situation out of curiosity?
They are breaking BI's monetization license repeatedly and are lying to BI legal department.
How can you prove they are lying?
I can check if they did what they said they did
Let's take this example: A guy tells you he got a haircut. Next day you see him and his hair didn't change.
Did he lie to you?
So how can I check? I can use my eyes.
but you cant check private emails?
I can't and I don't need to
between Lewis and BI and obviously BI Dont get a fuck because they havent "taken" Action according to you
won't give more information till this is done
If you want I can publicise everything afterwards
PsiSyn wont shut down anytime soon, and Will it finish? 🤔 BI dont seem to care?, and yes please
"To be continued"...
@icy latch That's some fantastic spelling which really articulates your point further.
What point was he exactly trying to get across? There is no need to bash someone's spelling
Agreed ^ English isn't everyone's first language
It really wretches my gut that the content creators cannot monetize, but the server owners can.
Pair that with figures of mutiple-thousand USD of revenue... easiest way to get someone to stop making mods.
The only way is make a mod for your own server then monetize that, which is quite stupid
And as Pufu said, the whole monetization scheme/policy is just fake.
Its not effectively enforceable.
Its not at all
This was my analysis of the stituation from over a year ago:
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/207137-is-approved-server-monetizers-an-effective-measure/
The further my current A3 content project progresses towards the finish line, the more I start into looking how to license my content upon release.
...
if a person doesn't care about being part of the greater community they can get away with practically anything without any real repercussions...
@dusk dew the point he was trying to get across was "psisyn is god. They cannot be hurt by anyone. It's worthless trying to force them to violate rules because they can get through with anything they do"
my argument is still if you guys want to see BI act, you have to organize a community mod team "strike" pulling all your mods from workshop, for an extended amount of time, until it gets media attention and forces BI, or maybe even Valve, to act
however at least you need to expand public awareness - this discord (channel) doesnt really make a difference (in regards to outside modder circles)
with the current situation obviously nothing will improve (significantly)
or instead of that bohemia actually enforces its own policies?
imo the whole server monetization system should be ditched as it gives abusers a legitimation and instead a clear "no-money involved" policy should be established again (except donations without any strings attached and team/group membership to pay server fees) - unless the active system and policy actually helps community people in a significant enough way to enforce their right (requirement to sign a proper contract and proof your identity to allow/help with legal prosecution in case of breach of contract) in combination with an automated monitoring system if the said server only uses the permitted mods, plus support of the system to allow authors to set their policy for their work and to flag abuse very easily ("these are my mods" - link to workshop, proof of being that author)
it will still get abused or people just ignoring the system altogether, but thats as best as its gets unless Valve gives BI more control in workshop
(for the record: encryption wont help in practice and has significant downsides - so no option and pointless to argue for)
I haven't checked Psisyn pack lately, but if he still has content that violates copyright. Google Drive has it's own rules in which you could probably contact about.
As for the last convo after that. I would like to point out that BI has taken a unique approach to allocating some legal/support to mod owners. There is dozens of games that have very little protections, or worse, have clauses that basically say any mod made on the game is property of the devs.
the last point is obviously void and to be ignored
ye but each support has it's limits (manpower allocation) plus when BI does something it must give all sides chance and timeframe for responses etc.
it would be too easy if i could just use 
combined with the lack of total control over master servers / workshop etc. it leaves BI only limited area of operation vs IP issues related to monetizing
Perhaps an exe modification that is a startup parameter: You need to enable this to be able to join monetized servers. This modifciation then shuts down external mod loading and only allows to load mods that come from the workshop.
This way monetized servers would force players onto the workshop, where the situation is certainly still a mess, but so much more controllable than currently. Flag a workshop entry as "non-monetizeable" and it will prevent from being loaded in monetized-mode.
(Just a random thought)
It would also only show monetized servers that are loaded from a database that is monitored and curated.
Lose your monetization status -> gone from the list -> gone from the browser.
^ This is an interesting ide
inpractical also ever heard about private workshop items ?
negated solution in first 30s of writing comment :( {i'm so good on breaking things}
get a flag from Valve if mod is public or not 😉
I haven't checked Psisyn pack lately, but if he still has content that violates copyright About 5 different mods currently. Even though they told BI that they removed one last week. It's still there. And BI still let's it slide.
plus when BI does something it must give all sides chance and timeframe for responses etc That is the problem @pliant oar Why? People accepted the monetization rules when they got the permission.
