#ip_rights_violations
1 messages · Page 42 of 1
I know it's not ideal, but objectively
You are all the time only talking about that we can't stop the hardcode offenders. And that's true. But why choose to do nothing about all the others if we only can't stop a part of the issue.
@dusk dew well some clever law company could actually go along the lines that >certain online content service< isn't doing enough (e.g. DMCA) and moderation / tools wise to protect IP rights of the non-profit creative content makers
I just don't understand why one would block everything off. Just because it won't work for a part of the offenders. A small part in my eyes
Especially the Valve 25 DMCA's only rule. They probably can't do that at all. They can't just deny to take action about a DMCA. So you'd probably win about that in court.
But they give you the platform to DMCA, and they are processed as such, what have they done wrong in that? It's sucky that there isn't more options of access for you, but the ability is there, small or not
Dedmen has a point, the stupid far out class the hardcore workshop abusers
Most platforms for distributing files have been forced to give copyright owners the ability to strike and delete any content that matches their own. Even to the extent of removing anything that matches the hash of the content
Make them jump through hoops at the publisher level
Will filter out a lot of the issues, such as the crawler - “Reuploads detected of XXXX please use a collection instead to avoid action being taken against your upload”
In the end. The message that we have been asking for. Would be as effective as a "Don't step on the grass sign"
But look at how effective such a sign is in real life. Most people won't step on the grass if they have seen the sign. Ofcause there are people who don't see it or choose to ignore it.
Link to how to create a collection, throw some red text and the world illegal somewhere
For the people that want to break the rules, yes they will step past the sign but the people that don’t know become informed
Say its wrong, give them the tools to accomplish what they want (ease of use collections) then they become informed and you see the low level abuse cut way back
Almost 10 years after leaving the military and I STILL don't walk on the grass.
See it works!! Proof!
I generally don't. If there is a pathway just 5m away I take that.
anyway just to address something what some seems to not understand i'm not against such warning popup or UI element sign w/e , in fact i was proposing similar for both publishing / UI mission publish / launcher even in early times
but my experience with popups/warnings after decade of installers, launchers, games, tools ... is very sceptical on the effect (hence i can understand why it was cut short as non-priority)
Seemed like from your messages before that you possibly were. Even if it affects a dozen people, you've done something that helped, and given a bunch of these people some hope in BI's efforts
as long as BI (nor Valve) has financial gain, they wont put resources into this. its as simple as that
Thats why I said all dlc + base game to put stuff on workshop, more $ for BI 😂
as this wont happened (with A3), you guys have two choices basically
- provide your own technical solution - ie automate the process as much as possible
- do the manual process and waste a lot of time
(or stop caring/remove your work from workshop - or a community wide strike to get enough media attention for it to become a problem for BI/Valve)
@undone pier 2 seems not really viable. 1 on the other hand, seems more like a solution that can be adopted through collaboration
Especially the Valve bit in the second option
The only way something like this could be 100% controlled by BI would be if they had their own regulated "workshop"
Using steam's you basically have to cope with the fact that some asshole is going to do something illegal with your material
both of kju options are valid imo,. while I am against a strike due to community damage,. if it boiled down to that I would support the community authors in raising awareness via striking.
As mentioned many time earlier today educating people prior to publishing content is a valid step in weeding out a whole bunch of those "didn't know" people before they even start, even if that just hits 5% of people with workshop content, it is better than 0%.
Regarding the enhancement of Publisher (These same concepts have been suggested in various forms by various people for a long time now): you could have a click-through system instead of a single popup dialog with appropriate question w/ checkboxe people need to tick in order to go to next screen, with each 'page' displaying the terms in non-legalese (with link to full document). You wont stop them all but you would at least be seen to be doing your part in educating them on the issue prior to them breaking the law.
Valve where the workshop is concerned operates under the same rules as an ISP, so all they need is a method for people to report any IP infringement and an appropriate system to deal with it. If they did not have such a system they wouldn't fall under 'safe harbour' rules and would be ripe for legal action by their own in-action for any kind of ip infringement on their platform. They have in place the minimum they need to avoid legal action on themselves.
the only way to make the larger community aware is a strike, inconvenience someone so they actually see what's going on and how everyday the authors of their favorite mods are fucked on the daily with legal BS
this atleast may make the more"innocent" thief think twice before doing a repack, I use innocently VERY carefully here as ignorance to rules are not exactly excuses to not following rules but still it would help more then hurt the overall community I think
my 2c for the Nth time
Dwarden is again trying to push the message in Publisher. Maybe he can convince them this time. That's where I currently put most of my bets on
But even if we fix the steam workshop. We still have enough other problems
personally i would approach it on a technical level. a crawler to index all pbos and even their contents (existing and newly uploaded) - the publisher should check if already published. if it is already, deny reupload.
now at times for multiple reasons a pbo or file can be in mutliple workshop items just fine
so a whitelisting system and author permission system would be needed.
now imo BI should actually do that, but its clear they wont and OPTiX and team has implement largely this already. so BI should use that system via an API of sort,s compensate them for the efforts (coding + server costs) - leaves mainly the author permission system to be done. probably logging via steam (or maybe even BI account) should be doable (claim a mod/permit reupload)
(withSIX implemented such claiming system and also their backend avoided duplication - for other reasons but just shows it can be done)
now Dwarden would argue again that people dont have to use publisher, but most wouldnt code an alternative or look for one
and even if one is made, maybe the protocol can be changed every once in a while to break the third party systems for some time
anyway it would mean only few abusers would be left
The protocol is Steam. Do you really think steam would change the protocol every once in a while and break the workshop upload tools of every game that uses the workshop on Steam?
Also I don't think it's a good idea to make a official BI tool dependent on some community tool. BI would need to have it under their control. Meaning they'd need to pay for the infrastructure and stuff. Won't happen.
but most wouldnt code an alternative one guy will. And he'll publish it everywhere.
or look for one Those are probably the Amateurs that are the easiest to stop. Just a message that it's not allowed weeds out most of these
The most common excuse I hear is "it's easier for our community to get the files needed for the server". Making it harder in any way for them to upload content, would result in them looking for alternatives. The first one would probably be Collections, which would solve a big problem. But I still don't think that this would work out without any downsides or that BI/Valve even implements such function.
collections exist already on the workshop,. i dont think they have been pushed or explained much via sitreps though.
tbh there is not much to explain with them, but most reuploaders probably are unaware of or cannot be bothered to use them.
Exactly, they are there, people know about it, but publishing your own item is even easier. So they "might" use collections as the next easiest way. In combination with more documentation about them, this could work out
Would be nice if servers could specify via a parameter or smth what collection to use
Most people make modpack reuploads because of the Launcher bug of not getting all mods through steam query. If one just sends the collection ID through steam query... That would solve everything
But that's alot of backend work for BI
Not gonna happen now that A3 is done
And also the ability to load all mods in your Launcher from a collection. Without HTML file. Idk if that's already implemented, is it?
Except that you forget that you can export the list of mods for a server from the steam launcher to an HTML file which can be imported easily... many MILSIM groups do exactly that for their mod lists
Not you m_kola 😉
That's what I meant, I know you can do that, it would be easier to have a drop down list for the collection u subscribed to and load all files from it, than having to download and import a HTML file
The only issue I have seen with the Steam server browser is the fact that it has issues with old keys left in the server keys folder sometimes... That should be fixable. But any good server owner keeps the keys folder clean
And for that you still need to get the HTML to the user. Just searching the server in the Launcher isn't enough
You sometimes do need to do your own mod sometimes too... but only if you have received permission to do so. So there will be and are mods loaded on Steam where permission has been given to the server owners who uploaded it... problem with these other folks is that everyone is suddenly suspect
I personally haven't seen a single legal "Re"-upload of a WS mod. Anyway, it's one possible way to counter all the reuploads, but it does have flaws. This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. It all comes with upsides and downsides
No, not a reupload of a mod but you can get permission to add a pbo or two to a Steam mod from older mods that are not on Steam workshop. Up to the mod dev but it does happen. Especially if you are unmonetized and are just doing a mod for your server. Happens
If a mod is on Steam WS then I do not see a reason why a server owner would upload it except to do things like get around monetization rules
So a upload of a mod that doesn't exist on the workshop would work. So I don't get your point, of course you can get permission to upload a mod that's not on the WS yet and that would totally work with the system that was suggested.
I personally got permission (documented) to do that... but not upload a mod. Just be able to use components I asked for under the same license that they have (multiple licenses in the uploaded mod). And ofc, no monetization!!!
Yea, that's totally fine. I'm not sure how that would work out with the suggested system, but first it's unlikely we will see that system implemented anyway and second, there could be a legal workaround for that. Such a system would needed to be discussed further in detail, but that's not really up to us, more to BI. We can just make suggestions ✌
Roger that. End of the day, no matter what the system, the mod uploader does get a chance to provide evidence that they are permitted to reupload something as part of their mod. If they do then they are golden, if not...
Uploading or reuploading to the SW is alot like sex, you either have consent or you do not. There is no Grey area.
I know the solution! Blockchain! 🛰
Don't infringe on my research project 😉
Just got an update about a Server that I reported last week. They lost their monetization approval just before actually releasing their Arma server. They still released today. Turns out they just stole another Life server's modpack. And that other life server is also monetized and again using a dozen mods without permission.
LMFAO... sorry, but wtf...
