#ip_rights_violations
grand oyster
echo orchid
i have like 10h played of dayz, only to check shit against A3 since enfusion
heavy moon
all that post apocalypse made gravity become weak pufu
echo orchid
nazi discord police
conclussion of the day: there will be nothing changed for A3 regarding monetization
grand oyster
Dedmens not here to do it ¯_(ツ)_/¯
grand oyster
😄
echo orchid
dedmens better not be here 😃
paper prawn
Know a few potential DZSA modders are watching this thread tbh...
pliant oar
also why you all think in BI we do not care about modders, hell we wish it was WAY easier to support everyone / solve everything (e.g. IP hell) and deliver more
grand oyster
cough Crazy mike cough
echo orchid
@pliant oar no one said that
pliant oar
was just 'literal everyone' 😃
echo orchid
i meant why you all think in BI we do not care about modders
paper prawn
Most here do not think that way... just a lot of frustration
pliant oar
again it was aimed on those who think that , not those who know that we ... {grr}
echo orchid
BI would shoot itself in the leg big time if wouldn't care for modders 😃
pliant oar
well, still it would be damn easy
echo orchid
at least the self survival instinct
pliant oar
DayZ 1 on TKOH engine (after prolonging sales of A2:CO for mod)
DayZ 2 on Arma 3 engine
echo orchid
what, to give zero ducks about modders
pliant oar
DayZ 3 on Enfusion
paper prawn
Bohemia are in my experience the best game company as far as supporting the community and modders goes (most of the time)!
If only you would let us have Chernarus Plus in A3 though 😭
pliant oar
all for 69.99, with season pass and tons of Zombie DLC and cosmetic micros and lootboxes
whole relic
Lol.
pliant oar
be like $ctivision is too easy
echo orchid
well, i don't get the free vigor stuff thing, but we going off topic
does it have microtransactions
or a hat store at the very least/
paper prawn
Hat store needs to be modded in
echo orchid
good luck with the on the xbone
low tapir
Can we get enfusion modding tools for 69,99??
pliant oar
learning stuff, experimenting, new engine and talents reach etc.
paper prawn
When can we get enfusion docs? While you are here David?
echo orchid
^^ oh yeah, that reminded me i forgot to send an email
pliant oar
offers @low tapir some blender plugins for only 99.99
pliant oar
anyway it was fun and such but i guess time to dive back into muddy waters of IP hell
paper prawn
Enfusion docs... just 🤙
pliant oar
📲 
paper prawn
DZSA modding community... before birth already second class citizens 😉
pliant oar
patience is virtue and considering there is no official modding on DZSA yet thus i would not be worried over it
paper prawn
Fair enough. Just wanted to hit the ground running... will wait (and wrong discord anyway... or is it?)
pliant oar
quite sure i got modding channels on that DayZ discord too 😃
paper prawn
Yeah... but ARMA's gonna be enfusion too, right? 😛
pliant oar
consults something with ninja lawyers
paper prawn
And the DZSA modding channel is basically just stuff we already know... like we can use Terrain Builder...
tawny sentinel
This is quite possibly the least appropriate channel for that @sick mica
No worries
paper prawn
LMFAO!
pliant oar
anyway @paper prawn let's return to the topics of the channels 😉
paper prawn
Sorry. My bad.
mint edge
its also annoying that valve almost gives 0 fucks about violations of ips and even their own ips until someone complains about it to them
undone pier
what about BI server monetization rule BI either no mods whatsoever, or mod owners have to explicitly authorize each mod for each server - shouldnt be that hard to code such service via BIF acc and Steam API
the problem is right now is
- people think BI's OK gives blank cheque to use mods
- BI doesnt verify and punish servers on the list (at least effectively)
so again its about perception - and if BI cant get the situation to reasonable levels the program is to be ended as there is no actual benefit
soft egret
@errant drum We know BI can't control everyone. But we want them to take action when we report people. Which they sure can do. And have done in the past even if it took some poking. I'd prefer it without repeatedly poking them over several weeks though.
Also @pliant oar as many here know the limitations what e.g. can be done on workshop A popup in the Arma 3 Tools Publisher informing everyone that they cannot reupload other peoples stuff. That is such a simple thing and it would do wonders and all Modders that have to do DMCA's on a weekly basis will love you for that.
We know that you can't watch over everything and do everything. We just want you to do something to show us that BI cares about us. Little actions can accomplish great things.
If you want help. We are happy to set up a automated system to check monetized servers for violations and have it forward that info to BI. You probably have the best/most helpful community of all Game studios, if you need help we'll happily do what we can to make Arma even better. But that help is useless if the other end seems to not really care.
Look at the workshop crawler, the community can do huge things to help. You said when you see a item with EBO's on the workshop you'll make it go away immediately. I'm sure @river spear can give you a list of all workshop items that contain ebo's.
btw. our actions still do happen, but lot of ignore the sad fact we must give 'LOT of time' for each 'cycle of please or do' That is personally my biggest problem. Why do repeat offenders get a "Please fix it in about a week and then everything will be fine"?
People will never stop violating rules if you keep showing them that they can get through with it almost every time.
undone pier
or open source the publisher source, let the community develop a backlist filter, duplicated file upload logging, etc and make that version of the tool part of the officinal tools distribution
or devote your own resources to it, or at least compensate community people doing your work for you
at the end of the day the impression one gets is BI doesnt want to devote more resources to the modding topic
echo orchid
coral torrent
+1 for @carmine folio
wild stone
@echo orchid we don't need that sort of comment, have a little respect for the moderators.
wild stone
Thanks for editing it
carmine folio
@pliant oar may i ask why this experiment (https://www.bohemia.net/monetization) is still going on after more than 2 years if its clear to you that BI is not able to hanlde it?
you can't ask for us to continuously check all the servers for any random theoretical violation
Dwarden - 22.06.2018
there is no company on earth capable to logistically handle that task```
serious question not trying to attack you or somethinghe's got a point
errant drum
Would u rather not have it in place?
carmine folio
no monetisation period, like it is for mod authors
errant drum
How would it be different? As in, if someone wants to violate rules that are there now, as opposed as different rules, what would the difference be?
People that illegaly monetize with these rules, will do it with different rules
soft egret
Please don't again start a discussion like yesterday.
What he is trying to say is that people will just keep monetizing. But it will make it even harder to find violators because they don't tell anyone that they monetize.
But the question was asked to Dwarden specifically.
narrow topaz
tl;dr: Having a policy gives BIS something to point at and say "You're doing something wrong." Therefore they will have a policy
errant drum
If you remove monetization rules, then you remove BIS ability to help to an extent they have been so far
carmine folio
yes i asked dwarden specifically in regard to his own words
and not to make this the beating of the dead horse it has been since ages ago i know but the case of psisyn and TFAR showed that either the BI employees assigned to reviewing don't know what to do or just don't care
(they were ok for them to go back to a older version where dedmen hasn't any IP in but didn't think they'd need to check if they got permission from the original author for that older version)
errant drum
Parts of logistical issues would probably also be, being able to reach each mod authors individually every time to check for that, whether monetization is allowed or not, but then again Dwarden can probably explain this well enough, again
carmine folio
Which prooves my point, they cant handle what they tried, something simpler must be put in place.
There is nothing simpler then explicitly disallow monetisation
fervent needle
I mean right now its easy to catch offenders, but once its not allowed people will hide it. Then it becomes harder to combat
carmine folio
they'd still need to go over all servers checking for monetization...
errant drum
^^
fervent needle
Arma 2 got really bad with no rules in place
Right now the monetization baits people out by being stupid, they post what they offer and mods they run
errant drum
And it makes easier to catch the ones who are doing it illegaly
fervent needle
Easy to see violations, otherwise they only could offer it to trusted players or maybe they randomly give back to donators with special stuff
No way to know unless you fork over
mint edge
it's easy to catch them, but the punishment is not consistent, some people get away with it for a very long time even after being reported, hence what lappi said
mint edge
but that's the thing, we've no word that Is happening and it's been the same song and dance for years lol
errant drum
So the solution would be not allowing monetization? You seriously think this will help stop people doing it illegaly? @mint edge
Would be the same argument as americans use: You ban guns, so criminals will not have guns anymore?
And how would this also help solve the logistical issues that Dwarden has been talking about?
You still would have to report, they would have to investigate etc etc
you can't ask for us to continuously check all the servers for any random theoretical violation```^ This applies whether it is legal or illegal to monetize, the concept is the same.
carmine folio
do you really think all monetized servers are on that list right now?
all of it is pure wishthinking
mint edge
mod authors get shafted extremely hard right now, they are unpaid and CANNOT be paid, every day someone steals something, forcing that person who has created what is essentially a passion project to now go after the thief and potentially start a legal case
as an unpaid individual who is modding as a hobby
river spear
I vote for that DRM system 
carmine folio
Just wanna double check, the use of ebo's are not allowed and its bi's responsibility to take action on them?
river spear
Yes
pliant oar
but takedowns are happening all the time, again that you do not see it doesn't mean it's not working
and on the these it was already said repeatedly that the rules do exists so there are some rules
mint edge
a lot of it can be attributed to valve for sucking but not all of it xD
pliant oar
and delays happen often that due to legal reasons you must have timeframe delays allowing response (and that's even in the law) for each cycle
carmine folio
i mean if that psisyn server was able to operate over a year with no permission, one can probably make a shitton of money in that time, i'm wondering if there is actual legal actions against such a case, because this is fraud with potential loads of money involved happening on your platform
not just a bitchslap and removal from the monetized server list
and i'm not very well versed in law but i could imagine that BI could even be partially held responsible for such a fraud?
this is actually more of thinking out loud thingy as i really am bad in law stuff
safe arrow
Might be a possibility to solve this on a technical basis. Like BI already implemented Squads on their website to show TAGs ingame via linking to steamprofile it might be possible to do the same with mods/monetized serverlist:
- Add a page (like Squads) where modder can share/link their stuff to Workshop/Armaholic etc and combine it with their profile
- Monetized Serverlist could be added with a tab adding all those mods and showing them.
- This way the next step might be to add some interchange for applying to use the mods via Mod-Page so they appear after modder-approval on the montized list and on the mod-page (showing who is using that mod)
Sure it might be work one time, but something like this could help in the long run to either improve the approval/punishment problem and also helps to advertise mods, server and give a nice overview for new players. And it reduces the amount of work for legal departments as most of the stuff is automated and directly brought together on the A3-page.