Why can they break the rules every couple weeks and get through with it and have BI just tell them "Fix it within a week and it's fine". They violated the rules. They should loose the permission immediately.
Like if you in real life punch a guy. Then give him a kiss onto where it hurts and then everything is just fine again. 5 minutes later you punch him again.
Getting monetization apprival requires reading the rules.
They can't say they didn't know the rules. Or that they didn't know the Mod didn't allow it, because the rules say they need Permission for every Mod and they got permission for almost none. Clearly a rule violation. But BI just doesn't act.
That's the biggest problem from my point of view. Monetization is already kinda bad. But there are actually really a few good guys that monetize and do everything according to the rules.
But we just can't do anything about the bad guys because BI simply doesn't act even after we tell them about it. This throws everything into the bin and makes people boycott the entire Monetization scheme even if not everyone is a bad guy.
@soft egret what slide, 2 days of state holidays last week, also there are timeframes before action are taken
stop expecting things happen instantly
I mean that people already reported psiSyn months ago for rule violations. I reported them like.. 2 weeks ago now. At first BI said "yeah we asked them to remove the mod" (Why? They clearly violated monetization rules which should follow in a monetization ban)
One week later BI told me "They removed it" they didn't though. So I told BI that they lied to them. And BI said "Yeah. We asked them again to remove it". They are still openly violating rules. They even stated here that they didn't even read them. And instead of enforcing the rules BI just says "Just remove it and it's fine".
I'm talking about a slide of months. Not days.
And BI was clearly corresponding with them but let them slide every time with what were clear rule violations that should show that they shouldn't be monetizing
Some guys told me they reported them months ago. I reported them a little over 2 weeks ago.
Here we are right now: Bnae, CBA, HLC, Jbad, Kickass, (Kiory? Actually don't know), RHS, MBG killhouses, Robert Hammer, SFP (Anrop), TFAR, TRYK, RHS
Here is a list of mods that I recognize and that they for sure don't have explicit permission to monetize. I know some of these mods don't care about people monetizing them. But the monetization rules cleary state that you need EXPLICIT permission for every mod.
My problem is from my first report on. BI just handled them like it was just a little accident. Which it is clearly not.
This is blanked ignornace of the rules. What are the modders supposed to think if BI let's them through with this?
That and it is a very bad example for others, as they always state: "Why should i not do this? PsiSyn and other make money for years and no one cares." Same like those damn reuploads on the workshop.
Arma 3 is still alive mainly because of all the modding community unlike other games. You should do things to protect that
This was BI's answer to me reporting they are using TFAR and HLC:
We have contacted server owner and requested removal of your Intellectual property from his server. They did comply with our request but told us that, they will be switching to another version for over which you allegedly do not have rights
I can't believe that BI gave them a OK to do that. "Hey yeah. we knowingly ignore the rules. But okey if that guy want's it we'll use a different version of the same mod where that guy has no rights on. Although we still won't have permission to use that mod at all"
Like.. what?
You don't tell a repeating offender "It's fine. But don't do it again please"
And yeah. BI legal department is too small to take care of everything. They are overfilled with work. But maybe they would not be if they didn't have to investigate the same communities every couple weeks.
Here we are right now: Bnae, CBA, HLC, Jbad, Kickass, (Kiory? Actually don't know), RHS, MBG killhouses, Robert Hammer, SFP (Anrop), TFAR, TRYK, RHS
@soft egret - RHS? where?
if they are using RHS i missed that one, but i will fucking C&D their website host and server provider
ahh yeah, we share IP with MELB as it is also a separate addon, but also part of RHS so development is shared 😃
i thought there were using direct RHS data
¯_(ツ)_/¯
i'm sure Luiz won't want people monetizing his MELB
yeah that is sorted, of course he doesn't
Just thinking out loud, can monetized servers get a special flag in the server list?
or do they have that already?
They don't, but how would that help?