"I'm sorry, we stole out mod pack off another server, we did not know that we could not use that mod pack on our unapproved monetized server"... you just cannot make this shit up
We'll now I can report them again for still monetizing without approval. And I can report that server they stole from for their mods. Win-Win
🙃
@soft egret steam://connect/31.210.129.135:2403
you can connect basically a server to a collection
Also I don't think it's a good idea to make a official BI tool dependent on some community tool.
wont be worse than right now. BI wont do it on their own, and if it doesnt work out forwhatever reason BI can always easily drop it again
Meaning they'd need to pay for the infrastructure and stuff.
they did this in the past already
one guy will. And he'll publish it everywhere
yes this is normal and to be expected. hence you need to update the API regularly in some form - imo its already good enough if you do it just for the official publisher as 95% still use it
Those are probably the Amateurs that are the easiest to stop. Just a message that it's not allowed weeds out most of these
instead of disallowing the upload, you can use the duplicate detection to inform the user about it, mention collections, or even auto create one (thats more complex though)
one reason why people also do their own upload (or most use arma3sync/etc) is to have control over mod versions and when to have mods update (aka not auto update but have your own update cycle/update day for your community) - Steam seems to got slowly there as as upload your can revert to older versions now. so Valve could introduce this also to collections or users at some point
that all said from what i can tell BI/A3 team just doesnt care much about it.
withSIX was seeking a cooperation and there was already arrangements done with BI leadership, yet the A3 leadership then just said we dont care, we go Steamworkshop only - too bad for you
the GUI/interface/tool of withSIX was never good enough, yet the backend was/is very advanced and handled all this easily for years now - and this is also just what BI meant to use with their own interface/client
Ondrej (Suma) even made an API in last days of OA that allow server and mission sync for these purposes - was even more advanced and practical what we have nowadays
so imho people just need to get realistic about BI's prios and look behind the "best modding support" fluff
As endless as this discussion is, the first one to tackle this issue effectively will have a huge advantage.
Regulation of mods is probably something most companies will not even look at, considering the legal mess it is.
A shame though, as I am sure modding is the sole reason we're mostly even on this discord talking about it.
As long as there are no real consequences nor financial benefit, nobody is going to give a shite, it is how things work (imo) sadly.
I still believe there needs to be an entity attached to each upload, people act like shitheads when given the precious gift of anonymity.
I guess it makes you appreciate huge projects like RHS even more.
Kju touched a good point, it's not a lack of innovation nor willingness.
It's a case of stubbornness. We have the means, we have the ideas, they (BI, Steam, ...) are still driving the car. (cough xCam / 3DEN cough)
PsiSyn is back. They launched a new unmodded Malden life server and enabled their Store again.. Although they still don't have their monetization approval back

Just wrote a recap on my reported servers to BI.
Out of 7 servers.
One just Launched a new vanilla Life server and already reenabled their store without monetization approval. And they are still running their old server with the same old violating mods.
Another also lost their approval. Isn't currently selling Arma items in their Store. But just Launched a new Arma Life server with a Modpack that they just stole from another Life Server that contains atleast 13 mods without permission.
Next one. Lost monetization approval but no change at all. Same modpack. Same Store. Still selling stuff .
Next one removed almost all violating mods. But left over 2 that I didn't mention directly in my report. Which tells me they didn't go through all their mods and made sure they have permission. They are also still hosting Arma binaries which is against EULA.
Next one. Nothing happened at all. Still have monetization approval. Still monetizing. Still running mods without permission. Maybe BI overlooked my report?
Last 2 lost their approval. Cannot access store because it's only accessible for players who actually wrote an application to request to join the server. Also can't look into their modpack because of that.
Overall tons of activity from BI's side. None from the communities side.
Oh and I forgot that Life server that never had monetization approval. But has a store and is running 14 mods without permission. Still running just as before
If anything, it shows that the process works, but that it also lacks follow-up verification.
Would it be possible to implement something like this to the engine/game?
https://steamcommunity.com/dev/managegameservers?
Or is this only for Valve Games?
It shows that many communities don't actually care. They loose approval they just continue as before.
Or that one that removed all mods I reported. But didn't remove the mods that they still have no permission for that I missed in my report. Shows me they want to pretend they play by the books but don't really.
@stray lagoon BI can just shutdown their battleye.
Interesting. I could create a token for Arma on that page
Shutting down BE wouldnt really help much though. As they can just disable it. By creating a GSLT, you get a key. Maybe this key needs to be put into the starting parameters. This is what Valve does to CSGO atleast. To filter bad servers from the good.
yeah. But big public servers disabling BE basically let's hackers make the server unplayable
kinda what they deserve being illegal and stuff
hah. no.
I know that Altis Life servers have something called SpyGlass.
Which iirc is debateable at doing anything, Infistar can only go so far without Battleye though
Infistar is quite configurable, if you know what you are doing
@soft egret It is all about the money they make. Not that they actually care about following the rules. Rules just get thrown out the window. If money is to be made the communities will either skirt the rules or ignore them all together.
Gotta ask @soft egret why do you hate infistar so much
Because of the admin backdoors
Wouldn't want that in my server
Don't see me saying here that I hate infistar?
offtopic much?
@soft egret I think you need to lay off the koolaid and dial back on watching the douggem videos
never drank koolaid
Hello dear modding community!
Since December 2017 I try to solve a problem regarding to release of my mod for Arma 3. I work on MRAP vehicle Tit...
👍
lol, i love when such manufacturers living a fucking digital world cannot really understand that they don't own IP rights over some representation
non commercial or otherwise
and instead of considering this free publicity, they take such feeble actions
i personally haven't heard of this particular product till this thread poped up
Trademark law arose in a world of physical goods to protect manufacturers and prevent consumer confusion as to who manufactured the goods. In a digital world, manufacturing will increasingly be done, if at all, by individuals with 3D printers. Other digital models, such as TurboSquid’s BMW models, will never exist as physical objects. Where consumers care about the quality of a digital file, trademark law can protect consumers from being deceived by indicia external to the file. But if purchasers are not confused about the source of the digital file based on external indicia, courts should channel any other potential claims (if any) to other areas of intellectual property law.
good watch about GOG history (for the IP parts) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffngZOB1U2A&feature=youtu.be
How do old games come back from the dead? We talk to the people at GOG.com about the work they do to hunt down & release classic games, and their mission to ...
I'm on good terms with several games company and movie company execs, and heard an interesting tale (without naming names) - after one of them released a popular commercial game chock full of military hardware models they received a complaint about IP infringement. The complainant was arguing that their logo was being unfairly used on a cafe sign. So the games company modified the sign (much like you see in GTA) and that was the last IP complaint they received, several years ago now.
X: Hey I'm starting a Life server. Can we get permission for TFAR?
D: Community name? Other mods?
X: All the mods we have we have been granted permission to use
D: Can I get a list of the mods?
X: The map,cars and buildings were purchased from XXX and XXX. The framework was purchased from Travis Butts
Do you need a detailed list of the mods we are using?
<Posts detailed list of every mod containing 9 mods that cannot be monetized and kickass stuff>
Heh.. All the mods we have we have been granted permission to use Yeah.. Sure dude. Sure.
lol
I started writing Travis Butts? Let me guess you also "bought" permission for these mods from him before I scrolled down and saw the modlist.
more like ctrl+alt+nuke
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1440177630
This is a reupload of VSM AIO after it vanished from the workshop, i do not own anything in this mod
https://s.sqf.ovh/firefox_2018-07-11_11-00-05.png
🤦
If vanschmoozin comes forward and asks to remove this i will comply. 🤦 🤦 🤦
but he says he doesn't own it!!
that makes it okay, right guys??
tell that to the countless other people across thousands of workshop items. I'm not saying any of this is my content, if vanschmoozin wants this verison gone, or anyone else thats apart of the development team. then ill remove it. not that big of a deal man
🙃
🙈
Check their steam user name against Forum names
it's a shame that the legitimate version of VSM AllinOne was taken down again as a contributor wanted his creations to be removed. I understand a ton of unit mostly or entirely based their gear on VSM per its variety and quality. I foresee problems in groups that have to find something else as I can understand reason not to use RHS or vanilla gear
it's a shame that the legitimate version of VSM AllinOne was taken down again as a contributor wanted his creations to be removed
i assume you mean it was taken down from Steam.
it can be uploaded again once all the IP issues are solved and the content requested to be removed is taken out, by anyone who actually owns the IP for the content that is being uploaded, as per Valve's TOS @carmine folio
sorry, yes it was taken down from the Steam Workshop. I know that it can be reuploaded when all is resolved, but groups that use it as their foundation can't really wait unless they've introduced a summer holiday pause
and who is there to blame for using both ripped content and stuff from all over the place, with multiple owners that, in all this fuss, choose to have their own content removed from such a "pack"?
also, there are other means outside Steam for hosting addons as long as these addons do not contain copyrighted materials
@carmine folio just to be clear. the guy stole stuff in full knowledge and with purpose
and the most recent version of VSM AiO had those parts removed already
if you want existing missions to work again, you are either to edit the mission, or make a replacement mod to rewire the needed classes to BI/RHS/whatever fits
it was just a contributor that wanted his work off there that it got taken down again
nope this isnt the full story
really? That's what I got from Jarrad96
who uploaded the most recent whatever VSM version?
ok great, so he owns IP just for some of the files in there. As soon as another one wants his stuff removed, he needs to comply
pretty sure it is warden, who already told the VSM bloke he needs to take his stuff out
the fact that people fail to communicate between them leads to this sort of uploads/dmca
¯_(ツ)_/¯
isn't it better to do your own then "acquire" stuff from places?
Is it even technically possible to ban someone from uploading to steam WS?
Yes afaik but it's down to Steam to do so
Well, if there would be, then the kickass stuff would have been banned a long while ago. So if Steam has the ability, they don't make use of it
Steam has the ability. But BI doesn't. And Steam doesn't really care about KA's violations
steam migth do it if the big game companies owning the IP made a case about it
I believe "temp" bans are generally handed out via Steam but they don't outright ban unfortunately
steam can also restrict someone's permission to upload stuff to workshop
In the case of someone uploading my stuff, obfuscating it and removing debug stuff from the game, steam actually banned that account form reuploading. so it says in the email i received from steam
did you check if that's true?