Although perhaps not for A3 anymore, but could be a thing for DayZ (or A4....)
mint edge
keep in mind the feasibility and logistics of pushing such an update for aj old game
safe arrow
Yep i know, was just an idea to put it on a technical, automated level as they already did with the squad-implementation on their page. As a thought for future projects or maybe to give it a try with A3, to test and improve for games to come.
soft egret
Maybe publish the list of all servers that got punished for violating the rules. So that players know to stay away. And that other servers know that violations are really punished?
heavy moon
or at to avoid any privacy/defamation issues, just publish statistics - maybe in an info/metric diagram in a similar format to the general arma stats were in the sitrep not so long ago, then at least something is visible for the work the BI legal/IP team do in the background.
e.g. Number of servers applied for monetisation / Number of servers approved / Number of servers refused / Number of servers removed - with a teardown of statistics with the reasons for being removed.
Something along those lines, would sure be more visible than stuff happens than atm - which i completely understand BI cannot name/shame for legal reasons, but statistics are just numbers.
maybe BI can get the legal team involved to release some creative energy in coming up with such a diagram 😃
undone pier
again either no monetization at all, or just with A3 pure - no mods, or just your own
why should 3rd party be an option if it clearly gets abused all the time
does anyone seriously believe all those allowed servers asked all the authors for the mods they initially suggested to BI?
plus you can bet they just expand the list of mods when approved as without automated monitoring by BI its essentially unmonitored
undone pier
if you are realistic about it survival and life mods likely made 50%+ sales of OA, its DLCs and A3 - its obvious BI has no interest to get rid of those people even if they abuse a lot
in return though for all that income BI should have dedicated staff and tools dev to address related topics - similar for modders in general
without mods arma wouldnt have sold well at all - yet where is the dedicated staff and coders for modding topics?
mint edge
if anything enfusion apparebtly has been documented throughout the work on the engine, arma 3 was already MOSTLY done early on but even throughout the past few years documentation and support has remained limited
so IDK, maybe the next arma will have remotely better support its just another thing swepted upset the rug >.<
narrow topaz
@echo orchid @dull moon RHS/CUP Monetized server for you guys. ```
Monetized Name (From BIS Page): JoulesGaming
Website Server Listing: https://joulesgaming.com/servers/
BattleMetrics Page: https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/2189565
fickle ivy
wow, reading the responses to the psy thing on their forum is just... shocking. "He prohibited us to use" "He got us banned on discord"..."they are witchhunting us". How illusioned do you have to be to not understand that it's not the dedmen who is out to get them because he hates em, but actually them doing something wrong.
@soft egret and co - thank you for putting up with this for us
soft egret
It's hard to not believe lies if you are living in a bubble
fickle ivy
which is just evidence to me that it's going to happen again and again, until some of them are actually dragged to court over this ...
old mauve
^it'll still happen then, too
fickle ivy
sure, but this would make their bubble burst quite successfully (provided this thing catches media attention). Anyone doing it then would do it knowing full well that it is illegal and not justifyable with "oh but others do it".
soft egret
Maybe if PsiSyn's new server goes down before it even went up. And they see tons of servers around them going down too.. But I guess then it's "dedmen on a life witchhunt" instead of a "PsiSyn witchhunt"
fossil basalt
@elahti on Twitter. If you really want attention
soft egret
🤔 Good idea actually
echo orchid
@fickle ivy link?
proud flicker
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/217962-ubcs-clint-suggestion-with-payment/
What's IP infringement about this?
I didn't see any. Or was he offering DL'ed models ripped from some game?
soft egret
Had your starting offer been 350 ouuh that hidden insider
proud flicker
but its #350, right?
soft egret
Well I guess if Capicom own the IP on that character (which I think is what he wants) then that might be asking others to help infringe IP
proud flicker
But thats not how that works.
If that were true, FM would have to lock the W40K threads, too.
fossil basalt
If I’m in error, it will be changed.
But, he was asking for a recreation of Resident Evil content including the actual logos. To my understanding, one can recreate something which strongly resembles or is heavily inspired by another’s IP, but a direct copy is a no-no.
DM me your reasoning and I will review it.
proud flicker
ah, sure!
fickle ivy
some companies are stricterer than others. 40k is supposedly ok if it doesnt involve monetization (and is not stealing models from licensed games certainly) but as they own the IP they can just flip their decision when it suits them.
proud flicker
Huh, TIL.
The extreme followthrough with that would be that mods could only be fantasy?
fickle ivy
you mean in general, original modders own IP only? Or what do you mean by fantasy?
proud flicker
Yes, modders own IP creation. Nothing modeled after currently existing things that arent public domain.
fickle ivy
*aren't public domain or without permission, but yes, if that was the criterion things would alot more empty in the modding forum
proud flicker
For example: Colt M4 rifle. Someone holds the IP on that design. Is the likeness of such a rifle specifically or automatically protected? I assume there is some difference between physical things and their liklinesses and thoughts/ideas pertaining to stories.
fickle ivy
mild ot/ am i the only one offended by the word "donate" used in context with some service or commission nowadays in modding communities?
fossil basalt
M4 is a military designation
proud flicker
Well... it was just 13 bucks or so. So definitely not a commission 😄
fossil basalt
Colt on the other hand
proud flicker
Not talking about the trademark. Its about the visual shape.
fickle ivy
games have been dodging around this since ages i think... several law suits where started (BF and COD i think both had stuff like that leveled at them by arms manufacturers) but it was always settled behind the curtains - presumably to avoid a precedent case
winged vapor
@proud flicker yep. Glock is an example
hence there are only used Glock-type airguns around or branded, licensed new
amber eagle
visual shape is a patent issue, not a copyright issue afaik
winged vapor
true
proud flicker
Ahh, so only if the shape is patented its a problematic model.
Unless sufficiently derived.
fossil basalt
Jeep vs Hummer for example
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2002/11/19/Appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-GM-in-Hummer-grille-fight.html
amber eagle
Like colt's patent for the M1911 has been long ended, so everyone's grandmother makes 1911 pattern pistols
proud flicker
Yes, that was coming to my mind! A specicially distinct design feature can be protected, but not a whole object.
fossil basalt
but "Colt .45" is another story
amber eagle
Yes, Colt is a trademark
fossil basalt
(I dont mean the beer)
fickle ivy
sure you can protect the likeness of a whole object
proud flicker
sorry, meant to clarify: patent
fossil basalt
Laws can be confusing at times 😉
Trademark, Copyright, Patent, Intellectual Property, etc.
proud flicker
It feels like we are breathing the air left in the gaps between those laws as modmakers.
fossil basalt
thats where artistic license comes in
fickle ivy
amber eagle
patents, copyrights and trademarks has always been a confusing things when it comes to 3d art
fossil basalt
Geschmacksmuster reminds me of Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
amber eagle
Personally, my rule of thumb is no trademarks, logos or labels
fossil basalt
Me too
proud flicker
Yes, thats been the baseline
amber eagle
at least when it comes to selling 3d models
When it comes to modding for arma though I feel using trademarks is ok as long as it's in good tastes
fickle ivy
indeed. But GM sued Activision for using the Humvee in their games - not for the names but their likeness of the vehicle. Case settled without court. And i think Bell or some one else sued EA for use of a helicopter in BF - same story, no court ruling
amber eagle
I'm curious what the story is behind GM suing Activision for using a "humvee"
fickle ivy
since your not making money with modding (yet?) you as modder are propably safer than game developers...
short story - money
amber eagle
it could be they used the word "HMMVEE" which could be trademarked by GM
fickle ivy
no, it was about depicting a humvee iirc
proud flicker
GM definitely trademarked "Humvee" around the globe in all trademarkeable categories. 😄
amber eagle
Well if it was settled outside of court that gives me the idea GM didn't have much to work with
The 7 grilled slot issue is interesting though. I wonder if Chrysler will ever sue GM or vise versa
fickle ivy
amber eagle
Or maybe GM and Chrysler will tag team and go after BIS 😄
proud flicker
Well BI went so far that they even changed the name of the main island. 😄
vast notch
@proud flicker Probably because the hospitality of Lemnos lasted a little bit too long
fickle ivy
that was even before that... chernarus and older...
proud flicker
But those were not to scale representations of real locations
vast notch
only the military bits 😉
amber eagle
Didn't BIS changed the name of the island because they gave them so much greif?
I don't think you can copyright the name of a country or island
proud flicker
Yeh, it was for other reasons. 😄
stoic beacon
Is there a possibility to find out a Server Provider where files are hosted in Arma 3 Sync? I asked politely but no answer and no reaction.
keen trout
İ got permissions more than half of those maps ,other authors didn't respond to my offer.So it's legal for now.
lol
echo orchid
I never understood why other games like Gmod and other workshops can have all the ripped content in the world but Arma doesn't. Seems a little unfair.```
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1440177630
faint nacelle
🙈
keen trout
someone should create a tumblr or something with "best of arma 3 workshop"
paper prawn
It was because of the "situation" there: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=18465
Masters of understatement, then and now: "However, in view of recent events, the team no longer feels passionate about using the previous name"
stray lagoon
Hello, I just want to say that this text channel mentioned the server JoulesGaming under montization with RHS/CUP. I just want to clarify that we have asked BI to remove this license. We do not offer our players reserved slots (or anything else that is considered a perk) with RHS and CUP. We asked BI to remove us from that list on the 28th of May this year. We respect both RHS and CUP license. If you go to our website, you can also see that we do not have a shop.
Sorry if you do not understand.
agile gyro
damn lad, useful input ... and yeah if I have put countless hours into a mod for the general free use of the community and then some entitled people decide it's their right to use said mod in generating income (against BI rules and common decency) then I'd sure be pissed.
No problems with generating income - just do it the right way, that's all.
If server admins structure their server without permissions of the work of others to generate $$$ then yeah that's pretty shit, anyway you look at it.
coral torrent
@fossil basalt 🔨-Time
And you especially don't judge people based on the amount of commits or their contents. I have seen projects where one developer fixed on little issue that others have been searching for for ages - and that saved the whole project. Also anyone who invests his time into creating content for the community has the right to decide if others are allowed to commercially use it, if they are allowed to reupload it etc.
keen trout
warm vortex
Looks like slightly more than 3 lines of code to me. Probably should learn to investigate before making baseless claims.
gaunt geode
soft egret
@keen trout Esseker, Fallujah, Ruha. Ruha guy is probably easiest to reach.