In that case a mod sniffer can be used to quickly check what mods are used, if that sniffer has a blacklist, life of reporting gets very easy
would be easy I think, as all the mods are listed anyway when you select a server aint it?
Yep, at least Kind of. They are listed by either the file name or name in the mod.cpp. But most Life server pack everything into a few @ folders to make it easier. So only this pack will be listed instead of each mod individually
Yeh, forced steam workshop mods would be a better option
Also a setting for content creators to not allow it on monetized servers would be great then
Exactly, you would need to limit access to mods to the Steam Workshop. But alot of mods which aren't on the workshop and aren't updated anymore won't be able to be used... This might lead to reuploads. Also it wouldn't stop anyone from uploading their pack on the Steam Workshop, but you could at least take it down easier. This would enable the option to disallow the use on monetized server by a button Press. But this also means work for Steam and BI, so we most likely won't see this feature.
Iirc Dwarden said that "work" between Steam and BI is very limited.
it's not limited it's just not as unlimited as we would like it to be 
Is there a full list of all the approved monetized servers?
There's a list, no idea if it's the "full" list
Should be yea: https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved
Oh yeet, didn't know HLC did not allow monetization
Well ripperinos to all these approved exile servers that use it xD
@errant drum might be worth telling him about that
@stoic beacon tell who?
Toadie2k
Oh yeh
Isn't he in the discord as well?
I brought up the PsiSyn thing literally months ago, originally with the inclusion of HLC and (wrongly) CUP terrains. I know -FM- forwarded it. It's not a matter of expecting things to happen instantly Dwarden. And the "We'll just switch to another version which is literally just switching the burden to another party whilst still violating the agreement.
just because everybody monetizes with something doesn't mean they ever got permission lol
👌
the ONLY way to garuntee a modded server is in the clear is to do every mod yourself and fully made by yourself
@mint edge u already said that, shatap now ty
aswell as any other content, scripts and the like, sounds, images
Already brought it up with Toadie once, this was in fourth of april I believe
So off most of them we have a list of IP's
So?
A3 launcher has the protocol/algorithm for that, but i think its known how to do anyway
@river spear next level challenge for you? :)
query all servers from the steam server list - or at least monetized (from the BI page), subscribe and download all (public) mods, hash the pbo and contents, match vs blacklist/whitelist of mods
@errant drum Oh yeet, didn't know HLC did not allow monetization no one said that they don't
PS: IMO this is what BI should have done in the first place and is their responsibility - monitor, verify and act upon it
You need EXPLICIT permission for EVERY mod you are using. That is the problem
TFAR also generally allows monetization. But if you don't get that explicit permission you are still violating the rules
so give modders an interface to confirm the permission - would be way more clean anyway (login into Steam acc, or even BIF acc, go to server page, and set your mod(s) as approved)
@errant drum explicit permission by the author is higher than the license
and considering you need EXPLICIT permission for EVERY mod on the monetized server.. The license doesn't really mean much in that case
Unless you monetize and run that mod without explicit permission. Then you are violating the monetization rules AND the mod's license
Which is what psisyn is doing with like half a dozen mods
@soft egret quick question on the matter, if lets say a modder grants you permission, and then he decides to revoke it, ur basically screwed right?
correct
Ok cool
I feel like Arma should have 2 licenses, that are similar but different. Idk I work with other material and other licenses, which are there so that you know what's happening with the material you are handling. All this permission grant, license interpretation etc are a bit too confusing lol
I can agree that it gets a bit ridiculous sometimes but the wishes of the author should always take precedence, it's their work and they have the final say over all
@errant drum we did just that with arma koth. it is out prerogative, gave them 1 month to comply though
@mint edge the wishes of the author should be expressed through the license
as in starting today, no more monetization for anyone, legacy agreements or otherwise
So that any of this shenanigans are avoided imo
that's false ^
There should be Arma License 1 - Do what you want with my stuff - Arma License 2 - You are limited to do stuff - all problems in the world solved
And third world countries hunger with it as well
You can do that but it's better if you are clear from the beginning
No, that doesnt make anything better. Each modder can and should be able to choose what to allow and what not. And changing licenses doesnt help anything when people like PsiSyn etc just dont read or ignore them.
It was and is clear from the beginning. People just have to read what they accept....
You could just file a actual lawsuit.