So far that person has not uploaded under that account again, but unltimately caused them so much headache that they just closed the server
dmca'd them 5 times
reuploads from 4 accounts total
Do I remember seeing something about Taviana can't be ported to A3?
Yeah. Think so too
or something about uploads to workshop not allowed at all atleast
I havent downloaded so best to check it out
says its "only" 278mb so i dont think it would have the maps files, probably everything but the map and they are using taviana which has been on the workshop for awhile now
uploaded via alt account
the 3 account group it is in has one 15 steam level guy who likely is the actual dude
if you upload with an alt account like that you are 100% aware youre not uploading legit stuff
true
What about it?
The amount of mods, and Taviana lol
That was the only populated one I was able to find with Tavi
Aaand?
I'm also running Taviana
the A2 version
And I probably run more mods than they do on my server
Oh so u can run Tavi on A3 ?
Ooo didn't know that
But that server shows a steam upload of Taviana which is not allowed
Tho it can't be on the Workshop?
Yeah that's what I am saying
Although link is "invalid"
Those are not mods running on the server - just keys that have not been removed afaik
No.
They are the mod.cpp itemID of the workshop item
they are running on the server
When they appear in blue then are -mod
the keys are listed seperately
The Taviana mod listed is not on Steam anymore btw
Yeah. Which @errant drum just said
Why would they run Chernarus Redux, Taviana and Lythium on a takistan map...?
Also the version number is weird. Taviana A2 is version 1.0
That steam thingy is 0.1.3 so probably a A3 port
Because they are idiots?
Oh, yeah...
I mean.. They run a not allowed taviana port
that has already been deleted off the workshop. meaning players won't be able to get it via the Arma Launcher
Yeah the A3 port was always either 1.0.3 or 1.0.4
Actually the good A3 port was 0.4.1
Maybe BI does... you cannot give in game benefits like those can you?
Nope
how is that website related to them?
they list a different non existent server on their website. and they are not monetization approved
yeah that entire thing is against monetization tules
rules ^ but you sure the server and website are the same though
it's too hot today. PuFu can do that
@errant drum
different IP listed
https://spacebar.enjin.com/servers
@echo orchid here VIP slots with RHS
That Enjin spacebar group seems to run Tanoa. They just announced it was live again. From the chat messages they had hoster problems
On Vanilla Servers, we may have generally 8 - 16 Reserved slots. On RHS Servers, only 10% of total slots will be Reserved. For example, an 80 slot server, would have 8 Reserved slots
But they are breaking monetization rules
they would break the rules if they were actually running a server
or if they were actually approved to monetize which they aren't (Spacebar server)
Reserved slots are available for Contributors, and OutputGaming Staff/Admins/Moderators.
So they are giving reserved slots to contributor on their Exile RHS server
They are approved for monetization, tho they are using RHS
have fun PuFu
They also run @dull moon CUP
Can't find their RHS server tho... Under their server list there is no RHS server
they probably removed it when RHS removed monetization permission from koth
That output gaming tbf says that they do not do reserved slots on their exile server (which has CUP) since it cannot be monetized... that's for their KOTH servers that do not have those mods
But they are not using that on Exile no?
They say: Contributions start from $5 / 31 days. This excludes eXile as it cannot be Monetized.
The two KOTH servers are vanilla KOTH
They are approved for monetization. And they run a server with CUP. rest doesn't matter
So you cannot run an unmonetized server if you run a monetized one?
the community is approved. Not the server. Afaik.
yeah was about to say that we allowed ARMAKOTH monetization till 8th this month
You can buy "tokens" to purchase in game items
they most likely didn't get to change their websites
Tokens are the currency used for purchasing donation items. You can also give them to your friends so they can purchase donation items.
But. https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/1400569 That server isn't listed on the approved monetizers list's serverlist
make up your mind
Note that the Exile server is not listed on the monetization approval page, only the KOTH servers
Guys if I'm bored enough I can whip out like a dozen of those exile servers 😂
make a list. Maybe a google doc.
Name, Link to website, which mods they are running that they can't. And link to where to find the modlist
Huhhh
One last thing about that Output Gaming group - they also state: eXile will continue to be provided as it presently is. Unfortunately we cannot Monetize this server, and provide any paid perks, however it's something which our Admin's, and players enjoy using alike, so it's not planning to be removed any time soon. If you enjoy it, you can still contribute towards us, without expecting any bonuses within eXile itself!In their news section from 6/6... Could be good guys might not be
Make a doc and share it @soft egret I'm at work and can't get too technical, ya never know if someone spies me 😂
You disabled private messages 😄
Oh yes
ffs, i still don't get who i need to spank
7000 ppl in my discord, can't have them open accept me
One thing re: Output Gaming. Definitely seem to be "good guys" That thing about RHS servers: On Vanilla Servers, we may have generally 8 - 16 Reserved slots. On RHS Servers, only 10% of total slots will be Reserved. For example, an 80 slot server, would have 8 Reserved slotsrelated to their KOTH servers (since in that doc they said their Exile server could not be - mainly due to CUP since Exile does allow monetization). However, PuFu said that permission had been removed from KOTH. I would note that according to BattleMetrics both of their KOTH servers are now vanilla
Just seen this https://i.gyazo.com/2a12d33a1e2786cf4fe0899575830436.png
does that breach BI monetisation rules?
Do they get anything in game rather than a rank within their organization... Cause being a sergeant in the group is sort of not an in game thing
considering that they run RHS, CUP, etc
well as a milsim I'd assume they get more stuff as an NCO than a boot
but dunno itc
Then again, I wouldn't rate or consider a "MILSIM" group that sold ranks... that's just solid gold bollocks
well that's what they're advertising, it's lost somewhat of it's meaning
But good point. If they get better gear then it is monetization and has to follow the rules
Selling ranks is not gameplay altering I'd say. Thus not forbidden through the monetization rules.
monetizing without approval or using RHS/CUP is not allowed though.
I'd count this as Arma centric monetization
But the better gear of an officer or NCO is... but... ???
Also afaik RHS also doesn't allow donations. Better read their license exactly.
Still. Shite MILSIM group that should be called out for their bollocks!!! Not here but
tbh they'll probably kill themselves off with that organisation plan, I just wanted to bring it to you guys on here, coz you understand this stuff better than I XD
Got it on my todo list. I'll look into it when I have time. I'm quite sure RHS doesn't allow such things
RHS does not prohibit donations...
Otherwise every server running RHS would be shut down
Donations for stuff yes...
It does disallow monetization. So getting something in return for a donation is monetization
setting a term donation goal that will lead to in-game benefits (perks, items and/or in-game currency)
I'd count a higher rank under that
Will see when I look closer
I agree. Dedmen said that you could not accept donations on an RHS server. That is not true. Donation-Reward is prohibited: You may not use the material for commercial purposes. This includes running this package on server instances that employ any monetization schemes, including, but not limited to, donate-reward systems.Bohemia Interactive's approval of your monitization scheme does not grant you rights to wave this clauseof the EULA.
So getting a rank as reward is monetization.
If RHS prohibits donations then no one will run RHS. Yes... getting a rank is ... for RHS. Question originally related to BI monetization
BTW: I run CUP on one server and RHS on another. I do not accept donations!!! Just want to make that clear. No donations of any kind
I thought I remembered some money limit above which RHS is not allowed to be used. Must've been another mod then.
You can't prohibit freely given donations without counter value. But when the server kind of pushes you towards donating by giving players a reward, means you kind of earn money with using others mods, as they are essential parts of a server
You can ^
If your license says that then you can do whatever you want.
Don't know which mod that was. I thought it was one of the big ones.
Agreed. Again, the original question related to BI monetization of the bought ranks. RHS specifically prohibits donation-reward so if that server uses RHS then they are in breach of the license
PuFu will see tomorrow
34thid.enjin.com
they have their steam modlist linked on the front page, easy to see what they're using
Still... selling ranks in a MILSIM group... though that ended in the early 20th Century
people will do dumb shit to keep a sinking ship afloat
If the end result of a donation is a reward/gift in-game, and that reward/gift gives that player a gameplay advantage ... it is considered monetization. It's pretty simple honestly.
Agreed, question was asked in a MILSIM players all on one side against AI situation, which I among others was not clear on
Doesn't mean BIS or us at RHS are interested in hunting down every offender. Some things walk a very fine line. Some not so fine. The not so fine ones ... usually get dealt with.
So-called MILSIM... since they bloody sell ranks... what the hell will be next?
i assume fidget spinners.
And roger that Hatchet. Thanks for the response and great mods
And a shout out for Chris and all the great guys at CUP!!!
Got to be unbiased 😉
haha, tis all good. 👍
They're all a bunch of peeps making cool stuff for ARMA, that's all that matters ^^
💯
this sorta stuff keeps my faith in arma despite everything
PuFuYesterday at 7:52 PM
ffs, i still don't get who i need to spank```
Everyone
Me! Me! Me! 😁
@soft egret @stoic beacon @paper prawn
donations are allowed on servers using RHS. again, donations are money gifts, there should be nothing in return.
the mention:
setting a term donation goal that will lead to in-game benefits (perks, items and/or in-game currency)
is in regards to some exile and life servers that had a weekly/monthly donation goal that would give everyone ingame money or some other perks
which is in my opinion some monetization in disguise
This instance is a donation goal too. If you donate you get points and better ranks. Only need to find out if the ranks also hold ingame benefits
yeah if ranks is something that has no prupose other then being LT or CPT or whatever, i don't care
/rant the wrong use of the word donation has deep roots in the history (looking at you catholic church(many many many other instanes too)) so add that up with the loose ethics and greed and "self centric me me me, likes likes likes, got to be the best" thinking many have today and you see exactly why people do what they do. /rant
Whilst promotion based upon how many people you can recruit is some true Multi Level Marketing shit and an awful way of recruiting leadership, I don't think it's against the rules personally of RHS @frail flint
CUP terrains,units,vehicles @dull moon Also your TF47 skin
cg_emswheelchair.pbo, last time I checked that was our (SFP) stolen wheelchair
im searching up my server mod, it has a bunch of arma 2 data so im getting alot of false positives for what im actually searching for, but everything has the abreviation of cup or rh or some other generic popular mod 😒 I FEEL FOR YOU CHRIS
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1412510478
CUP_WaterVehicles_LHD/CUP_WaterVehicles_Core/CUP_BaseConfigs is that part of CUP @dull moon ?