@dull moon according to the Authors comments https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1428372188 contains textures from CUP Units.
@stray lagoon thanks for the heads up.
@coral torrent And you especially don't judge people based on the amount of commits or their contents. That's just because PsiSyn folk was too dumb to use Github and spread the message that I didn't do barely anything on TFAR.
@carmine folio Inform yourself. What Authority do I have? The one given to me by the TFAR author. Also I didn't only report for TFAR. I reported dozens of mods that were used without permission.
keen trout
couldn't find any cup units inside so I think he only meant his screenshot
soft egret
@royal gulch https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1428372188 reupload of Ruha
coral torrent
@carmine folio "You guys are all sweaty nerds lol" You show a negative attitude here, try to insult @soft egret based on wrong facts. If FM wants to leave your "comments" he can do, just made him aware that it might worth looking into this
You could of course try to have a reasonable conversation here with some arguments so that people can discuss them here
Saying Dedmen has not the right to claim usage without permission for TFAR on servers over and over again does not really get us forward
fossil basalt
Removed. Obvious troll was obviously trolling.
keen trout
it's actually REALLY warm here in Sweden, I'm quite sweaty
astral marlin
Without asking for permission no @upbeat token they can't and should never have done if they are making $$$
soft egret
And that's not TFAR's rules. That's Bohemias rules
soft egret
Yeah. Easy to be confused with all the lies and panic making going around ^^
upbeat token
true
soft egret
1: This community could put things to buy on the website per say tiers that give you "free items" in game then technically this community int monetizing
Dedmen: As soon as you get ANYTHING back related to Arma directly it's monetization.
1: So if someone gives you feedback on your MOD or ask for a feature it becomes monetized? that doesnt seem right my friend
I don't even know what to say.
Apparently selling "free items" is not monetization.
But telling someone you like his mod means his mod is suddenly monetized... 🤔
My brain doesn't understand that..
snow bloom
Don’t try to understand it, it obviously makes sense you just aren’t part of the 400+ IQ club 😉🤣
grand oyster
@soft egret They've twisted the Arma logic and created their own baby, resulting in ^^
warm vortex
I really don’t understand. If your community/staff aren’t trash you should have no problem bringing in enough actual donations to keep things going without the need to sell anything related to your ArmA server.
fossil basalt
Too many people try to force a community to grow rather than let it grow organically.
grand oyster
insults my community and server
remembers running costs are $0
👀
fossil basalt
A good server doesn’t need to ask for donations.
warm vortex
But then again, I have had people ask for refunds on year old donations after a server does end up dying, lol
fossil basalt
Donations don’t get refunds, that’s why they’re called “donations”
undone pier
lets be clear here - this isnt about server or website costs in the end, yet mostly about some trying to earn money by these schemes
fossil basalt
☝️
stray lagoon
Just an update from the JoulesGaming I mentioned earlier. We have been removed from the list.
heavy moon
It's quite refreshing to see people playing by the rules @stray lagoon gracias 😃
astral marlin
Alot of people simply wont support a mod unless they get something in return as they seem to forget the hours of work that goes into making the content already available. This is why this monitorization palaver hits home to people who make the content and struggle to keep there own servers running due to a bunch of script kiddys who steal there work and then make big $$$ and when they have enough $$$ they close the community and reopen a new one and rinse and repeat over and over. I've tried for years to defend life servers but it ready gets my goat ( @amir) when a new server pops up and 100% of the content is stolen and the mission its self is also stolen(Borrowed) then they have the cheek to say "haha look at your unpopulated server" yes there is not that many honest and decent people who support original creators and say a big fuck you to people who leech off others work and when asked to stop say fuck off ill do what i want as BIS wont do anything and even if they did ill just rebrand again.
Sorry for the WOT but like i said gets my goat
soft egret
Btw I changed the monetization permission I give out for TFAR to include a This permission will be void automatically if the community uses other mods without permission. So either you finally get your act together. Or you don't use TFAR.
I'd recommend everyone else to also put such a thing into your permission.
echo orchid
even easier - no permission 😃
astral marlin
PuFu why punch the good guy due to what the bad guys dose
soft egret
exactly. This clause essentially says "If you are a bad guy you get no permission"
keen trout
checks if dedmen put something about furries in the license
echo orchid
why punch the good guy due to what the bad guys does
you don't need permission if you don't run monetized servers
¯_(ツ)_/¯
astral marlin
I could not afford my server without monetization in place that was requested by my community
echo orchid
if one cannot afford a server or it cannot survive on voluntary donations alone, maybe it would be wiser not to have a server at all?
soft egret
Don't get offtopic please
astral marlin
same can be said for modders who publish there content to the public
soft egret
We had this kinda talk enough times already.
astral marlin
Dropped
echo orchid
if i wouldn't be able to afford the time i put into making the content, or money i put into my software licenses, i wouldn't do it
carmine folio
BI doesn't have much issue with monetised servers but you have to comply with the licenses of the software you use, if you don't you should expect repercussions. People don't get to do what they want with content they don't own
echo orchid
same can be said for modders who publish there content to the public
lol what? when have you actually paid for any mod?
keen trout
maybe he means that we should unpublish our mods? 
echo orchid
i really doubt he'll actually manage to make sense of that one
astral marlin
I have run my servers for 12 years at a massive cost to my self even with monitorization in place as i enjoy what i do and what i create for my community to use. I just hate the mentality of people who are lets cut the hands off everyone rather then go for the ones who don't respect licences.
soft egret
Well. It's true. If you cannot afford to make mods. Maybe you should stop making mods.
That actually makes sense. But still bad analogy as mods don't really cost you much but time
carmine folio
You don't get to choose, the guys who write the mods do, it is theirs not yours. If their license says can not be used on a monetised server you can't use it.
astral marlin
@carmine folio 100% agree
echo orchid
That actually makes sense. But still bad analogy as mods don't really cost you much but time
that is false most of the time. i spend over 200EU alone a month only on licenses
soft egret
If their license says can not be used on a monetised server you can't use it.
Addition!
If their license doesn't say anything about monetization, you can't use it
But you don't HAVE TO pay money for modding.. Well. Okey. Electricity.. This is going too far ^^
astral marlin
Time = money also
echo orchid
^^ that for once, but yeah i heard that one before
astral marlin
Anyway lets drop this argument as its off topic
As stated to @soft egret cant wait for him to look at milsim server who offer perks and so on as there is 100's of them that use TFAR and alike
echo orchid
you can use free alternatives - why pay an indie license for software X when you can use blender
why pay for PS when you can use gimp
why pay for substance when there is no alternative, better learn go back to doing texture the old way, manually in pain.net
ohh and btw, my own stance on monetized servers is the same no matter of the type of community that runs it
be it life/rp, survival or milsim/tacticool
again, i 100% agree that anyone can do whatever they want with their own licenses and content.
astral marlin
thats good just dont recall anyone doing the milsim headhunting in here i might be wrong
echo orchid
headhunting has a completely different meaning than what you intended to use it for. That said, the 3 monetized reports i filled since monday are all milsim communities related, so i am completely impartial when it comes down to that
soft egret
We are going through all monetized servers. But milsims just aren't at the top 😄
keen trout
I'd rather not know what I spent on modding, programming and games 🙃
but it paid off in the end I guess
echo orchid
😃 i waste fuckton of monies on these 1$-5$ gumrod plugins and alphas, brushes etc each month
i was amazed to what amount it ends up to a the end of the month
keen trout
🙈
frail flint
@astral marlin the reason milsim communities have been a secondary target in this is most of them run off donations with no monetization
astral marlin
@frail flint you will be surprised
soft egret
Feel free to help and give us a list of milsim monetized violators 😉
carmine folio
Milsims don't have the same sort of progress inbuilt into their game so they aren't natural monetisation targets. I don't doubt some of them shoehorn it in but it really is the more individual based games that tend to drive that direction.
Ultimately I know dedmen will eat anyone alive who has broken his license so chuck them under that bus so they can be dealt with.
frail flint
on top of that typically the ones who do monetize are very short lived, as it's a terrible way to run a milsim group
carmine folio
I sell TFAR-taste icecream on the server, is that allowed?
astral marlin
@soft egret would love to if i had the time fella
soft egret
This was the best I has so far. Big life server. They are actually trying to be one of the good guys.
Apparently somehow BI staff told them that monetizing APL-SA is fine although the license says non commercial.
I tried to explain that it's not true.
20 minutes later to another modder while requesting permission
If the license only says "Share Alike and non commercial" then that means monetization is allowed
Well.. To be expected that people don't know or believe the opposite of the truth.. That's why we are doing this afterall
soft egret
5 of the communities that I reported this week already got removed from the approved list. And the pending approval for atleast one was put on hold.
I think BI now understood what's going on and they are starting to hit hard.
Or Dwarden put in a word for us.
narrow topaz
Looks like they've also cleaned up the list of all the now non-existent communities I've tossed their way as well
carmine folio
Are they doing anything more than just clearing up their own list that made them look complicit in the breaches?
Actually going after the breachers on Steam? Proactively assessing the popular servers? Anything else?
soft egret
I had some servers admins contact me. So I guess they are also going after them
stray lagoon
@heavy moon I normally don't come through here, but when I decided to, I scrolled up to see what has been talked about, and saw our name. I got little scared when I saw it. But I thought, why not say something about it, instead getting slapped by BI or @soft egret for that matter 😛 I did ask BI to revoke the monetization license, but they made a little mistake and not remove us from the list. Also BI apparently sent an RHS removal request, which I never recieved for some reason. I am normally just saying "If the mod doesn't have a license, its allowed". I have of course changed that tone. I now read through the license, and search for it, or leave it alone. (if the mod doesn't have a license). I now respect the licenses. They have been put up for a reason. If people can't live the license, in my opinion they shouldn't be making a server in the first place.