Indeed, cause there are some people that have APL-SA for example and say "do whatever you want"
See that's wrong, there should be a do whatever u want license to begin with to avoid unnecessary interactions and misunderstandings
Sure, and the monetization rules still state that you have to have permission for every mod you are using. All that applied for that list, accepted that
Then you have the - ask me permission to do whatever - license, so you know you have to do that
Clearly, distinct, 2 different licenses and ofc there's always gonna be the turd who's not reading them but god forbid
The normal licenses have nothing to do with the monetization rules
The same applies for the steam licenses for uploads on the workshop
I am a video editor, photographer, and when I am choosing/buying content I know what I can do with it right off the bat
I don't have to go ask for permission to someone to use it
Cause the license says it all.
As I mentioned before you can contact google, and see what you can do about him hosting his mod on google drive which contains copyrighted content.
but you are not buying anything for arma, are you now?
As does the monetization rules you have to read before being able to apply for the list....
and you still need to ask permission to the authot (no matter where the file as hosted)
Why do you have to do that
for using said content for booze and tabaco adverts for instance
There is no useless gap
What if I wanna use a mod and the author has not connected to steam in 10 months
the only useless thing to be honest is allowing anyone to monetize arma content
I don't see the big deal with expressing clearly what you want to be done with ur material
i can change the fucking EULA 4 times a week if i want to
just like BI can change their monetization rules anytime they want to
Then tell arma to remove monetization xD
As a normal server owner or private you can use all that mods as stated in their licenses. No problems wether the log in or not. Only if you want to monetize you have to apply at BI for that list and therefor read these special rules..... thats not hard to do and not complicated at all
It's exactly the same concept with media, if I use stock footage that is under a strict license, that I did not paid for I get striked
apparently it is hard to read the rules...
Some media is free to use and u can do whatever u want
APL-SA is too ambiguous imo
But that's just an opinion
I am not part at all of this license-monetization war
Adam.... do you even read? Monetization rules have nothing to do with the regular licenses and are pretty simple and easy to read
Just giving an outside prospective to make yall lives simpler
@safe arrow did you even read? No one cares about those rules, they are being broken constantly
Idk, to me at this point. It seems like people care, but don't want to do anything unless it involves a easy button. All of you are more then capable of going to court with these things..
my own license is pretty straight forward, mainly because is it based on Creative Commons ones
A small line of text won't stop some one from abusing and violating said agreement. Just like in the real world companies must activity fight infringement.
i did have to write down, because no one reads these CC licenses but myself
@echo orchid and you even state on your website that it is absolutely not allowed, which is perfect
that monetization is prohibited
If that involves gofunding a lawyer, so be it...
That's why everyone knows how RHS and CUP work in regards
even though the license itself is non-commercial anyways
On the other hand, the other 9,999,999 modders don't say anything in regards
but that is easy
it is
if the license doesn't expresely say you are allowed to use said content for commercial purposes, including or just for monetization
then it's a bit NO
I know but it's hard for people to understand apparently lel
Is that so hard to read or understand?
You may, but ONLY if you have proper permission from all of the authors of such mods. Monetizing without it contravenes our licenses.```
https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/faq#!#c7
Clearly noone takes that seriously, if psisyn is still up and its clear hes violating that why should anyone else follow that?
And this is the point we are discussing about:
If we feel anyone on the list at https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3 is exploiting any loopholes or is not acting in the best interests of the Arma 3 community, we will remove them. That will mean they will have to cease this kind of monetization immediately or face legal action.
Cause no one has ever seen legal actions from BI-side only those "please take the mods off and everything is fine" again and again....
They can turn off a server
They are not removed or anything else, BI just lets them keep on also there are clear and obvious violations.
I am sure that legal action is last resort, you know, lawyers ain't free
^
They can, i know. But they dont do it for whatever reasons after all the things Deadmen told us so far. And that is the problem with setting up rules, but not enforcing them
There's no need to call a laywer
When you can erase them from the internet yourself
😉
shouldnt have to go to google, bohemia should just enforce there own rules
Shouldn't, but have to.