ANZAC Class Frigate - Wasp Class LHD
The uploader @frozen pawn is here if you want to talk to him directly.
Also contains some VSM/Kickass stuff.
And tons of Firewill's jets
Okey. He's not here anymore. Was already breaking 3 other #rules and now the 4th one. He got removed.
Okey he removed it himself now. He was probably one of those who simply didn't know that reuploading is not allowed.
👀 Message in publisher 👀
^^ that is a good idea.
Need some Info about A3PL. Known offenders for anything? They are running EBO's and TFAR without permission. But other than that they look clean.
IIRC most of their content comes from freelancers or alike on their Trello page
But that may be wrong. Seemed they paid good money for things
might have to look into those ebo files to answer that
“ Seemed they paid good money for things”
You can still pay “good money” for stolen items.
(Not saying they have, just stating a fact)
the money they have comes from their A3L stuff back i n2014 when they were selling forza cars for $500 each
and charging for use of kiorys hats and roberthammers guns etc
before they got shut down they had made over 100,000 EU
💸
They've made $140,000 off of their new venture now.
Thats "life" ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Make some cash when you're at it
That was the plan, wanna help? 50/50. The more pbo's you steal the more money you get
Sounds great lets do it
dont team up with optix he will leave you hanging and take all the hard earned and honest cash
Lol, I might steal his work and sell it as well to compensate my losses
Don't tell him tho
So this might be a stupid question but, If you want to change whether a weapon can be put into a backpack or not, can you make the config change within your own mod calling on said weapon without any violations? Or would I need permissions from said weapon mod author?
I would not be claiming the weapon as my own, just asking before I go through the leg work of making my own config within my own mod
yes. You can make config changes from a seperate mod
@soft egret sweet and thank you
@echo orchid
https://majormittens.co.uk/Screenshots/2018-07-28_11-42-06.png
Server monetizing with RHS, selling base kits 😉
https://majormittens.co.uk/Screenshots/2018-07-28_11-43-39.png < Text saying that
@grand oyster They got a website?
I didn't see one advertised
https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/arma3/2392267 For the mods used,
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1283141322
same with this terrain
promoting their outstanding material
How's he promoting anything other than stealing?
"Allow me to steal this piece of art you've spent weeks working on. I'm promoting it, you see?
No, I'm not putting you in the credits."
Activison makes it kinda hard to find the place to report such stuff.. EA is just copyright@ea.com.
Activision has legalaffairs@activision.com to file complains that they stole your stuff. Not the other way around.
Sent a report to them anyway. Let's see what happens.
@rapid wagon do you have screenshots that proove that Artic contains stolen stuff?
one second
Oh boy.
btw meanwhile im looking heres a compiling list for everything that is stolen (and I can find proof where it is from etc)
he didnt say any source or credit the original games
the first workshop page only had him say thank you to other modelers
Please don't make him take that down. Let Activision do it. ^^
I thought you had more Activision stuff ^^
This is the first time I reported something to a big game studio. Let's see what happens 😄
🍿
hope it works
He also have World of Tanks assets and World of Warship assets in there as well, which is Wargaming
Though I think Wargaming is a bit more lenient as people re-model their ingame models all the time and they actually promote them
apparently, because no one is doing anything about IP theft in Garry's Mod, he is wondering why people are having a problem with his maps
like
what the hell
what does Garry's Mod have to do with this?
I think what hes trying to get as it that developers dont seem to care about Garrys mod, which is 1000x times worse than Arma, so why would the developers all of a sudden care about Arma
If they wont take action against the biggest problem, then why would they bother with 1 map on Arma
Garry's Mod is owned by Valve tho
Thats what I mean though, we have another company (valve) literally doing nothing against people uploading other companies work onto one of their games to a massive extent... so why would a big developer go after 1 guy who made a map for Arma
I understand that stealing content is wrong, but from a massive developer stand point, I dont think making one guy take down an Arma map is all that worth wile effort wise
Considering they wont do anything against Valve
garrys mod isnt owned by valve, its by facepunch but the engine is owned by valve. (but valve kinda own it in a way I guess)
afaik it's 100% facepunch
but yeah ripping stuff is at its peak on Garry's mod, as stupid as it sounds, same goes for Roblox, you have gamemodes there that have the exact same models and sounds as in csgo
Variable.A [author] 3 hours ago
Those of you who are raging about models from other games please read map description. I do not claim nor do I take credit for 23 total assets that are there from other games.
Those inculde all ships and subs. COD assets include crates, barrels, and 2 static vehicles. Map uses over 300 custom assets build by me. Others are imported from various sites which provide mod makers ie. Garrys Mod with such content for non monetary use.```
LoL
"I'm not the bad guy, I'm just redistributing for free with proper credits"
There's so many examples on the workshop where this logic is applied
@languid fog which one has the wows/wot assets?
Reuploads of RHSUSAF aren't allowed right?
Nope
@tight copper
Big thank you to all talented model creators that created many other assets (SHIPS, SUBS, some Crates, some Barrels) used in this map. Assets include ones from games like COD WW2 (Sledgehammer Games) and World of Warships (wargaming.net). ```
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1456318394
Todt has been removed from the Workshop
I still don’t understand people who reupload for their milsim group.. why would you want two copies of rhs? Do people just play that and do nothing else with arma..
easier management of mod updates for the server and the players
and that's about it
It's not RHS USAF
It's their own additions and retextures
Nowhere in the world in RHS 500MB
I've already had them take down their previous mod after using mods like CUP without permission
Not all RHS things allow retextures though. But they say they have permission for everything.
ALTHOUGH!!! They reuploaded other peoples stuff. Which you can't do
The mods I've seen there extra I think allow it
Mostly because they've been discontinued
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=949972298
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=949968533
I do not own this mod
I clame nothing of this mod
Mod will be removed at autors request
🤔
And author released their licenses
@echo orchid RichardsD might care? Dunno if he would
file size on the workshop page is rarely indicative of the full size of the mod
Hmmm
And now I cant find it,
Anyone screenshotted the page?
also, loads of interesting stuff in this list
FM said it was already removed from SW
Back when WoWs was in alpha we warned wargaming for this possibility due to there beeing no encryption... the reply I can not share here, (would be breach of NDA) but it surprised me a lot, and by now nothing has changed...
Todt reuploaded minus ripped models apparently.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1458210741
@tight copper WoW?
World of Warships?
World of Warcraft ?
He mentioned WoW and WoT earlier so?
Warcraft of ShipTanks ?
Make it so
@soft egret no idea, ask @young pond directly
Oh. That's convenient ^^
I`ll ask this here, hopefully not triggering anyone
I see VSM stuff back on Workshop, is this a legit upload now?
no one checked yet. It's by one of the VSM authors. And he claims to have everything removed.
The original issue was about vests anyway I think. That upload doesn't contain any vests. Only uniforms
Hello,
I must say I have been reading comments here since start of this unnecessary drama.
Whether you deplore what i did in strongest possible terms or have no issue with it simple fact is most of us (at least hopefully) are here to create some stuff that other have fun with. We don't do this for financial gain. We work with our own content and content created by others all the time.
As modders you should realize the fact that you all use ported assets to a degree. You personally create very little content from ground up. Someone allowed you to use their game, (Arma, Iron Front) someone designed a cammo pattern, gun, tank, plane you than reproduce, texture etc.
If you use 3D software to reproduce existing designs, a ruling from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Utah, United States might hold some interest for you. Utah, by the way, is a State that has more than its share of 3D knowledge and has an active community of 3D companies and game developers.
The ruling says that (in this case at least) a company cannot model an existing Toyota car and then claim a copyright on the 3D model. The court in effect says that there is not enough original, value add in the modeling/digitizing process to make the resulting model copyright-able.
This ruling would appear to be a net positive. On the plus side, it seems to suggest that copying a Toyota (for example) vehicle is OK (you just cannot protect your work via copyright). The negative part is that this will make it harder for purveyors of 3D models to protect the investment they made.
You want to guard moral standards for gaming industry ? Well here are just a few examples:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-09-humvee-suing-activision-over-call-of-duty)
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/nba-2k-videogame-maker-sued-861131
Wide availability of ported assets to modders might not be an excuse from legal standpoint of IP owner however if it is developers policy to tollerate a certain stretch of rules regarding their IP (ie. Garrys Mod - COD assets) why do you think its your responsibility to report it ?
Why would you even waste a minute of your precious time on that unless it was your work that was ported ?
The fact remains views on this subject vary greatyly and for a vast majority of gamers , game content in mods which is not monetized is a stretch of copyright rules they tollerate and accept .
Ripping models straight out of someone elses game != modelling something that looks like something that really exists.
financial gain has nothing to do with this.
They are all recreations of objects that existed in real life.
it does not matter your viewpoint about it, you did not give credit about what assets you ported, when others pointed that out, you banned them from commenting and deleted their comments
It would be even worse if financial gain was involved. But it not being involved doesn't make it better
and you also seek permission aswell
Wrong . First of all you once claim credit has nothing to do with the issue than you accuse me of not giving it. I did give credit perhaps not straight enough.