I wanted to say my opinion about this. Feel free to just ignore it. I also agree with Dedmen about the TFAR thing with PsiSyn, and all the mods they are using illegally. By circumventing the monetization license, should be a ban from the license forever. They should not be allowed to monetize their servers ever again (im not too familiar the the monetization license, they may not be allowed to monetizate anymore afterall)
I just santed to say I really like ArmA, BI, the community. All the mods that are in this game. Most of this wouldnt be possible without these mods ❤
(sorry for the tag Dedmen 😃 )
heavy moon
it is definately appreciated and a nice to see too, props to you for being upfront and honest 😃
stray lagoon
😃
drifting scaffold
What is your opinion on making mods be copylefted?
You can put a non-commercial license and the people who redistribute it and modify it have to keep it in their works too
echo orchid
@stray lagoon yeah i did file a complaint with BI about your server 2 days ago regarding RHS EULA prohibiting monetization of any sort
i used to contact people individually, but due to the sheer number of issues, i don't do it anymore, i just file the complaint
carmine folio
I prefer copycentred; communism in IP
echo orchid
yeah i got that
no worries, i did have a look over your website, i didn't find anything suspicious to begin with
still, as long as someone is on that list and using RHS, is in conflict with BI monetization rules and RHS EULA
stray lagoon
I understand, but we were not providing any perks to begin with. I guess this is also my fault aswell, I could have contacted BI earlier instead of having them contact me
echo orchid
no worries, all is fine
stray lagoon
Problem solved
west terrace
@soft egret I'm assuming that if a person's licence was an official licence ie GPL etc. And that does allow commercialisation, then that covers any Bohemia rules since the licence gives that permission in all commercial forms.and thus would satisfy u as well? Just curious. I make my own mods.
stoic beacon
You still need explicit permission from the author, even if the license says that you're allowed to monetize, if I have not mistaken your question.
west terrace
My question is why. That permission was given by their licence.
stoic beacon
One second
west terrace
If I had a licence that permits monetisation. I can't take u to court and say u don't have perms
stoic beacon
You may, but ONLY if you have proper permission from all of the authors of such mods. Monetizing without it contravenes our licenses.```I am a content creator and I have released a mod, but I do not wish to allow other people to use it on their monetization-enabled servers. What can I do?
You don’t have to do anything. Unless you give permission no one is allowed to monetize your creation.
So you need "explicit" permission to use a mod on a monetized server, even if the license of the mod allows it.```If it's a commercial licence that is explicit.
stoic beacon
I thought so as well, but doesn't seem like it. Even through a license may allow it, I would still ask for explicit permission, just to make sure
short flicker
Dead so you are the creator off TFR yes?
faint nacelle
DM him if you want to discuss TFR. this channel is for IP rights violations discussion
west terrace
The extra section is in regards to people who don't make licences on mods. It is explaining to a mod maker how it works. If u don't explicitly give permission to use Ur stuff commercially u are protected. Same as if I don't put a licence on my stuff. It automatically becomes the strictest licence by law.
paper prawn
Also RHS and CUP Weapons, Units and Vehicles licenses explicitely prohibit running on a monetized server even if in BI's program... it's right there in the license files for them
stoic beacon
I've asked BI about this, a mod without any license is licensed under APL SA, but you should still ask first
stoic beacon
Well, that's why BI said to me when I asked that question
west terrace
It's Ur code
stoic beacon
in case a mod creator did not publish any license on its own, the work is
automatically licensed under the standard Arma 2 share-alike license (APL-SA)
by default:
https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses
Since he did not prohibit it, you can convert the mod into Arma 3. Just please
keep in mind three things:
- The APL-SA license prohibits you from earning money from this work in any way
(accepting purely freely given donations without any counter-value is allowed).
- The APL-SA license prohibits you from porting this into anything other than
Arma games (so no DayZ, no Ylands, no GTA-anything, etc.).
- As you said, please give the credit to the original author. :)```That's the reply I got from the BI support
echo orchid
wow !
west terrace
I would never follow that. That is terrible copyrite advice.
echo orchid
that is 100% false by any law out there
echo orchid
if there is no license present, the full copyrights applies
what the fucking sort of an official reply is that
? who send you that if you don't mind me asking? (send it in PM)
west terrace
The only way that could remotely be true is if they had some weird licence that say when u uploaded a mod to a specific place it got that licence applied. But that licence didn't exist back then
echo orchid
i would say that if a EULA/TOS whatever
stoic beacon
west terrace
Yep
echo orchid
ok, i though you got that from legal department
i am pretty sure that sort of thing is 100% false
from a legal pov
that being said, to go back to @west terrace question regarding licenses
you are NOT allowed, based on both A3 EULA and BI tools EULA to create stuff for commercial purposes
echo orchid
so you can't really write that down in your own license, even if you wanted, unless let's say you never actually use any of their tools
west terrace
U can make code as we all agree
echo orchid
true
so if my license specifically allows commercial endevours
then you don't need an additional permission from the author
west terrace
That's the point I was trying to say. That u don't need more proof
It just has to say commercial
echo orchid
because that particular license is the overall permission
yes, it has to say commercial
stoic beacon
Is the APL SA license NC?
echo orchid
because monetization is some sort of commercial, within A3, only for servers etc. so a commercial with additional ruleset
west terrace
I'm not sure if all are nc
echo orchid
pretty sure all are NC
west terrace
When u look them closet
echo orchid
APL SA is non-commercial
west terrace
Creative commons I'm referring too. How u state it's licenced under this version. U go their website and I can see clearly what that allows
echo orchid
APL SA is BI created license
echo orchid
yeah precisely
yeah CC (which is great license for all creative content btw)
has commercial license just as well
echo orchid
you also can add stuff on top of a CC license
stoic beacon
Can you revoke the license at any time? Iirc that was the downside of it, but I might be mistaken
west terrace
I just wanted to make sure that people knew that if a licence states something like commercial being allowed. Then it is allowed.
No
echo orchid
you cannot revoke a license for stuff that is already released
west terrace
U can't backdate something and revoke it.
echo orchid
you CAN however change the license on update
west terrace
Yep
echo orchid
and you CAN revoke certain individual permissions
that you can do
because if you are smart, you create a contractual agreement for that particular permission
where the first clause always needs to be
bla bla /myself reserves its right to change the current Terms of Agreement and/or remove individual permission for XX server and/or YY community monetization approval without prior notice, with immediate effect.
stoic beacon
Yea I might want to make my licenses more clear or use a cc license, just to avoid misunderstandings
echo orchid
to conclude
a. the email you got from support @ bi is 100% bullshit from a legal pov
b. all BI licenses are non-commercial (APL-SA etc)
c. if no license attached, the most strict copyrighted one applies (surely non commercial, surely non derivative)
novel goblet
If you don't attach a license, others may not distribute either.
stoic beacon
I've had the issue already multiple times, because I didn't include a license on my first release and so didn't armaholic when it uploaded it, but later on I added one after an update. However armaholic hasn't seen this, so on the page no licensed was displayed.
Those people (life severs) tell me then, "there's no license, so I thought I can do what ever I want"
So it's kinda unproductive to have no license at all
novel goblet
If there was no license, Armaholic do not have a license permitting them to distribute it. They are in violation.
stoic beacon
I allowed them to upload it, so they were fine (just not with not updating the license)
Anyway, its all good now, just wanted to say that no license "can" be misleading
novel goblet
Have to make people who need the simple version to equate license = permission.. Then the phrase
"There was no license, so I thought I can do what ever I want" becomes
"There was no permissions, so I thought I can do what ever I want" <-- which is obviously wrong.
echo orchid
@stoic beacon - you can always contact foxhound to rectify that
also, always have a readme file with that license together with the mod
stoic beacon
Yea that's what I did, as I said it's all good now.
echo orchid
on the subject thanks to @heavy moon
https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
heavy moon
fyi that its GitHub's site regarding licences.
so a reputable source for general advices on the topic
dull moon
🤔
frail flint
say what now???
dull moon
About what?
soft egret
@west terrace I'm assuming that if a person's licence was an official licence ie GPL etc. And that does allow commercialisation, then that covers any Bohemia rules since the licence gives that permission in all commercial forms I actually don't know how BI see's that. If it's enough or if you still need explicit permission. If you need permission then that would probably mean the death to most modded servers because of CBA. I wouldn't even know who to ask in the CBA team about that. I guess ViperMaul.
Did anyone actually ask BI legal department specifically about that? @echo orchid maybe add that to your mail to them if you didn't send it yet. Would be very good to know.
@fossil basalt we seem to have attracted another troll up there
carmine folio
[11:31 PM] Muzzleflash: If you don't attach a license, others may not distribute either.
Where does that leave Armaholic? They are clearly breaking that as they happily redistribute mods without licenses attached without the authors permission
soft egret
Read the next message from Muzzleflash right below that one
https://discordapp.com/channels/105462288051380224/105792634995388416/469270419866779650
echo orchid
you are confussing re-distributing with mirroring
also, there is a huge difference between a service like steam workshop that has a IP sharing TOS, and other mirroring/hosting services that do not
echo orchid
hmm, this guy seems to be still kicking
https://steamcommunity.com/id/307752601/myworkshopfiles/
soft egret
I apologize for this MOD have been removed by BIS in the previous period , thanks for yours understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience . This is the last update , unfortunately , due to this MOD may be deleted at any time by BIS ...... again .
yeeee......
faint nacelle
hmm seems like Armaholic also hosts some of their stuff
soft egret
is uploading TKoH maps allowed? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1272330506
Well. It still violates the Steam subscriber agreement. So the clear answer is no. But does BI allow it?
faint nacelle
isnt CUP working on some of those?
echo orchid
BI allows the use of TKOH in arma, yes
novel goblet
@echo orchid "you are confussing re-distributing with mirroring"
was that directed at me / my earlier comments (or the CBA thing)?
carmine folio
Isn't it even worse with armaholic because they are also making money out of their mirroring/redistribution where they are charging premium to get a complete update and performance for their service. So they are making money out of rehosting mods without permission or regard to the license involved. I am not seeing how that is OK.
novel goblet
Yeah, I once had some stuff uploaded to Armaholic, and was then informed of it by the uploader - but was confused, they didn't ask
echo orchid
Where does that leave Armaholic? They are clearly breaking that as they happily redistribute mods without licenses attached without the authors permission
so mirroring it is fine
premium is not, my own 2 cents anyways
heavy moon
eh i thougth AH's premium stuff only put users onto their faster cdn for downloads, where as the public one is restricted in speed.
novel goblet
Not sure I follow this about mirroring. In this context how is mirroring distinguished from distribution? And what is the legal means why which they are allowed to do this (since no license was provided in the first place)?