If you are the content owner, you can take down their server, website, social media, everything
Ask @echo orchid he knows
😛
I'm not trolling when I'm saying lawyer up. I just get annoyed by all the complaining because you knocked on one door, didn't get the response you wished. But refuse to try another one tell justice is served.
I learned this working tradeshows for 5 years.

It's like this...person calls police on issue, police say no don't care.
Said person goes, ok, then goes to the media.
If you have to go through google, because BI isn't enforcing it's own policies. So be it.
^
If you are the content owner again, you have all the power on this world, through your content and license to destroy someone
And u don't even need a lawyer some times 😛
Exactly.
Point being is, being mad at BI for not doing anything is just stupid, if you want ur shit not to be used or taken down do it yourself
We need a be like @echo orchid meme
He knows how to
😛
"Your mod is being used against your will, be like PuFu, destroy them."
@errant drum On the other hand, the other 9,999,999 modders don't say anything in regards Yeah they don't need to. By default monetization is not allowed. On ANY mod. And the mod maker saying "you can monetize all you want" is per the monetization rules also not relevant.It's still not allowed.
Actually doesn't matter at all what something is licensed under. You cannot monetize if you don't have explicit permission. period.
Yeah but mine and Sabre's point is, if you are not satisfied with BI's attention to the problem, or how they enforce their shit, you can do it yourself
Yeah.. I can pay for a lawyer.. sure..
You can literally obscure their website, social media, even discord bro
Nope
Don't need a lawyer
It's not like we think BI shouldn't improve their enforcment
You can copy strike through youtube, google, discord, facebook, twitter
^^^^^
What?
I can copy right strike their Discord and Facebook because they are using a Mod on their Arma server... Really?
Yup
What does their Discord and Facebook have to do with that?
Yes, becuase BI gave you the rights and framework to do so.
It was just a example given
Did they?
BI rules only apply to Arma
"Hey you stole my pen in school. I'll now copy right strike your thousand dollar server in another country! HAH!"
That doesn't make any sense
And it for sure won't work
Sure. If they share my IP on their facebook I can..
lol Deadmen
But they don't
I think that is overthinking it, that is like me saying corsair owns rights to a model since I used my keyboard to make it.
It's clear within the license agreements provided by BI to apply to mods that we own them, and extend only certain uses to it. Add that on top of BI's current policies(which companies won't bother investigating how well they are being enforced). It is more then enough to put some DMCA claims in.
Yeah. I can send them a DMCA. Which they will just ignore till I get a lawyer.
You won't know tell you try.
^
Well BI told them twice on my behalf to take my stuff out. They didn't do it. soo..
I mean again @soft egret if you don't believe to what we say, ask PuFu, he's done it I think a couple of times
Successfully
Because he was not satisfied with BI's "performance"
RHS legal team is playing in a different league than me.
And you should know that too
@prisma scaffold doesn't have a legal team, I am sure he has dealt with it already without using a lawyer
I have done it on other platforms for other related stuff, and it worked
So again, you can't say it doesn't work until you try it
Instead of spending all your energy with BI, take some action yourself, see if that works, if it doesn't, at least you can prove us wrong at that point and you have nothing to lose?
I mean we're just tryna help, you can do whatever u want at the end of the day 😄
discuss there violations before sending email to infringements@bistudio.com , Arma 3 EULA : https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma3-end-user-license
The hint is in the email.
Psy has already been fined a lot of money for his illegal gambling.
If you can't lawyer him, you can do what internet does best. Make his life miserable by blocking every way he tries to circumvent the rules. 😛
Just assemble the evidence.
Include.
correspondence between you and him. Rather he responds or not, you just need to establish documentation you attempted to settle this out of basic talk.
Your license agreement, and BI's rules
Explanation on Mod Keys, so they understand they establish ownership.
Explanation how he is using a 3rd party tool (like google drive) to circumvent rules, and how he already been knocked off steam because of violations on copyright.
Those are just a few things I can think of I would include in a e-mail for a DMCA
also if you have correctly registered copyrights in your works, then you can use that as evidence in any dmca claim.
^
Also finding his server provider would be useful. They might have their own infringement policies you can report to.