If you made these models yourself. Modelled after the real object. It would be perfectly fine
Just ripping models out of a game and using them is not fine at all though.
No value to continue this as obviously I am not going to convince any of you. Just wanted to state my point. Wrong or right.
The ruling says that (in this case at least) a company cannot model an existing Toyota car and then claim a copyright on the 3D model. The court in effect says that there is not enough original, value add in the modeling/digitizing process to make the resulting model copyright-able.
that is in regards to a single case
As modders you should realize the fact that you all use ported assets to a degree. You personally create very little content from ground up. Someone allowed you to use their game, (Arma, Iron Front) someone designed a cammo pattern, gun, tank, plane you than reproduce, texture etc.
3d modelling is not reproduction, is more of a reinterpretation. There is artistic value in most 3d work that is being done
what you are saying is that you cannot own copyrights on a photography of a certain building, or car for that matter
because someone already owns the copyright on that building or car
which is 100% false
read (and this is in relation to scanning and 3d printing, not even modelling stuff based on photos or whatever else):
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/15/evaluating-ip-infringement-risks-for-designers-and-consumers-of-3d-printing-services/?guccounter=1
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/3d-digitisation-and-intellectual-property-rights
Incredible design and manufacturing capabilities are available to almost anyone right now, thanks to 3D printing services and the designers/makers who populate those services’ marketplaces with designs that are creative, original and/or functional. While we wait for the law...
also, my own lawyer advised me otherwise. Being a good friend and IP /copyright lawyer, i sort of believe her over your own 2 cents given here
@carmine folio Your post started out well enough, but quickly deteriorated.
Let’s begin with the Steam Subscriber Agreement, specifically section 6D. I will paraphrase as I’m on my mobile: “that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you.... that you have the right to submit on behalf of those other contributors”
The content was not created by you and you did not have permission from the original authors to upload it.
@grand oyster do you have a website or alike?
https://discordapp.com/channels/105462288051380224/105792634995388416/472715625974988802
Unfortunately couldn't find if they had one or not
will dig further
but i was away for 4 days
and now i am swamped with wankers that either cannot or are unwilling to read/respect a simple license
@soft egret he released everything, but in separate packs, hence my question
the ripped content from VSM needs to be removed, together with stuff from other authors that want their own contributions removed as well
apparently, it had the ok from Admins, which he had gone through first before uploading
and also the ok from a couple of contributers aswell, those that he couldnt get a hold of, he left out
@merry kestrel by admin i assume you mean BI Forum Moderator. If so i am not aware of such communication.
yeah that
more specifically the ones involved in the whole situation
but I dont know which ones
most likely @carmine folio
yeah, since it was Beck that closed it down last
Well thats correct, as @carmine folio is a member of BI Staff. The rest of the moderators are volunteers (including me).
ahh, so it is most likely then he got the OK from BI (atleast I am assuming so)
I would not try to assume, lets just keep it to the facts.
due to the recent event, would have been preferable to have a topic on BIF about such a release
maybe
is the jarred person and VSM author the same guy?
no
afaik jarred is a contributor/member just like warden and adacas were (their stuff should have been removed from VSM as requested)
well lets hope all is legit and fine there then
Hopefully, it caused enough headaches the last time
@merry kestrel I’m not at my desktop at the moment, but I’m pretty sure that Vanschmoozin has been banned from the Forum. I will update this if I am incorrect.
@echo orchid Well, I hope their hard work isn't wasted, and finds itself a new home.
@fossil basalt
this blokes are going VSM route - everything is bought or "acquired" from some place, but there is no credits or links from where it they got it from. And i thought credits were mnadatory on BIF
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/217740-wip-task-force-leviathan-special-operations-vehicles/
Summary/Info
Task Force Leviathan Vehicles is a mod that aims to replicate real life vehicles/equipment used by various SOF/SF units within the US Arm...
I brought up the fact that one of their members is a self confessed ripper who took stuff from the Veteran mod. All it earned me was a warning point
I don't understand these people. Buying models from someone else. Then porting them into the game. And then feeling proud that everyone tells you that your models are very nice.
I couldn't feel proud for stuff that I didn't make
And they are even posting WIP pictures as if they were actually working on that. Yeah sure, I can't tell if they didn't make it themselves. But he said himself he'll buy a hilux model and port it. and a week later he suddenly has a WIP picture of a high quality hilux.
And random people "donating" stuff to them? Even though they have never made anything before? I don't donate stuff I spent days of work on to people who I don't know
@rapid wagon just found where they bought the Stryker from
@echo orchid Foxone is working on it, I would suggest maybe having a chat with him about what they're doing since he should know a bit more then the either of us.
Wow. Their "WIP" pictures are really just that model from turbosquid put into 3ds max and rendered in clay view.
Pretending that they made it themselves..
They didn't even import it into arma. They literally just drag&drop into 3ds max and make a screenshot of their "work"
Doesn't really make me trust them with anything. But that's just human morale. Legally they can do that if they want.
@tawny sentinel "working" at this stage is an overstatement
Save the snark, would you?
why would i?
@soft egret
https://i.gyazo.com/51cd8b0b0ea6489504d03cfb738487d1.png
Vehicles: (minus MRZR)
https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/818781
https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/1229274
https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/1289682
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-of-2015-cab-crew/823012
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/super-2017-duty-3d-model/987160
https://squir.com/oshkosh-jltv-2014.html
https://hum3d.com/3d-models/dodge-ram-1500-rebel-trx-2017/
https://squir.com/ford-f450-superduty-2017.html```
He is the same guy who posts pictures to reddit with "Private" mods
private because they are utilizing ripped stuff
yeah that Mal guy as well i am being told
Yes mate, thats me
If you have any questions/concerns, contact me through my discord or my profile. So if you have a issue with me I am here. So have a good one lads.
i do not know you, hence i have no particular "issues" with people i don't know
Well then the feeling is mutual mate.
however, i have expressed my concerns quite clearly, and very publicly
it has nothing to do with a particular person, much rather with a certain way of doing what some would call PR for people who have no idea what this entire 3d world is made of, and especially due to the recent issues with VSM, where i have raised the same concerns which were ignored, i had the urge to speak my mind about it
@echo orchid I would like to thank you for helping out on this issue, I do agree that it's a concern to the whole community. And would like to support your efforts in terms of my mod in any possible way. Feel free to contact us whenever, but please be wary with accusations or assumptions.
i made no accusations. You stuck a 3d model you have acquired from a website in 3ds max and presented it as WIP.
that model is being sold as done not as wip, is it not?
That sounded like a copypaste
I do not feel that this mod is in anyway related to the path VSM took. VSM stole models from other games and tried to convince people he "Accidentally" bought them. Mal has purchased legitmate models from legitimate vendors. I'm sorry if people think this is an attack on their creative skills, but currently we do not have very many high quality vehicles fitting this niche. Purchasing these models and subsequently implementing them is in my opinion one of the best courses of action to get high quality content into ARMA.
If you would like to get philisophical on what mods mean to you, how they're the artists way of leaving an impression or something, then cool. However, most people only care about getting high quality content into ARMA in a legal and ethical manner.
i said it before, and you seem to don't be able to grasp this: buying models from any legit vendor is quite alright, no one has any issues with that
but just like VSM deliberatly eluded these sort of questions and never provided the source of purchase publicly, always walking the fine line between "i made this" and "i purchased / has been provided / acquired this model" as he saw fit
this is precisely what is going on here as well
However, most people only care about getting high quality content into ARMA in a legal and ethical manner.
unfortunatley, the first part is accurate, but the second is not true
The minute you step onto their discord (Which is linked in the thread), it is very apparent the models are purchased. No one tries to hide that fact.
Do you guys have a problem with purchased models or something?
no read up
i never denied the fact that these have been bought. it was 100% apparent from the 1st moment, without having to join yet another discord just for that.
Within a personal friend circle composed primarily of creators, the belief may be that my second statement is untrue. However, when you engage with the wider community it is very apparent that no one else cares about anything but having good quality shit to use in ARMA. Only a small percentage look into mods any further than face value.
Just look at an average MILSIM group. You've got 3-4 people who curate the modset, make tweaks and additions, then you've got everyone else who just logs on and plays without a care in the world. It's just maths.
but as you seem to be on the server yourself, please do tell me where is the WIP image here:
https://i.gyazo.com/890c0c4178b3e4bdd4eb977d7ef0ff6a.jpg
especially if you compare it with the image from the bought model
https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2016/08/26__09_00_12/m1127_previnterior1.jpgE732A8AD-9785-4C4B-922F-84463FB2D614Original.jpg
I think it's fair enough to post a picture of a model that is intended to be put in the mod
Everyone gets excited about it
Everyone is interested in the models being used
no issue with that, but maybe i am being old and getting hard headed
where is the WIP in all that
in the back of my head, WIP means work in progress
Would you prefer they got the model and just didn't show anyone the cool new toys?
emphasis on progress
where is the progress from the model that was bought as "done" to the "wip" image
@echo orchid I reckon they're still adding stuff to it to flesh it out? Textures, animations, sounds, etc.
none of the models are game meshes - the stryker above is 566,151 vertices and not unwrapped
as an example
there is a fuckton of work from the moment you have the high poly model done to getting it game ready and injected ingame
In my opinions, WIP relates to the progress of the mod. The WIP channel is where content related to the progress of the mod is posted. Although that model may be untouched, the mod itself is still in progress and not yet in a realised state. I don't think anyone is claiming the model is ready to go, everywhere I've looked people say how much work there is left to go.