I guess there could be a license that allows you B to "forward" stuff without the original license from A, thus enforcing the original authors full copyright. But most licenses declare that they must be preserved?
carmine folio
I can certainly see how a caching service like cloudflare for distribution purely. But there is definitely a spectrum here as steam clearly applies its own terms over the top that makes it different to a place that doesn't change the agreement in any way
Armaholic's terms of service clearly change the original license of the mod as well, so it isn't any different to Steam in that regard
echo orchid
: Armaholic's terms of service clearly change the original license of the mod as well
sorry how so?
AH's premium stuff only put users onto their faster cdn for downloads
that is similar to VIP/priority slots used by different communities, that is cover by BIS monetization rules
carmine folio
www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=39 - Section 2 changes terms that the mod may be distributed under
echo orchid
hmmm
novel goblet
Disregarding monetization, I think that is actually allowed, assuming
(a) they actually have a license that allows them to distribute in the first place
(b) that license is also not in conflict with the changes
But even then, if the added clauses from AH are annoying people would get it from somewhere else.
Not sure if this license is for the website itself, for addons, or both?
But if I put something in a say a BSD license, I think my original license would override anyway. For example:
- BSD says you may "copy" the work and distribute it.
- AH says you may not copy it (not copy the copy you get from the site)
In that case my original license overrides AH, and they were wrong to even to even host it since they terms of service is in conflict with my license.
carmine folio
Materials seemed to be defined as "information or software", that isn't super clear in respect to mods.
chilly silo
Mods are legally termed software
carmine folio
The point is armaholic does not have the right to change the terms of distribution in that case, which they are clearly doing by restricting downloads and moving on of the software.
chilly silo
models and textures are artwork when split from the mod as a whole
carmine folio
So primary copyright breach, relicensing without permission
chilly silo
Armaholic isnt changing your rights. Your license still has legal standing (assuming you are the rightful IP owner)
That license is a term of service for using the website and content its hosts
As Foxhound to clarify and you will understand
carmine folio
But that content isn't theirs, it is ours. When they change the terms of distribution and the rights associated with that content they break the law
chilly silo
i agree its not completely clear but all its doing is uphoilding the basic law that says all content is the property of the IP holder and should be respected.
carmine folio
That is not what it says at all
If it said that we would be having a different conversation.
chilly silo
Unless they remove your copyright they are not breaking anything
Its a general coverall license
carmine folio
That isn't true.
novel goblet
I think though that 2. a. i. will violate original authors license in many cases.
e.g. it is in conflict with 2. a. v. also (<-- nevermind I think I misread that one - the triple negative...)
carmine folio
Licenses cover a variety of things and rights are granted and taken away with them, some mods come with terms about redistribution and ongoing rights which Armaholic is clearly restricting. It is not just a mirror
chilly silo
Go ask Foxhound. I will guarentee you he does not intend ANY violation of ANY one's rights
carmine folio
Your in breach of my licenses, cease and desist
chilly silo
LOL stop being a drama queen and talk to Foxhound. If you have any concerns I am 100% positive he will answer you honestly and work with you to improve or clarify that Terms of Service on his website
soft egret
Well it certainly isn't nice of them to just upload stuff without asking and then even slapping a version number onto it that doesn't exist and confusing people for eternity and spamming me with useless questions about why 13 is there but only 12 is there.
And since the terrorist attack remake mission that Armaholic staff defended publicly I don't allow anything of my stuff to be uploaded there.
Doesn't help you though...
Last year I saw a forum thread of a newly released mod. At the far bottom he had a "reuploading to playWithSix or Armaholic is not allowed" and the first 2 replies were from Foxhound and withSix announcing that his mod is now available on their platform. I found it quite funny back then.
chilly silo
He's spent years defending and supporting addon makers rights.
I've known him nearly 15 years and he's the first one to stand up and speak out when something is stolen. He's removed as many dodgy mods from ArmAholic as BIS has from Steam over the years
carmine folio
I can not see how armaholic is in any way meeting BI's rules around monetisation, they are clearly reselling access to other peoples content and making money out of it
chilly silo
LOL and there you go proving you dont actually know what they are really doing. And you don't understand the rules or the law.
novel goblet
I don't think monetization rules apply in this case since we are not talking about an Arma 3 server?
chilly silo
I suggest you go talk to Foxhound. If you dont want your stuff rehosting then tell him
Bright is refering to ArmAholic's subscription service
soft egret
correct. Monetization only applies to the server. Armaholic doesn't directly have something to do with Arma. Like.. You know what I mean I hope ^^
chilly silo
something that only gives you faster download speed and access to a more complete news service. It doesn t prevent you from accessing any of the hosted files
heavy moon
I do agree that AH's forums scraping should filter for a no-reupload/mirror clause, the onus should not be on an author to chase down re-uploaders/mirrors, they should be taking account of the terms within the thread it is published in when they scrape it.
AH's subscription model just gives priority download speed to their subscribers, logged in regular users get normal speeds, unregistered users get restricted download speeds. see - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=29942
The TOS you are reading are clearly labelled as "Website Terms of Use" which serves to protect Armaholic.com and its services. - http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=39
So they are only monetising their own services, everything available there is available whether you subscribe or not.
I guess if you want further clarification or want to talk about their TOS/Disclaimer/Sub model then you can contact Foxhound as @chilly silo mentioned a few posts up.
carmine folio
Request removal already sent. Terms of service are not compatible with license so cease and desist has been sent already.
But they ought to be determining compatibility themselves and rather than committing a primary breach in the first place
proud flicker
So that comment about unknown licensed content in arma automatically being APL-SA is already spreading fast and causing a lot of headache.
dull moon
According the amount of trolls in here lately indicates that the actions take affect and the word spreads. It's clearly annoying to have trolls removed daily, on the other hand it's a good feeling that the stuff that is going on works
fossil basalt
Everyone loves a good game of "whack-a-mole"
keen trout
the trolls are kinda cute too!
carmine folio
So what happen exactly?
keen trout
she got mad because she couldn't have cake for dinner
river spear
I mean that's a valid reason isn't it?
paper prawn
Was she going to sell reserved slices of the cake? 😉
keen trout
resell it with extra cream
wild stone
and cherries
paper prawn
Ah, offering cake reskins then... clearly a violation of the dessert terms of service
faint nacelle
How about you mod it and add some pie to the side
river spear
Cakeaholic has speed delivery of that cake as a premium option
narrow topaz
I'd like to report a bakery for selling sprinkles as a microtransaction
keen trout
just change the cake name from CUP(cake) to Fairy Cake
heavy moon
🤣 you guys loafing around
keen trout
it's not like the authors would find out that we use their cakes as base and just sprinkle a bit on top right??
heavy moon
just donut tell them
carmine folio
As the maker of great bake flour I am getting pretty sick of people cooking up their own recipes and distributing it. I am very clear on the packaging that it can not be used in cakes topped with strawberries
Just the other day I found someone had taken the flour out of my packaging and put it into a generic package to try and hide their illegal use of my flour. Genetic testing confirmed the abuse and I sent them a cease and desist immediately and they had the audacity to just move it into a different packet the next day
keen trout
seems like someone cooked of a grenade of bad puns
heavy moon
yep, well i best baguette'ing on with stuff, bbl
keen trout
yeah, I should really wrap this up
paper prawn
Don't know why you are all raisin such a fuss
grand oyster
I think this channel has plenty sprinkling their terrible puns 👀
keen trout
Really bad buns
river spear
I can't bake this anymore
frail flint
Honestly reading through this brought a smile to my face, because it's dumb as hell, but also I'm impressed with all the stuff you guys came up with 😄
makes me think of the Marie Antoinette thing
stoic beacon
👆 😂
heavy moon
at yeast that might raise the conversation
chilly pebble
Doughn't count on it.
old mauve
Holy shit just read through all of that. This kneads to stop!
chilly pebble
dude i'm so baked
keen trout
some of it was breader than the rest
fossil basalt
I kneaded this
thorn gate
There's a proving joke in here somewhere...
soft egret
you breader be briepared for wheat cums next.
paper prawn
Gotta say that I'm only finding crumbs of humour...
soft egret
of humus*
paper prawn
🤦 Damn you! 😛
dull moon
this convo starts to heat up, maybe we can get it to.... boil?
paper prawn
Baking hot in here
dull moon
and if one stepps out of the line, he will be roasted!
paper prawn
Wonder when the trolls will reappear with their sauce
dull moon
it's a matter of thyme untill they show up again
with the same stuff they wanna taco 'bout: why y so mean
heady stump
paper prawn
Sage words from the mod devs, but the trolls just pepper their comments with salt
dull moon
untill they pasta way when a mod shows up
echo orchid
haven't got to reeding all dem puns, sorry
dull moon
i also couldn't follow up much of the convo on here since fry day
paper prawn
Mods will probably have a beef with us for going on with this for sirloin
dull moon
might be that they get a little steamed tho
paper prawn
They should chill, but I saute think that they will whip us...
dull moon
but if they whip us all, who will be here to entertain them... they might get very melon-choly if they think back of the times with us
heavy moon
im sure they will pick up the crumbs and bind it back together
just dont butter them up too much.
dull moon
and if any body wonders what is going on here, scroll up and ketchup the convo
echo orchid
mayo-be is better that someone spills the beans, because i carrot follow it
paper prawn
Well, you guys needed to let off some steam, so they batter be understanding
dull moon
bitch, peas....
actually... this was quite eggsquisite
heavy moon
It's not that big of a dill, fairly sure they will keep calm and curry on.
dull moon
eggs-actly
well, i need to get back to my holiday planning before my butter half starts to ovary-act...
cya laterz
fossil basalt
Does she prefer her eggs scrambled, over-easy or fertilised?
dull moon
nah, she's not picky about that. all i get to hear (when she has bad days) is: "where the F has my food bean so long?"
then i tell her that the kitchen has so mushroom, two can cook, if she can't away to get something to eat in time
paper prawn
So she's sweet and sour?
river spear
More like salty
chilly pebble
she sour dough.
tight copper
chilly pebble
I'm sorry. My bread jokes are in a-bun-dance.
heavy moon
anything else would be a missed steak.
old mauve
Mod-dough-ration has ceased to egg-xist, apparently. This is all clearly off topic.
paper prawn
Just lettuce be
carmine folio
One thing that I cant rap my head around, are PsiSyn allowed to repack mods the way they are currently doing?
keen trout
Depends on the mods and whether he has approval
echo orchid
which mods is he repacking?
paper prawn
Downloading now
19GB so a lot...