This particular topic has been "discussed" enough. It is in the hands of the BI legal team. Let them deal with it.
yeah, but its also fair to have a place to discuss the measures one can take to protect their content, not specifically directed at anyone 😃
Yup, that place is the Forum.
never seen anything on the forum in those regards
also forum is no longer used much by most ppl
so bad advice
also BI doesnt seem motivated to deal with him/it
anyhow let the shit show continue
i'd say that isnt entirely true,. I have had response from BI in the past about abuses of their monetisation system,. as with any dmca claim though, once submitted leave it to them to deal with and investigate fully,. doing stuff in the interim period may hinder any investigatory stuff they may be doing.
never seen anything on the forum in those regards
Thats my point kju! Create a post to document these sorts of abuses and propose logical solutions. I came back from holiday to find a ton of messages rehashing the same thing over and over. After 1 page forward or 1 page back, no one reads it, so it becomes an "Alzheimers" page of the same thing.
The entire point of this channel is to discuss if something is a violation and if it is, then to send it on to infringements@bistudio.com ... That it.
Then there is no need to discuss at all if BI doesnt take any actions beside asking nicely over and over again to follow the rules? BI missing to enforce its rules, thats the whole point of this discussion including alternate possibilities etc.
Is "x" infringing? Yes or No? Unsure? Then Discuss. Outcome, send email if infringement or not if it isn't.
@soft egret I can put you in touch with his server provider tomorrow if you like - drop me a pm. I'm on good terms with the company.
Legend.
Shit I've reported a server 4 times over the past 6 months for violating monetization rules, each time they get a slap on the wrist and nothing gets done. This most recent time they started selling in-game money for donations and have made over $800 in the last week alone. Again, nothing was done.
atm probably the most meaningful and eventful is to DMCA all related services (Steam, server host, web host, download host, media host, etc)
just came to my attention that ArmaServices is using some peoples functions in their scripts that they are selling, just direct copy/paste, not even a rew...
probably a good business model to offer paid scripts for Lifers
the stealing part is kinda killing it though
Ow man, you want to talk about the worst of the worst. It has to be the life devs
By life devs, I mean the people who charge to set up servers. I mean imagine being payed to basically install a bunch of stuff. Zero cares if it's stolen, copyrighted, ect. Then off to the next victim.
I once encountered a dev who quoted someone £110 to SETUP an arma 3 server
£110??!1!1!1!1?1!1
Yeah. Also once got a similar offering. He asked in public if anyone wants help. I answered. He said "okey i'll message your privately then" and then nothing happened.
For tons of Life servers everything is about money. Both on the input and output.
Which is also why it's more economical to just buy a modpack that A3LP tells you is approved for monetization and everything will be fine. Rather than paying devs and making stuff on your own.
Problem is when someone actually tells them that, that modpack is not okey. The last server with a bought A3LP pack that I reported completely shut down after a week. They atleast understood that it doesn't work like they thought it works. But some other communities are stubborn.
It’s so stupid like seriously, imagine the possibilities of mods if they paid people to make original content for each server.. much and all as I don’t appreciate the life community, they can produce some nice assets when they want to
Modders union when?
I mean, if <organisation> doesnt listen to individual voices, unionize.
You can feel any way about workers unions, but they exist for damn good reasons.
Does it require effort to achieve, probably, but right now it seems to be that whats needed is a somewhat larger impact than what a few people doing DMCA's yield
@snow bloom most life server just pay for content from turbosquid there is no talent as they are all copy paste. Then the few that do have skills get sucked into the paywalls
Exactly. I can’t model myself and I can’t understand the hard work, but I do understand that surely the quality is gonna be better and you’re gonna be a lot more satisfied with the result
Getting people to work together is very hard to do @sonic blade :D
But that would definitely be nice. If they don't listen to complaints from "small" people. If the guys with the important mods suddenly arrive on the scene and threaten with revoking permission to use the mod. That could do alot.
i stopped publishing to the A3 community years back as other servers would make big bank from our content while i was making a paying for our own servers
@soft egret tell me bout it, i chaired a student org for a year, and did other stuff in it before/after, shits hard 😬
Rob is working on a project to organize modders atm
But indeed, it's usually way more effective to say "WE stand with this" rather than to have a bunch of people pipe up now and again
Thats great!