@echo orchid Work will be done to the models acquired, therefor it is a work in progress right?
monk: Within a personal friend circle composed primarily of creators, the belief may be that my second statement is untrue. However, when you engage with the wider community it is very apparent that no one else cares about anything but having good quality shit to use in ARMA. Only a small percentage look into mods any further than face value.
if that would be true, there would be less ripped content that there is at any given time within the so called mods in A3
@frail smelt lol, nope
Whats a WIP then?
read again what i wrote above please
Alrighty, done
Still don't know what you would call the pictures if not WIP
@stable zealot exactly, feels like he's just complaining
yeah, i have other shit to do, like actually creating stuff. "just complaining"
WIP - work in progess
- work - who did the work
- in progress - what is the damn progress from point of purchase to point of making a public show out of it?
if 2 = money exchange, then i do not call that progress
So you are saying they aren't creating anything?
I mean, imagine as the creator you have screenshots of a new model you want to share. You have a channel where people can go to find screenshots of things that will be in the mod..... Where do you post those cool new screenshots?
i am saying in order to call something WIP, there needs to be both work and progress done to it
monk: I mean, imagine as the creator you have screenshots of a new model you want to share. You have a channel where people can go to find screenshots of things that will be in the mod..... Where do you post those cool new screenshots?
on my social media channels, in my own BIF topic etc. but sure, i will show work i have done myself on the model
Okay, so the work is done by the people who the devs bought the model from who will be credited at the release of the mod
not the models i have bought, without being
a. very specific that the model has been purchased
b. very specific that there has been no "progress" since the purchase moment
EloBandit: Okay, so the work is done by the people who the devs bought the model from who will be credited at the release of the mod
unfortunatelly with the VSM that close i think the entire thing needs to be more transparent, way before "the mod has been released"
not up to me, but i did notify BIF moderators on the subject way before this thread even made an appearance
Well I think that's for the BI mods to decide
sure
i get some of you don't understand the "author" position
i also understand that they are walking the same fine line - we show this, call it WIP and then take credit for it because 90% of the A3 population knows jack shit about modding anyways, much less about 3d modelling
Ah, so everyone has to have the same view as RHS when it comes to running their mod?
"i get some of you don't understand the "author" position" that's pretty weird, it feels like you're speaking for all addon creators
RHS is a group of people, and each individual can have his own views on the subject
but funny enough, everyone who has ever created something from scratch has the same view as i do
@carmine folio ohhh, did you get you nappies twisted?
great
it's not my name btw
i thought that was obvious it is a nickname
but you seem to be on the slow side of things
it's ok
good grief
listen nicky
if you cannot contribute to this channel in any way
go someplace else and sing to another table
you're personal attacks are one of the lamest i have seen on the internet
A viewport render of something you bought a licence for isn't really 'WIP' it's just going "oh look I bought this shiny thing, here have a picture". So I would agree that they are not really WIP shots and purely serve to get some sort of verification of your actions whether honest or not.
Also you do not 'own' the models, you are only licenced to use them under the terms of licence under which they are sold, Turbosquid and sites like it are quite clear in the fact that they are licence marketplaces. So long as you stay within the terms of those licences that is fine.
In the eyes of clarity and giving authors credit where it is due by stating the origin of content goes a long way towards your own personal credibility as well as being being honest to the community about your content or any content created using licenced assets from other authors.
good point, pretty sure there are corners with even lamer people and comments
what is being contributed here other than toxic waste?
well, seems @heavy moon get's the gist of things
and here come the trolls
@fossil basalt + @wild stone
@thorn kiln please remove your post as it is completely off topic
@heavy moon don't bother, the mopping squad will eventually clean this up anyways
Well I figured asking them nicely would be the honourable thing to do
well it is worth a try, although i'm sure with their attitudes it is fultile
such joke, such basement
welp
@cold pasture you busy chap? best load up the makarov
makarov needed plz @cold pasture 🔫
RHS makes trash models that people rip all the time.
yeah because people are ripping content that is trash indeed
dude, please stop embarassing yourself
Would you guys kindly respect the server and channel rules and stop posting off-topic comments
Nick Gurrs: The only thing thats embarassing is your trash mods
i am so heart broken now....please stop it, i will shed a tear
you assume i have nothing better to do than see your sorry ass replies
IQ?
well you are already breaking discord terms of service, which require you to be 13 years or older to use it.
who is bobby
@soft egret Whats the issue with porting purchased models? At the end of the day they are just creating a mod and having some fun, its not like they are making a fully fledged game?
The end goal for them is not to spend years developing a mod, its to have some fun in a few months and not spend years
With regard to purchased models, there is always a possibility they have been ripped. If you stick to reputable names then that can help. That $3 special "may" be questionable.
That being said I think it's an under used resource in general.
Provided the models are from a legit source, and the license you buy for that model allows you to freely distribute said model for any game, there's nothing wrong with buying models to put in a mod
I think what's at issue here is how the "WIP" images are being presented
Being that you need to configure and animate said model after purchase, it's still considered WIP
WIP could also just be purely indication of future presence in the mod. The point was clear to the people who were interested in progress on the mod
basically what's happening is that somebody bought a ridiculously high-poly model that's nowhere near being ready to be put in game, loaded it into 3ds max, took a screenshot of the viewport, and said, "hey everybody, check out my new WIP content" without ever disclosing that literally none of the work was done by them
it's a bit like that person who buys a birthday cake from a bakery and then tells everyone at the party that they made it from scratch...
I must've missed who this was, as I have always seen sources from reputable people in the community
it's a white lie that's not really harming anyone, but it's kind of lame as it seems like that person is just begging for attention/praise for something they did exactly nothing on
LOLs
Yep
@echo orchid Mopping Squad is here. Let me know if I missed any.
@frail smelt @stiff vapor @stable zealot
Moderator voice on.
If you are showcasing "wip" of a project that is not 100% your own creation, I would highly advise (you can read that as "I'm about to have it made a written rule" ) that you post a link to where you acquired the model and the associated rights/permissions granted by said purchase.
Here comes the cleanup crew.
🗑 I couldnt find a mop
Understood. @fossil basalt
k
@heavy moon So long as you stay within the terms of those licences that is fine. Good point.. I actually looked at the license of one of the models...
@broken hornet @stiff vapor https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/818781
Editorial Uses Only
https://blog.turbosquid.com/royalty-free-license/
Extended Uses include games, digital media, corporate use, education, product design, and 3D printing (described below). These are allowed for all Royalty Free products unless they are marked for Editorial Uses.
You cannot use that Model in games.
I honestly can say that I expected this.
@jovial mica Whats the issue with porting purchased models? Read above ^. That is the issue.
@ebon sand and the license you buy for that model allows you to freely distribute said model for any game Yeah. It would be fine if the license actually allowed that.
We actually have taken this in to account, we have decided that the MATV is no longer a model we can use so expect a change in the near future 😃
Ah. All of the sudden? Just as I say it? What a coincidence
No its not mate, we didn't like the model. Its not only the MATV we are replacing.
If you think you will change any of our decisions I have bad news for you.
We will continue to work on this mod and push it out for the community. If you have any questions and concerns please contact me. Thank you.
Let's take a look at the other models shall we?
https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/1229274
Extended Uses May Need Clearances Do you have that clearance?
https://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/1289682
Extended Uses May Need Clearances again.
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-of-2015-cab-crew/823012
https://support.turbosquid.com/hc/en-us/sections/206607527-Ford-Motor-Company
Don't know if "non-commercial games" applies here as Arma is commercial.
but "non-profit" applies.
Police. No interaction with police vehicles is acceptable That might be interesting for Life gamemodes :D
False Attribution. You may NOT misrepresent yourself as the creator of Licensed Products. That is currently the case. For anyone who just reads your public BI Forum post. You are violating that license currently.
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/super-2017-duty-3d-model/987160 same license as above.
https://hum3d.com/3d-models/dodge-ram-1500-rebel-trx-2017/
The CUSTOMER may NOT:
redistribute PRODUCT or modifications/parts of the PRODUCT;
use in projects not protected from extraction of PRODUCT by other users.
Does redistributing it in an Arma mod count? as redistributing? I think so.
use in projects not protected from extraction of PRODUCT p3d's are not uncrackable.
For your https://squir.com/oshkosh-jltv-2014.html I cannot find a license.
I'm glad you are interested in our mod, as I said above we are replacing current models in our list. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me. Thank you.
Dedmen somethings you have the patience of a saint. But this isn't getting through, this probably needs to go to turbosquid so they are aware of the license breaches and can take legal action.
the PR speak levels are going through the roof here 😄
Indeed. @undone pier 😃
Don't have time for that. As long as #rules are not violated.
And if we look at rule 19...
make sure to apply at a fitting firm "Mal"
@undone pier Understand exactly what you said mate. @soft egret Thats the spirit.
Well it has been a absolute pleasure speaking with you gentlemen. I have other things to attend to. So have a nice night.
Hello again,
Some of you gents are really going out of your way to make life miserable for other modders. Regrettable.
To illustrate to you what I mentioned in one of my previous messages regarding developers of games accepting certain level of copyright infringement regarding free game mods, I will show you a response I have from lead game developer for Silent Hunter 5 Dan Dimitrescu . I asked him for permission to use ships from the game as static props on my map:
Hi Andrew,
To be honest, I have no idea who to talk to, most people from SH5 time are gone from the company, and if not, they would decline responsibility. It would be an enormous hassle to get an approval, so much I would say that considering its a non commercial and low profile project, you should just do it.
But I have to ask, how do you plan to import SH5 assets into ARMA3? Are you sure it's going to work or are you using some sort of converter from the radgametools gr2 format we were using?
Thanks,
Dan @ KHG
I am still waiting for Ubisoft to reply which is unlikely, however people who put their sweat and tears into a game dont give a rats ass if content is used in free mods. Lucky for game developers they have characters like Dedmen or PuFu to police for them....