Will take a long time for me... but I checked out the how to install youtube video on their forum post for the new "mod" and lo and behold, TFAR is in the rar. Cannot upload screenshot but go to 1:56 in the video
echo orchid
dedmen knows and it is reported
repackin means p3d unpack and repack with changes btw
paper prawn
Actually that's gone from Steam... and the post is old though highlighted on their forum with the google drive link so assume that the google drive one is the one they are using
narrow topaz
Likely so. There's a topic from Tuesday made by Psisyn linking to the post from early June
paper prawn
With my network connection it'll take an age to download for me. Given it is the same google drive link I would assume that it contains TFAR like the video shows. Do they just not care?
Not about devs, but about the consequences for them
echo orchid
this entire discussion was on this particular channel one week or so ago
paper prawn
I was here 😉
echo orchid
it is being taken care of, no worries
old mauve
paper prawn
LOL
old mauve
🤣
paper prawn
Worth a try though 😉
echo orchid
feel free to do your own
old mauve
^Was about to say
old mauve
👀
paper prawn
True
old mauve
🤐
paper prawn
Nah... want armour like the CUP Hello Kitty Golf 😋
The most deadly vehicle (for the driver) of any vehicle in ARMA
dull moon
i must say, i didn't just pimp the skins of those cars 😉
paper prawn
0-100 in 4 seconds and no brakes 😛
dull moon
latest physix update might have screwed it a little tho
paper prawn
CUP will always be my main go-to mod, but building a second server around RHS atm
But off topic and I don't want another warning from FM
dull moon
sure
scenic swallow
Report a server for monetization violations
Server gets their BE shutoff
6 hours later server is back up because they "complied"
Server is still selling in-game items secretly
This is getting old as fuck.
Especially considering it's the 3rd time they've been shutdown for this.
patent cove
i agree it seems they get away with everything
scenic swallow
@echo orchid If it interests you, they run RHS. @dull moon Same goes for you, they also run CUP.
scenic swallow
O3G Exile aka over30gaming.com
scenic swallow
I've had their monetization removed 3 times so far
I'll PM you the only proof I currently have
soft egret
@paper prawn you can also get the psisyn mods from their arma3sync. And currently they are allowed to run it as they are not monetized anymore.
balmy lodge
I thought repacking the mods and reuploading them on arma3sync/Google drive wasn't allowed way?
soft egret
some licenses forbid it. correct.
many mods don't have a license. Meaning it's also not allowed.
If you had specific permission (Which you need anyway for a monetized server) you could probably include that in there. But most don't.
So yeah. Not really that allowed. But not like they care
balmy lodge
I understand, I'm guessing it's sadly harder to take action against somebody who isn't monetized and does that then somebody who is?
soft egret
yeah. And most modders also don't really care about it. A Arma group having their mod repository has been normal-ish since OFP I'd say.
snow bloom
If I may, the use of private mod repositories by milsim communities and the like is near essential to keep it running smoothly. It’s an absolute pain trying to make sure both people and the server is on the same version constantly with the workshop 😛
soft egret
yeah. And most if not all modders are completly fine with that (Exception currently VSM). Though they of course can still tell you to stop if they want to.
stoic beacon
@soft egret Monetized Server using TFAR: http://michecortes.de/serverinfo/
They do have a shop and are on BI's Approval list last time I checked.
They were reported to me that they use my content but I can't access the Repository, seems like the link is outdated and I can't find a new one.
Found an up-to-date autoconfig: ftp://195.201.163.254/.a3s/autoconfig
soft egret
lol. They even uploaded the readme for abramia that clearly states that commerical use is not allowed XD
I'll take care of the report. What's your stuff in there?
stoic beacon
checking right now
kka3_oldbridge.pbo
FHQ, HAFM, HLC, MBG, MELB, mm, plp, RH, sfp, SMA
and more that I'm not sure about their license
soft egret
I have 13 infringing mods and atleast 2 that I'm not sure about
soft egret
Yeah good idea. I'll PM you
stoic beacon
okay
fossil basalt
Be sure to pass the Abramia info on to @latent mesa
stoic beacon
yea, just realised
keen trout
🙃
soft egret
Actually no. CUP Terrains is not okey. Still need permission for it
Actually. Didn't think about this before. ACE3 is GPL which allows commercial use. BUT! They have a single pbo with APL-SA content. Meaning you'd still need permission for that
soft egret
Anyone with contact to massi? Or who knows if one is allowed to monetize his weapons?
faint spoke
@scenic swallow Its because Bohemia monetization rules are bullshit and its hurting the servers that make up the community
So its no wonder that no one follows them
soft egret
Bohemias monetization rules orient themselves on the law. You can't monetize someone elses stuff if he doesn't want it.
fossil basalt
“its hurting the servers that make up the community”
You mean those who illicitly monetise content ? If so, “THEY” are not part of this “community” and are free to GTFO.
echo orchid
@faint spoke lol what?
So its no wonder that no one follows them```
how so?Okey. I'm done now with writing the report about that server. Only took me 3 hours :U
40 mods without permission.
And I have 6 more mods that I am waiting on a reply from the author whether monetization is allowed or not. If they all say no that'll be a total of 45 mods without permission...
stoic beacon
😪
soft egret
Just reported a 4 month old monetized life server that claimed 99% of our content is exclusive to our modification and never seen before. but were using atleast 2 mods without permission.. I cannot see how many mods they really used because their a3sync server is down.
Which is because they shutdown last month because they didn't feel like it anymore.
faint spoke
@echo orchid lol wasn't talking about just this case. Talking about Bohemia monetization rules in general
soft egret
I don't see how being forced to obey the law hurts anyone... Well yeah. If you are a serial killer then that's kinda bad for you... But otherwise?
manic violet
Statements like the one we see @faint spoke making all come from one place - the self entitlement that some mod server hosts feel they can re-coup costs for hosting servers by monetizing other people's hard work. (I'm guessing dayz or exile. hosting a server with a pre-made mission is not 'dev' work.) 100% of people making those statements would do exactly the same thing as Dedmen and all other mod makers if they were in those shoes. As for why it done, the answer is clear - there is no punishment by those that set the rules we all have to abide by - and greed will always win.
Until Bohemia actually start to punish the rule breakers - this will carry on. Arma 3 was successful because of the mod scene - no denying that, and it is time Bohemia actually showed some support for those that enabled them to be so successful.
soft egret
Okey report has gone out. 41 violating mods. 6 more still waiting replies from their authors. BI will sure have fun with this... Not.
During a pause of the work on the report I reported another 2 servers.
I feel kinda bad for BI legal department .They are still working on my reports from last week.
dull moon
is counting the days until Dedman receives a notice to not file more than 25 reports a day to BI, btw thx Valve for that
NOT
soft egret
Already writing the next report. Looks like it's gonna be about 20 violating mods
And another server with 25 violations ⏰
fierce ocean
too much ^^
stoic beacon
@soft egret Is Eisenschmiede-Gaming authorised to use TFAR on their monetized server? (which is btw not on BI's list)
soft egret
They are not on BI's list because I reported them last week and they got their permission revoked
stoic beacon
fierce ocean
You reported for using TFAR 0.9.12?
soft egret
They currently have no monetization permission for TFAR because the TFAR permission contains a "Need to have permission for all other mods" clause.
No. I reported them for....
stoic beacon
still doing it the guy asked me to use my mods and he said they're still monetizing
soft egret
9 mods and violating the Arma 3 EULA by redistributing Arma binaries
fierce ocean
monetization EULA?
soft egret
No. Game Eula
fierce ocean
Wait, But, TFAR not APL-SA?
fierce ocean
That is, there is no problem in that I upload the TFAR into my mod pack, right?
dull moon
why?
soft egret
@stoic beacon The report about Eisenschmiede got sent 4 days ago. And BI contacted Wednesday. So Eisenschmiede definetly got informed about it
Not a problem. Unless your community is monetized or you are uploading to steam workshop
stoic beacon
Alright, I'll add that line about violators getting the rights revoked to use my mod
dull moon
why do ppl still build their own idiotic and nonsense modpacks... i don't get it...
¯_(ツ)_/¯
soft egret
Actually... The Eisenschmiede Admin contacted me on Monday and said that he'll get everything removed.
stoic beacon
He just added me and asked. As I asked if the Server is monetized, he said they're selling skins etc and said that this is not really monetiziation
soft egret
------------- permission to use TFAR on your monetized servers.
This permission applies specifically to ---- (---.---).
This permission will be void automatically if the community uses any other mods without permission.
--.--.-- --:--PM ---.
Here's how I do it
stoic beacon
👌
soft egret
and said that this is not really monetiziation That's a straight lie. Seems like he's trying to pull himself out of it by lying?
stoic beacon
Who was the admin contacting you?
soft egret
Jay
Life seems to be full of people like that. I also have a guy that's trying to tell me a mod having a non-commercial license means automatically that you are allowed to use it on a monetized server...
river spear
soft egret
And somehow all servers that I contact personally so far told me something like "Actually we have always made sure to have explicit permission for everything. That is one of the most important things for us as we are also content creators ourselves and know how it is if people take your stuff"
Well.. How can it be then that you have over 20 mods without permission in your pack?
stoic beacon
Yea, that's the first thing I hear when anyone of those contacts me ^^
Who was the admin from Eisenschmiede who contacted you?
soft egret
I wrote above Jay
Which of your mods did they ask permission for? In my report for them I didn't have any of yours
stoic beacon
oh sorry, didn't see it
Afaik they don't have it in the pack, he asked before he put it in there
should be kka3_gestures_ace.pbo & kka3_gestures.pbo
soft egret
Good how they ask for adding new mods. Before they remove the violating old mods 😄
stoic beacon
😋
Also aren't boosters "illegal". ie getting 50% more money / more items? Isn't that kind of pay to win?
faint nacelle
yeah sound like it
stoic beacon
It's not purely cosmetic as the Monetiziation rules say
soft egret
anything that alters gameplay is not allowed
Can someone look up the mods for ElementumGaming on Arma Launcher for me? Don't have it here
stoic beacon
One sec
soft egret
One of their screenshots shows RHS but not directly on the server mods.
stoic beacon
@soft egret seems like a vanilla Server, no mods beside of the DLC's
soft egret
https://elementumgaming.com/topic/497-server-instructions-and-mods/ That one shows Mods though.