Indeed it is
Just imagine that huge Life server using a small modder's first mod against his will. That Life server doesn't listen to the modder's request. The modder is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to do.
Suddenly RHS, CUP, TFAR come around the corner. I bet the life server guy will suddenly become very small and only say "I'm so sorry I'll remove it right away and it will never happen again. Please don't hurt me" 😄
Yer but then again people who still live with mummy and still have the i'm immortal view on life will just say i only pay for the server i have no control over the content even though i stream putting in the stolen content lol and bis ignore IP violations still not had a response from bis in over a month now. I guess numbers talk even if they are calling people who play ArmA pedo's in public just to get more numbers on there own server
Frankly i think it's more along the lines of
- Individual modders dont have a large impact when raising issues
- People are stupid about licenses and dont care or simply evade when said modder comes along to talk
2 can hopefully be solved by solving 1, but the other way around is unlikely to be an effective way.
Lemme know where to sign up SFP if push comes to shove regarding organising something.
still not had a response from bis in over a month now wut? I got responses within 2 business days
So the Demillion that talks in scripting is the one from the link Kju sent?
Phone can’t see on @ list
Is it just me or have I seen these models elsewhere?
https://armaservices.net/product/farming-system/
maybe the arma 2 pumpkin, if so then commercially selling BIS data
the rest I've never seen before or remember seeing
Same. Only thing I remember is the pumpkin
Doesn't look like the Arma 2 pumpkin
Both planters they used in there video are from Arma 3 .
how do you know?
where do we see pumpkins in arma 3?
the planters he used to plant the plants in, not the plants themselves.
sorry, brain malfunction on my end. Never seen those watering bottles though
Mods Required. Tonic Framework Required.
€29.99
Categories: Modded, Tonic Framework ```
that makes me sick to see
so they are commercially exploiting Tonics work
surely this https://armaservices.net/vendors/alexanders-store/ is completely illegal commercial use of Arma - breaking the EULA?
"they" is a little vague, as I believe Armaservices is a platform for people to sell their own creations
It makes me sick to see some simplistic scripts for €29.99 🤣
I believe there has been debates over selling scripts, I think the outcome was code can be sold and other stuff as long as Arma tools weren't used
https://armaservices.net/terms/ - the guy is in Cyprus
that is a model
This website is not affiliated or authorized by Bohemia Interactive
so it is a basic store someone set up to sell in-game content. how can it not be shut down by BI?
They openly advertise it on Steam and the SW
Hell, even some of their "content" has reached the front page of the Arma workshop
I'm not intending to defend them if I appear so
Wouldn't their site / content have been brought under the spotlight sometime ago if it wasn't allowed?
And @bright tartan 👀
if they can sell a speed camera model, we can all sell an m16 or a tank. that cannot be correct.
mate cmon, if you come now
nobody is allowed to sell
what about a big seller like red?
hm
i dont want to think about such guys, which makes 1000000€
i'm asking if it is possible under the EULA to sell content for arma?
afaik it is not in any way possible, except to maybe make a private deal with someone to help them etc
As far as I'm aware it's allowed provided, it does not touch Arma tools
then tell me, why all the sellers are there and not blocked or something
to actually set up an e-commerce site for it is stepping right into the "commercial use" definition which the EULA prohibits
i'm asking tha texact same question!
i mean
my understanding of the EULA must be out of date
the sellers havent started yesterday
Take a browse on the forums and perhaps in this channel @olive sparrow I believe commercial sales have been brought into question
when they started in't material really. i am asking HOW they can do it - as once i understand that i'm off to make my first million lol
i always assumed that you could not generate content for arma in any commercial capacity
End User's Obligations
As a Subject to the Grant of License herein above, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, duplicate, reproduce, translate, reverse-engineer, modify, disassemble, decompile, derive source code, create derivative works based on the Program, remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Program or otherwise modify the Program without the prior written consent of the Licensor.