Good that you are right now actually getting permission for the stuff you use. Everything is completely fine as long as you have permission.
And here is the proof that you didn't have it.
@fossil basalt cheers my man, hold on to that mop of yours 😃
They are making life miserable for the bad modders who steal content, they have nothing but good impacts for those who made their content/obtained it legally.
Some of you gents are really going out of your way to make life miserable for other modders. Regrettable.
lol what? if helping other people get their head around modding counts as making life miserable these day...but whatever, if ripping models and injecting these in is called modding, i have been doing it wrong for so long
@soft egret 👍
lol
the last one is a oof
You obviously have no clue how much work goes into making a map....
@carmine folio you have been given an opportunity to correct your wrongs. Do not waste it as this is a one time opportunity.
FM I would expect moderators to be neutral
Not when you are in the wrong
It’s blatantly obvious that you uploaded content that was not your own without consent.
You were given an opportunity to correct this. Your actions will determine if the next person gets a similar opportunity.
We are often criticised for being too harsh, so you were a chance to take a “softer approach”, one I am already beginning to regret as you appear to have no remorse for what you have done.
@carmine folio In regards to that conversation with Dan Dimitrescu. Did he understand that the models from the game were to be converted to a different format, and then again into P3D format? Also, was he aware that these models would then be published to steam, claiming ownership of them as per Steams Subscriber Agreement? Not saying he doesn't, but curious.
Asking for permission to use under a mod into Arma 3 was the question. He is a game dev I think he more or less understands the process . Now that I had my experience with your soft approach I still want a green light from the studio which published the game.
I only ask because hosting your mod with their assets on say Armaholic, or your own repo, as mods used to be, is very different in terms of ownership of the assets and rights as Steam Workshop is.
usually the ownership is at the publisher or the game dev company owner
both usually ignore any requests, or disapprove
the actual content creator in game companies usually has no say whatsoever
do work, get paid, your responsiblility and ownership has ended
the actual creators would have a larger interest to see their work seen used and appreciated
yet the legal model pushed by the big companies has killed that aspect completely
you have to do OSS or modding for any chance with that in general
^^ a lead developer for a company does NOT own IP rights for the content produced while under contract in that company for a product
so what no matter what dan said, he has no legal right to give or revoke any sort of approvals
Well I'll continue with this legal exercise and see where it ends up.
I'm interested to see the outcome of this, since SH5 is still commercially available, I can however probably guess what that outcome will be.
Irrespective of that and your choice now to approach the developer for retrospective permission, you have already broken the terms of the licence you were issued upon purchase by reverse engineering the program to extract the data from it, which is for want of a better term ripping content.
To me that is not modding.
I believe they will end up not doing anything against it not because it's allowed, simply because they don't care anymore at this point. And obviously that "we don't mind anymore" is going to be understood as "It's legal and it had always been"
Which will just lead to more of these cases until someone makes big money with such a scheme and a publisher actually sues them
The outcome will be, if they cannot prove written consent from the relevant IP owners, they will be removed from this Discord and The Forums.
Oh that aswell
Is selling beta allowed? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/378747201729462277/473680577740931085/unknown.png
Seems odd to me but not sure how this applies in the license http://dustyroadsrpg.com/packs.html
Look at what they are doing @faint nacelle It's really an exception
I know
they got cool stuff going
I guess the price will keep the beta player base civilized
thats just a lot of money 😄
Well. I got free beta access :3 Although I'll probably not use it
afaik yeah that is allowed
@rapid wagon for reference https://www.bohemia.net/monetization
Charging players to access your server, if the fees and associated perks do not affect gameplay in any way, is allowed. Cosmetic perks are allowed. Limiting access to only paying players is allowed.
again, as long as everything there is their own stuff
now that is the golden question
Alright, because I saw their announcement about beta and was not sure if it was server or a mod.
it is a server/community
that makes their own mod afaik (well, using some other people to do it, not everything is made in house either afaik)
When it comes to content within DR we have found developers within arma with the skill level we approve and brought them into the team and paid them to develop things that myself and @random osprey cannot do when it comes to community mods already made within arma we are NOT using anyone’s mods besides the ones we have got the ok to use.
And the mod itself will be released for everyone to use when it’s complete
"selling access is allowed"
so I can sell addons after all
I just sell "access" to them
@proud flicker It explicitly specifies selling access to a server, not mods
Easy, I'll make the mods only function with servers I approve of.
Sure. You can do that I guess.
@proud flicker Yeah it seems all you need do is create a modpack and sell access to your game server to download it. Its perfectly (technically) legal according to BI's policy.
"Mod is only allowed to be used on X server"
oh man... :&
as long as it all your own work of course
well of course it is
or have permmission to sell access from the actual author
Well the problem would be with the heads/faces, as they are BI specific to match UVs
put those in a separate mod
Well that wouldnt be an issue under the current monetisation rules
"Mondkalb's troll faces"
all it needs do is reference the source/model in the stock content
@proud flicker indeed, i think i said this before - this is the only way to actually sell your mods - having a server attached to it
even better, you aren't selling mods, but you restrict access based on payment
Yep. Pretty sketchy IMO
Mondkalb: Easy, I'll make the mods only function with servers I approve of.
I have been waiting for people to do just this, using a dll instead of scripting to check 🤣
Actually. looks over to chat on other screen that.. uh.. nvm.
I've been talking with people about that just a week or so ago
Could someone just remove the DLL from the mod and then have access to your mods? How would you secure something like that?
that was exactly what I've been talking about with these people
sounds interesting
Anyone remembers Breaking Point? lol
Yep
rings a bell
Sure. They open sourced most of their stuff. Very nice references for beginner modellers. Often look into that when Arma 3 Samples doesn't provide samples for what I need
Well no I believe they used to do some sort of monetization, wanted to bring that up as the a good example on how to monetize your own mod. Or even Origins does / used to do that
Ah yeah. True.
Dont think breaking point ever monetized
Somehow this whole breaking point and Origins thing went past me over the time where it was popular.
I played DayZ BP in Arma 2. But that's about it
@errant drum are you talking about standalones?
I thought they had reserved slots or something similar
iirc A3BP comes with APL/APL-SA licence as well as A2 APL/APL-SA ported content, licences are non-commercial.
they could have done some slot stuff i guess, wasnt that familiar with it
origins never did reserved slots they just had their own hosting company/service
and only hosted origins servers through there
is ka weapons still IP violation or has that mod been cleared?
was just wondering since its been reuploaded to workshop
well he is not burdened by the immorality of his actions nor are the users of his "work"
and BI can only do so much
doesnt BI have steam remove workshop upload ability for IP violators though?
thanks for the info
Is it me or are the vehicles from IFA3 Liberation from war thunder? I could be wrong.
@jovial cove no, we can't
What? Try Iron Front
@rapid wagon Link the mod you are using
Oh, perhaps. You can send it to war thunder legal department I'm sure.
its been around for over a year now
doesnt stop me from investigating.
Just make sure to not link the "proper" IFA mod, otherwise you'll upset a few good people.
oh, it is pirated by the looks of it
if youl ook down in the comment section you can see author admit copyright infringement lol
seems it got locked by Valve, had items removed that were from CSA38 then unlocked afterwards
here are some similarities that I found, though both are based off an existing vehicle this could be just how all tanks were produced. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/378747201729462277/474012302371192832/unknown.png
is the coloring on the arma one added by you or is that genuinely what it looks like ingame?
the coloring do you mean the yellow texture or the colored dots?
colored dots
Oh no, that's just to point out the similarities. Should've said that before.
oh ok
in that case then it looks like that might just be that they're both based off the same vehicle
the turret appears to have more of those little metal bits extending out from the center of it
also the arma one has a little red light on the right side where the warthunder one does not
no chain hanging down from arma one either
Could be modified but I will take a closer look at the other models. They all seem to differ in quality which is quite common in other ripped content mods.
hm
this one specifically is inconclusive in my opinion at least, look at some of the others and see if they match more closely
I think I found a match
left is mod, right is war thunder (incase it's not obvious ^^)
this one is closer but it still has some differences
can you point them out? I am quite convinced this is from WT.
the machine gun on the arma one is green like the rest of the vehicle, the tool mounted beside the turret also looks different than the warthunder one
the two panels on top of the track beside the headlight are a different texture
keep in mind texture can be altered.
it can
i'd send it over to warthunder's legal team
they can probably determine better if its stolen or not rather than two people with keyboards can :p
true
those models don't really look the same to me
well I find it suspicious how similar they are
some differences in the back https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/378747201729462277/474016437120532490/unknown.png
the edge where the gun mantle meets the turret is much rounder on the WT tankette
chain geometry on the back is totally different
thats true
position of the handle on that left engine deck cover is also different
its probably better to have Gajin take a look at this
well this is the last match I'm going to show here. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/378747201729462277/474018874673594378/unknown.png
that one looks like the same
the panzer iv and T-26 have a lot of differences however
I can agree on that however if one thing is stolen, it's likely there's more.
Aren't those lower texture res stuff all from Iron Front 1944 though?
note: IFA3 liberation and IFA3lite is not the same mod
he's asking if some of those things like the pz4 aren't just retextures of existing IFA3 content
since it's dependant on IFA3
I'm saying given the low resolution of the textures they might just be those same old models
I haven't seen any of those in Iron Front 1944, ifa3lite should already have all vehicles ported.
can be wrong
Iron Front 1944 should have panzer 4s but not panzer 3s like in Liberation
Ah.. i see
Was so confused for a few minutes thinking IFL 1944 came out before War Thunder... LOL... understand now
@rapid wagon well the war thunder model(Tank) was clearly used as inspiration. But they are not the same models.
But yeah.. That plane. Exact same camo pattern. No one would go to the effort to make a camo pattern match the one from War Thunder 100%.. That would be a F-ton of work.