The coop one. Not the life one
https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/2433620 this has RHS
@echo orchid in case you wanna report too. 2 reports might be better than one ^^
stoic beacon
Can't even find the server in the launcher, only in the server browser ingame, there it says no mods
river spear
@soft egret @stoic beacon I think they got through with their booster stuff because it affects everyone on the server
Like when you buy a 200% boost for something, everyone on the server benefits from it at the same level
stoic beacon
right, sounds plausible
soft egret
Okey report is out.
I'm literally randomly clicking on the approved servers list and finding violators after every 3rd click
soft egret
Elementum Gaming
https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3
RHS GREF, USF, AFRF and their ACE compats. No RHS SEF
Though they do have the SAF bikey installed.
echo orchid
our own EULA states:
We consider any sort of sale - money paid in exchange for any sort of direct in-game return to be a breach of the above non-commercial clause of the EULA
Here are a few of the most common occurring offenses (by no means exhaustive list):
charging players specific amounts to access or have priority while connecting to a server
charging players for specific in-game perks (be it cosmetic or otherwise)
selling in-game items, in-game currency or any sort of gamemode experience points
product placement or endorsements
setting a term donation goal that will lead to in-game benefits (perks, items and/or in-game currency)```
http://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA#no-monetizationwith an emphasis on the last paragraph
reported cheers for headsup
soft egret
And another 2 clicks and I found the next. A quick 5 minute lookover found 20 violations.
Literally the next one I clicked on again 16 violations.
I cannot even click on anything anymore because I would miss my bus in 10 minutes if I find another server with violations that I gotta report.
mint edge
"the current system is fine" they say 😄
faint spoke
@manic violet Thats a lot of assumptions. You don't even know what I'm talking about.
dull moon
Thats a lot of assumptions. You don't even know what I'm talking about.
i haven't seen an assumption in his last post, and your statement that the rules hurt the servers is... meh
those loose rules are hurting the honest modders, no one else
stoic beacon
https://stanlakeside.pl/forum/topic/7856-instalacja-modyfikacji-poradnik/ Another Monetized Server with tons of NC mods
soft egret
https://s.sqf.ovh/thunderbird_2018-07-20_17-40-54.png I won't do anymore today. Please stop sending me stuff
echo orchid
pretty sure you made tons of friends with BI legal department 😃
stray lagoon
BI be like /ignore Dedmen
light smelt
Looking for that "Mark all as read"
astral marlin
something tells me this might be a violation
E26007F0039B9F8F7B5104E5D99C7C4356882B49 \Addons\tanoa_map_objects.1.03.pbo
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=912592242
none DLC Apex island objects
tawny sentinel
Send it to the normal adress if you think it might be BIs stuff. On a slightly more humerous note, someday whoever deals with user reported copyright infringments are gonna realize that this channel is the source of their hardships :P
astral marlin
hard ship it should be somthing they are doing anyhow
stoic beacon
This should be fine, the map objects such as buildings and vegetation are available for everyone to use since a while now. They did this so you don't need the apex dlc to go on Altis server that has 1 fence from apex
This particular mod unlocks the vegetation to place in the editor iirc.
tawny sentinel
@astral marlin I'm not implying it's unfair, I just imagine someone reading through recent messages in this channel quite humerous, that's all.
astral marlin
@stoic beacon thats like making a mod that disabled the DLC nag for non dlc owners
stoic beacon
It's not DLC content. You have access to those things anyway. Non Apex owners can use Apex Objects.
astral marlin
why is it in that download then as it looks like tonoa buildings thats is DLC only
stoic beacon
They can't use the vehicles, weapons and clothing, and ofc tanoa. This mod just adds the trees to the editor as they are disabled normally
astral marlin
it has the p3d's
stoic beacon
No, those buildings aren't apex either. All Map objects are free for everyone
astral marlin
really are you 100% on that statement?
stoic beacon
I am "very" sure Bohemia has changed that
One sec
SITREP #00194
As was to be expected, we've noticed that Tanoa structures - part of the new terrain introduced in the Apex expansion - are also frequently used on community-made terrains. However, this could create an obstacle for those who do not own Apex and still want to play on the community terrains. To ensure better compatibility, we'll be making the structures part of every Arma 3's player data, which means that everyone will be able to enjoy terrains that are based on Apex assets and vegetation, whether you own Apex or not. Access to the Tanoa terrain itself will remain limited to owners. This change will become active with Update 1.72 [the update accompanying the Malden DLC release].
astral marlin
Ok point proven thanks for clearing that up i just see tonoa stuff while indexing the workshop and was like humm
stoic beacon
👌
heavy moon
that pbo was one created for subscribers of mikeros tools to use as dummy objects for terrain placement while the apex stuff was still EBO'd
they are little more than dummy objects matching in filename for the purposes of binarisation, so lord knows why they have it on their workshop.
olive sparrow
yep, repacking actual BI models is a no-no, but making proxies of them in a new p3d is fine.
I have a load of fake sound files for jetsdlc on my p drive - all copies of the same sound (an m16 firing) renamed and pathed to the locations for jets dlc
so when i build our planes i can use jets dlc configs for the sounds
then in game they sound awesome
so if i packed that content to include (which ofc i wouldn't, otherwise it would bork the plane sounds completely) then it would appear like that tanoa pbo
have been thinking for a little while of making a set of replacement trees for our older maps, using proxies. ofc using the actual models is a no-no.
carmine folio
Just want to double check. If a person uploads content to steamworkshop and includes files that he/she never created on their own but have the owner/creator of the contents permission to do so then that would be fine to upload, correct?
fossil basalt
Sometimes, its best to name the mod in question when asking that because often the "person" granting you rights does not have permission to do so.
We see that on an almost daily basis.
tawny sentinel
I guess it's a compliment in some absurd way, that the quality is so good you'd port it to other games? @echo orchid
echo orchid
not really, we had RHS content ported in different games already
pretty hard to follow after a while
tawny sentinel
Can certainly imagine that since WS searching is a steaming pile of dogs- 😇
fossil basalt
Wow, you worked really hard for that money, I really like how it looks, I'll take it.
Thought process of some people.
stoic beacon
You should pin that picture someone send in here once "Look I made this... You made this? > I made this" :P
echo orchid
want more @tawny sentinel
https://www.moddb.com/mods/blue-dawn
https://www.moddb.com/mods/fuel-of-war-mod/
there is also BI content in it, did sent the necesary e-mails
fervent needle
I have proxies for days in my mod, like 400 some weapons from the top 20 weapon mods 😅
pliant oar
ye that happens often with the MoW mods, cause there was in past certain russian/ukraine mod who took all the stuff we released for community and even community mods
when they got banned they started to 'gift' other MoW mods with vehicles en random
to get them banned
fervent needle
Oof, taking others down with them.. cold
pliant oar
lot of MoW mods weren't even directly aware they used Arma stuff
aka the usual we got donated / member who made / free stuff ... problem
anyway moddb staff taking reports seriously so it should be dealt with
if not then report to our infri team
and if you feel generous first tell the mod team, sometimes they really innocent
ofcourse when the first reaction of the mod author(s) is that you are greedy >censored< and shall go >censored< self
then i C&D such one personally (in old times)
cause obviously being nice and ask serious question is too >censored<
dull moon
cause obviously being nice and ask serious question is too >censored<
we feel ya...
most of us stopped being nice a longe time ago
fervent needle
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/copyright/fair-use/#yt-copyright-myths Would be nice to have something like this for Arma workshop 😛
See Myth # 1 & 2
pliant oar
it's irony comment but you want me take anything from YT/Google seriously those days? 😀
on YT you can get copyright strike for the content your created yourself, as original, from the person who stolen it, from your older YT published work 😁
the problem in the end is that no matter if you author, if you get the permissions, the system will always fail or get abused, same goes for having it all covered (FAQ, myths, rules, explanations, warnings)
like i remember the demand to have dialog(s) for the uploader (tools - workshop,launcher w/e) well guess what the more is there the faster people will skip it and back to square one
it's like with EULA/TOS/other agreements the more and complex they get the less people will read them (no matter how wrong or stupid that may be in end)
what might work is simple popup saying, you can't publish except what you made or got written approval from all and any authors , with uncertainity doubts but then everyone will just click the ok anyway
fervent needle
A note or something and then a guide to use collections, maybe even a guilt trip in there too
“Use collections as making your valued teammates redownload the same mod twice is a waste of their and your time”
Lol
mint edge
reminds me of the misery mod from stalker, they didn't even know what they had was arma 2 shit lol
if only steam workshop had something indexing all of the data on the workshop which forces the original author to choose either YES to allow someone upload or NO to disallow someone's upload, that could work well maybe
pliant oar
then it will be just rush to be the first in the upload to workshop (as we know the first isn't often the true owner)
the only usable solution is like crawler, to list all duplicates including private workshops
soft egret
or people just modify files slightly. Which will make things like the crawler even less useful
pliant oar
yes but that is pure intent to overcome technical solution to protect IP and in future EU directives and IP laws that will become even more punishable act
fervent needle
violations of steam workshop eula and repeated reuploads can result in a game ban from Arma 3
Slap that somewhere
Lol
pliant oar
why when it's not true ... we don't control the platform and the feature set is too limited to make it effective enough (both platform and engine itself)
plus most of the IP offenders do not play on theirs account or use multiple accounts (usually gained in some sale)
fervent needle
Can* result, if it said will then it would be false 😛
pliant oar
in short, changes nothing, waste of time
fervent needle
I still think there are more clueless people reuploading then people with malicious intent
pliant oar
what would be more effective for STEAM workshop , is that active FLAG state of game ban / vac ban preventing such user to use any workshop upload service (guide, mods, pictures, videos, streams etc.)
fervent needle
Some kind of hey this or that when reuploading would be nice
pliant oar
then gameban for IP violations would start to make sense
mint edge
steam battleye cooperation please
pliant oar
but now you can't even flag steamid to prevent such access to per game workshop itself (aka repeated offenders going wild, doing it in one and/or multiple games at once etc.)
fervent needle
More workshop control seems to be the bottom line
soft egret
But.. Dwarden... Publisher is your tool isn't it? Or is Steam dictating what you have to do with it?