You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not entitled to:
Sell or transfer reproductions of the Program to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Program to others
Publish and/or distribute the computer Program or any of its parts
Exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose including, but not limited to, use at a cybercafe, computer gaming centre, computer aided training center or any other location-based site where multiple users may access the Program
**Exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose **
if making an e-commerce site to sell in-game items doesn't breach that EULA i'm a monkeys uncle
@olive sparrow Scripts are allowed as they can be created without any tools of Bohemia, however anything that requires you to use the BI Tools is not possible
ok so they chose a more relaxed interpretation of the A3 EULA (nevermind the tools EULA)
interesting
well if you took it super serious you could argue that for example microsoft could stop all commercial activity on windows at its for most parts only able to run in combination of windows
but on top of my head i dont know of any case where writing a software that only works in combination with another one was restricted down by the license of the product it interacts with
its still a original creation
i ca nsee the logic there, but the environment of an operating system is quite different to that of a game
the base issue is practically the same though, software only having commercial value in combination with something else
do people sell mods for elder scrolls or call of duty etc?
afaik mods aren't paid content, unless the owner like valve allows it
the ycreate a workshop and allow people to make things for their game
and the ycontrol who makes stuff, and take a cut
the issue there is that these games usually require you to use some kind of file format specific to that game
and when such formats are used or special tools by the same company they can put a license restrictions on the work that utilize them
i thought sqf was bohemia specific
its a very generic programming language, there has been a bunch of attempts to copyright a programming language, but there hasnt been any successful case yet
given how similar the programming languages are, they all use the same basic constructs
one incident with this for example is the legal fight between oracle and google
some content on that site is physcial objects - like camera models. can p3d be made without arma tools?
with p3d im not sure, i dont know if there are any tools outside of the bi toolset that allow you to create these files, also i dont know if p3d is something bohemia made or not :/
itis made by object builder afaik
that google oracle thing was actually a huge discussion https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/13/2944440/google-oracle-lawsuit-programming-language-copyright
P3D can be exported by blender if you use the arma tool box by alwarren
and OB was BI's proprietary tool the ycreated for themselves to make OFP/arma originally
ok so if i buy a royalty free m16 i can load it into blender, rig it, export to p3d, make some rvmats and a config, and pack it using mikero tools and sell it on an e-commerce site for arma players to use?
if this is the case, I have like 100 models i could do that with right now.
not so sure... i think mikero's tools use binarize by BI
these guys with their e-commerce site - they dont sell a pbo? only a script that the user makes into pbo?
so i could sell the model rifle and config etc in an unbinned folder
(i'm not planning to btw, i'm asking theoretical questions about how the EULA is interpreted)
that's legal tho... sell it as *.TXT and a tutorial how to generate a pbo
any classnames used in a config have to derive from a BI class
the whole topic about this is very complex though
any classnames used in a config have to derive from a BI class
Now....
it is, and controversial @river spear
ok well i didn't want to start a fire lol/ I just was unaware that e-commerce sites were permitted
as that's CLEARLY a commercial activity - arma-related product offered for sale
hang on, I pay a sub for mikeros tools. so how can they use BI tools?
like i said, i'm not sure. that's for mikero to answer
This is from a huge discussion about paid mods in Skyrim
Authorship and Legal rights
You are the author of the mod, what does it really mean ?
It means that you own all the rights of the mod, with a few limitations :
Your mod is most likely using the skyrim lore, universe, engine or whatever. It means your content fall under the "Fair use" case. Fair use does not mean Bethesda own your stuff, it only mean that they can prevent you from distributing it and can even ask for damage and interest fees if they think you are hurting their image, making money out of their work, etc... But this would have to be brought to a court. The most likely "bad" thing that can happen is that they don't like your stuff and send you a DMCA preventing you from sharing your work. That's it, and that thing is true for any game mod or fan fiction. They do NOT have any right to sell, use your work, or whatever. ```
It's very much thing where there is no clear yes and no
Then again thats also just the opinion from someone so dont take it for granted 😄
understood, it is about license interpretation and enforcement policy
you know what's even worse? walking up to the fridge to find your ben&jerry's eaten by your "friend with benefits", and she put the empty cup back...
that's what i was unaware of, that someone can carry out open commercial transactions with arma-related content
tell her to find the door
well enjoy the benefits more thoroughly to get your pound of ice-cream back
bohemia likes to clearly tell you "this isnt allowed", but its not like they could bring it to court and win over it in an instant
sounds like a cheap price
i feel like this also shows with their legal team, they give very vague information and often say something only to contradict themselves later on