Why can't you let Publisher check the game ban state and deny uploading stuff?
pliant oar
typical example is developer / publisher with multiple games of same genre with workshop , can't even ban the person from access to all theirs titles
soft egret
Or why can't you just add the much requested message in publisher telling people that reuploading other peoples stuff is not allowed
pliant oar
anyone who can read can skip publisher ...
pliant oar
again it's just flawed solution which solves nothing ...
fervent needle
I think its a better solution that would solve a large portion of the reupload issues
pliant oar
it would work only until they figure it out and someone release tool going around, all it takes one tool
so, i give it like weekend to two weeks at max (aka totally worthless)
be realistic, just like with cheats, all it takes google and ability to figure the workaround
hence the solution must be in the server-backend tied in way it can't be evaded at all
dusk dew
So instead of refusing to even place a simple message, it's a lost cause, and a defeatist approach is better?
pliant oar
@dusk dew how many simple messages , warnings, blogs, forum posts, rules were there and it didn't solve the problem
so you think one more popup or embeded message in GUI will change it and all of sudden the IP theft vanish off reality ?
dusk dew
Putting a message in front of someone's face when they attempt to upload something is far easier to spot than something on the forums, EULA, blog etc
fervent needle
But stupid be stupid, unless its infront of them when they upload no one reads or searches out extra info
dusk dew
People claim ignorance because they didn't read about it, but putting it in a message box explicitly negates that
soft egret
it would work only until they figure it out and someone release tool going around, all it takes one tool The professional thieves yes. But that would stop all the guys who simply don't know
pliant oar
most of people claim ignorance but it's not true, just an excuse
carmine folio
No one reads that rubbish, if we did read it all we would spend hours reading agreements and contracts daily. People just don't, they have just become background noise
soft egret
And leave more of our time to spend on the actual problem
pliant oar
so instead of trying to cure ignorance, it's more effective cure the problem in itself and deploy countermeasures which do work
dusk dew
most of people claim ignorance but it's not true, just an excuse
Of course, and there will be people who actually don't know, that's life. But giving them a message that they cannot avoid reading would deny any claim to it
soft egret
no one of the amateurs read the EULA or Steam rules or whatever. They just click upload. There is nothing telling them that it's not allowed.
dull moon
Announcements on the forum, devlogs, sitreps does nothing because only a small ammount of unsers are registered in the BIF, also less know the logs. The majority of reuploaders and modpack creators don't know better, because the distribution of said info is a little hard to find for casual joe
pliant oar
the message will affect minority, those who have some morals and really do not know
but rest will be like "screw it" click ok/continue
dull moon
So a msg in the publisher would rise awareness for sure
soft egret
The gusy that read devblogs and EULA's and stuff are already the powerusers that know anyway.
But that message in publisher would get rid of the idiots that are too lazy to inform themselves
Yes. We know Dwarden.
soft egret
Still we are sending dozens of DMCA's every month to people who really just didn't know.
pliant oar
and yet they have this steam / workshop eula which they were supposed to read already
dusk dew
People won't read a massive EULA. People will read a one sentence agree box that pops up on them before uploading
Do you read every word of every EULA you've ever agreed to?
carmine folio
Clearly they don't spend one second looking at the FAQs and licenses governing the mods they upload, they can be a few sentences and they still don't read them.
dusk dew
Every update to the ToS on your phone when it pops up
pliant oar
yes, plus there are plenty of eula analyzers
soft egret
Why so stubborn? Why not try it out and see what happens? It's not like informing people about what they are allowed to do is a bad thing that you need to prevent happening at all costs.
We have been asking for this for months.
And I don't see any real reason against it. Only "it's not as good as you think it will be"
dusk dew
So you're telling me you've read every single word of every EULA you've used 😄 ?
soft egret
But 1% good is still better than 0% good
pliant oar
because it was done in past and lead nowhere ...
carmine folio
If we are going to try and force some action lets make it an action that is something that will genuinely have an impact.
soft egret
You already had it? Why was it removed?
pliant oar
it's same reason you have no popup with warning of 'new unknown' callextension to be activated
which security wise is way more daunting problem than Ip theft
soft egret
Yeah. I wouldn't want that at all
tabbing me out of the game mid mission although I don't really care or I already know the mod has updated
mint edge
LOL here's an idea, make people type back the EULA like a language learning course
pliant oar
it would not be that annoying it would use hashes
@soft egret the callextension warning is prior game start, it's native library
dusk dew
Wouldn't you say it's battleyes job to make sure that isn't malicious?
soft egret
You don't know what extensions might be called before game start though
pliant oar
@dusk dew callextensions are unrelated to battleye, don't mix that
dusk dew
Extensions explicitly whitelisted by BE for client usage?
dusk dew
If people choose to run without BE, then you take that risk
pliant oar
sigh, you can have callextension w/o using multiplayer at all
as part of some mod
again stop mixing two totally separate elements of game service
dusk dew
Haven't thought of that, no need for the sigh
soft egret
Still don't know why the dev's not willing to add that warning is related to a warning in Publisher
pliant oar
the thing with popups / warnings it works when it's not annoying
soft egret
not like it would hurt anyone
pliant oar
the problem is the more often someone will use it the less likely he will care about it
soft egret
Yeah and? We only need them to read it once anyway
dusk dew
It wasn't about that, you'll never stop the people that simply don't care
pliant oar
which is in the end majority of the troublemakers
soft egret
Or people who willingly don't want to follow rules.
pliant oar
so again you trying to solve the minor part of the problem
soft egret
yes
dusk dew
A minor part is better than no part
pliant oar
while i want get rid of 99.99%
soft egret
Get rid of 25% so that we have more time for the rest
You are not really doing anything though
you are getting rid of 0%
we are proposing a solution to atleast remove 1% or probably more
But you are all the time only talking and nothing is actually happening. Saying we need better solutions which are just not possible because Valve doesn't listen.
But why not do everything you CAN do.
dusk dew
Out of curiosity, what do people think Valve can do to shut down the majority of this?
soft egret
Majority would be to ban people from using the workshop after violations
Tons of new money for Game developers for the thieves that just want to keep doing it.
Minor repeat offenders that just don't care about the rules will be removed.
Left over are the amateurs that just don't know they do wrong
pliant oar
@dusk dew Valve could do anything and all, if they really wanted
soft egret
And we catch the amateurs by throwing the rules into their face. So they can't overlook it
pliant oar
but like i mentioned before, how you gunna force someone move hand, when they autoprint pile of money w/o moving finger
pliant oar
and it was proposed along with many solutions to Valve many times in past years
but unless there is competing element at market which will threaten Valve dominance, improvements not gunna happen
soft egret
As Dwarden said full ban won't really work out. Just a matter of time till someone develops a Publisher alternative that they can use to get around bans
And after that everyone of the hardcore offenders are back
pliant oar
i already seen some offenders using multiple accounts anyway
soft egret
Still. The guys that just don't care about rules might do the mistake once. And probably stop when they notice their game was banned
And the Amateurs are already gone with that message that we have been asking for, for months
carmine folio
Couldn't Steam workshop just be stopped completely for the game? Would that not solve the 99% of the problem since Valve wont do anything about the rampant copyright breaches on their platform?
dusk dew
If it's a SOL situation, why is even something that takes a minute to do, and trivial as a message box, is simply refused? Even if it stops 10 people, you've done something
soft egret
@carmine folio Most of Arma mod infrastructure is completly centered about the workshop
that might kill half of the game
Definetly not an option
@dusk dew Same thought.
carmine folio
Well except for the fact it also lacks the mechanisms to be compliant with the license agreements of the content it distributes
soft egret
Sounds like it would take months of work to add a simple message box
vernal thunder
The workshop is crucial to the average playerbase.
soft egret
Well WE can't do much about that @carmine folio
Neither BI
They can do some things. As I already said 3 times now
carmine folio
Ultimately if Valve and BI aren't going to rectify the situation, and they don't appear to want to, then what choice do you have but to cease and desist the pair of them?
Isn't that where this ultimately ends up. I am not seeing another solution based on what BI and Valve are not willing to do
fervent needle
A lot of arma users and reuploaders really are.. stupid and dont know what they are doing is wrong/against the rules. Quite a number chuck stuff on there like its dropbox for their friends to join their server with a pack of mods
vernal thunder
^
mint edge
yer workshop moderation is the key to making the situation 20x less of a headache but that is where the problem lies...
pliant oar
@mint edge not without the tools, features and level of control i mentioned above and in past
maybe class action >you know what< of creative content makers vs >certain digital platform< could yield result but it would need to be backed by major law firm and have massive media/marketing coverage
carmine folio
It has been said over and over the tools aren't coming. So now you know your counterparty is not going to help what next? No point pushing on BI or Valve anymore.
You are at the take legal action stage now that much is obvious to me.
dusk dew
Thinks message box is silly idea, suggests class action lawsuit 😛
fervent needle
$ talks
pliant oar
no sane firm is going to take legal action vs own partner unless the gain will outweight the loss
carmine folio
This isn't about the message box, it is about the actual breaches of copyright taking place and your ability as content creators to protect your IP.
pliant oar
@dusk dew and i wasn't talking about us in that line
fervent needle
Require all dlc and base arma 3 to upload to workshop, think of all the profit!!
soft egret
Let's summarize everything.
- We have the hardcode offenders. They will just create a new steam account, buy the game again. We can't really do anything at all to stop them.
- Then we have the people that just don't care about the rules and are like "you cannot punish me so I don't care". If we throw game bans/upload bans at them. They either stop, or become hardcore offenders.
- Then we have the amateurs that just don't know better. They just founded their new community and want to get the mods to their people so they just upload the file on workshop just like they would upload it as a zip archive on google drive or anything because they simply don't know they do anything wrong.
If we tell them that it's not okey and that they'll get punished. They'll either stop doing it. or decide that they don't care in which it continues back at number 2.
fervent needle
Sets the bar higher + supports BI in the reuploads
dusk dew
With Valve's current EULA and system, and the way they handle these problems similarly to a lot of other platforms, would exactly are they doing wrong in the eyes of the law?
pliant oar
that would make sense when linked to the account bans @fervent needle 🤣