@tulip nexus IFA3 Liberation is not dependent on IFA3 (AIO) - in fact they are not compatible
Does anyone know the origins of this jacket? https://i.imgur.com/l3ap1y2.jpg
there's something about it that I just can't shake
it looks like it came out from dayz
DayZ SA maybe?
@frail flint you can report it on the infringement Email on the channel description
jesus, that's it
couldn't put my finger on it
@faint nacelle ty, wanted to work out if I was imagining things before I filed anything 😃
It's exactly the same, crease for crease
ye its definitely the same
Dedmen having fun with Life idiots again :D
"You are allowed to use TFAR on a montized server. But you are not allowed to monetize TFAR"
"We have all the licenses for all the mods we use"
And answer to a guy telling him exactly how things really are.
"You apparently know nothing at all about this. Please inform yourself. I've been doing all this for a long time. I know what I'm doing"
After telling him that I'm the TFAR Author and that BI just sent him an email explaining his missunderstandings
"Did they? Funny, you don't seem to know my mailbox that well. I have been in contact with BI for some time and it's all going it's ways. But thank you for your courage on the Internet - thank God there are people like you! 😃 I clear it all up with Bohemia Interactive and then the topic is off the table. Thank you for your help."
Don't know if he thinks he'll still get TFAR permission after the fact.. Delusional guy..
No he'll probably just use it anyway.. 😛
stupid people are stupid
He couldn't know anything is wrong. He doesn't know anything about scripting so it's all his developers fault. He doesn't even know where a mod's pbo would be and how to notice any new pbo's being added. Even though he set up the Arma3Sync server and is using Arma3Sync himself to update his mods.
And he already sent out requests for all the mods he is using.. But none of the authors told me yet that they got a request. And I also didn't get one.... 🤔
Also he removed all mods already that he cannot use... But the last change in his A3Sync repository was begin of july...
I don't know if he really thinks that I'm that dumb...
But different to PsiSyn he seems to actually feel bad for it. He even punished a 6month twitch subscriber for attacking me 😄
If only everyone could be that nice. Ofcause without the not caring about what mods he uses part.
But maybe you shouldn't put your name onto a Life server. If you don't even know where a PBO goes.... He literally did no dev-ing at all on the server. He only streamed the stuff his devs built. Just like... You know who 😄
It's nice that he feels bad and seems apologetic to an extent, shame so many people run these things without knowing what goes into it
Right up there with all the idiots that think they will get away with stealing A3PL's files & framework 🕵
They stole citylife stuff. Which also make everything by themselves. So not that far off of stealing A3PL stuff 😄
The greatest joke is that they stole the files, the framework, the staff ranks and all the official posts and whatnot, can't make anything for themselves and then they wonder why the community will fail very quickly 🙄
ahhahha, that disclaimer
https://i.gyazo.com/dbad37b6ed307032acc99f6f0c76a4b5.png
also, @fossil basalt does the freaking font needs to be THAT big
linky linky please
Summary/Info
Task Force Leviathan Vehicles is a mod that aims to replicate real life vehicles/equipment used by various SOF/SF units within the US Arm...
yeah everything is like that
Better?
😙
A bit of bleach has been added to the forum this evening as well.
and who was forced to drink it this time? 😄
I do love it when FM buys people shots
@frail flint its not always shots, sometimes its pints. 😉
@wild stone the perfect time to put a penny in someone's glass, cleans it and causes them problems at the same time
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1332480064 The crawler doesn't have it yet.
Their community is recruiting paid devs #creators_recruiting <-- and is monetized. Atleast 2 mods without permission and probably more inside there. But I can't check because the crawler is somehow missing that item that was uploaded on 16th may
@soft egret I own that mod pack and I just want to be sure so I can fix this ASAP what we are using that we don't have permission to?
@soft egret Please note, we have run these mods for a few years under a different name and rights were given for a lot of the stuff but I just want to make it right.
"own" what?
what we are using that we don't have permission to everything that you don't have written permission for.
literally everything.
Not my job to tell you what you are doing wrong. It's your job to do everything right
Please go through each and every mod and check your permissions.
And do remember that if “bob” says it’s ok for you to used that ripped model, it’s NOT ok and DOES NOT qualify as “permission”.
@carmine folio
@fossil basalt Yeah I have had a big wake up call, sending lots of emails now and sorting this out 😃
@clear pike Post this in the dayz discord, look in #channel_invites_list for a invite
Email in channel description
^
kk
As an aside; what's also interesting is the guy who put the DayZ vest on Steam then gave permission to someone else to make it functional in Garry's Mod (Pg.2 of the comments https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1459958949). It's immensely frustrating to watch stuff like this play out.
garrysmod generation of gamers got very loose morals
@muted lantern Such are the pitfalls of accepting content from individuals with no guarantee of said content’s origin. I’m some respect it’s like buying a Rolex for £5 from some random guy on the street. It’s either fake or stolen.
@fossil basalt Totally. I work as a photographer and dealing with infringements is a bigger part of my job than it should be. The majority prevailing attitude of "it's online, therefore it's free and I can do what I want with it." seems almost impossible to fight against; for every person who comes around there are thousands who will just carry on regardless.
We ban those types
@carmine folio why are you reuploading Bohemia/Apex content to the workshop? you clearly are not the owner of actual game content.
I somehow doubt you bothered to email Bohemia and ask for permission to reupload their own content.
and given your mod is 17Gb download, 24gb on disk and you aren't aware of IP rights until you were mentioned in this channel, I'd place bets on their being NONE of your own content within that upload.
My community might be seen as unknown but the people who owned the community before I took over actually got permission from most of the owners of the mods. Believe it or not I spent 9 hours yesterday seeking permission from everyone and I cleared out about 15 .pbos we didn't need that I couldn't manage to contact the owners of.
If you have a concern contact bohemia and they can contact me
I already sent the email.
The original owner of ANZUS previously known as Underbelly helped make the life framework
👌 Great way to spend your time 😃
If it helps to clean this community up from people ripping content and swindling money from unsuspecting players, I'll happily give my right arm.
We don't pocket any of the money, it goes right back into the community mate.
Yep, heard that before, pretty sure you guys have a handbook of excuses.
Believe what you want mate, I understand you're envious of the success we have.
I asked Bohemia to suspend my monetisation while I sorted out the permissions, I am not a bad person mate although you probably think I am.
I couldnt care of your "success", what I do care about is you claiming right to other peoples content by breaking the steam workshop agreement, and monetising other content without permission. Just because the previous server owners allegedly obtained permission does not mean you have the same rights.
I contacted steam support in relation to that and asked if I have the permission to use the content if I can upload it, they said it was fine aslong as the owners didn't contact them to get it taken down its not an issue.
you have read the workshop agreement right?
did you tell them that you do not own any of the content you are publishing?
Why don't you let bohemia do the talking
oh Frank you were coming out as a good guy last night.. now its I do what I want
No
I just spent a bloody long time fixing the issue
and contacting a lot of people
I learnt the lesson
I hope you emailed Bohemia seeking permission to claim licence to upload their content
I just don't want any issues.
@heavy moon can you confirm the BI content ?
I personally didn't make the mod pack but I spent a long time making sure we can use what we are using
there also existss the vegeation*ebo's from apex
Frank, what’s the link to your community?
That is apex content that is available to the public, they released it last year with malden.
that does not give you a right to reupload it.
I'll take down monetisation until this is fixed..
I dont want issues I just want it fixed and within bohemia policies.
Great! @carmine folio you are hereby banned from here. Your workshop will be shut down soon as well.
😦
I left the evidence
thank you, I emailed infringements@ prior to starting the conversation with Frank so they will have emails about it also in which I gave them all the links I have pasted in here.
👍
As fellow problem maker can someone explain to me please what was it exacly Frank did wrong ?
Uploading content to the workshop that includes licenced game data from the Apex expansion, in addition to that multiple community content that he has no permission for.
Used mods with monetization without rights and uploaded BIS content.
Oh so you are only allowed to monetize base game with no paid addons ?
Mods aside.
It's more about breaking the Steam Workshop agreement by claiming licence to content he does not own nor have IP rights over. The fact they are monetising in addition to it shows just how much they disregard the community.
And BI content being prohibited from being uploaded to the workshop.
There really is zero need to upload Game Content unless your trying to circumvent the purchase of those dlc/expansions.
Oh understood I assumed people needed to own a game to use his workshop content.
BTW... Frank's also got the Australia map in there too. Aussie removed that from Steam Workshop earlier this year. Afaik, you cannot upload to Steam
Guess he may have given permission for Life stuff?
No idea, anyway it is in Bohemias hands now.
IF you know any of the authors who's content is within that item you could shoot them a pm
True. Also has RH stuff that is licensed with "The commercial exploitation of any game content created using this Pack is expressly prohibited," MattAust's stuff, KA Weapons (LOL), SAB, Hidden Items Pack v2 (wonder whether they asked permission from Cunico like I did for non-monetized use?) and TRYKs - all re-signed against their private key...
👍 That's why I thought he may have given permission - I know he was big into Aussie Life
He's gonna pay the price for the BI stuff I suspect. That is more than just dumb
He may have removed it in today's update. The ebos (and several BI pbos) were there...
The evidence has already been provided
That alone shuts his case down
Absolutely zero Bohemia content gets reuploaded. Period
wrong - if you have permission you can
also not true for scripts and configs, neither mp game modes
We are not talking about people that can actually think for themselves kju . Dont muddy the waters.
if you want them to respect the rules, you have to be straight about it
@cyan breach no they didnt
Also if BI care to in certain situations I'd guess they could get you for uploading configs (CfgVehicles for example) since you would have to reverse engineer the data PBOs which is forbidden by default in the EULA - though obviously they allow... sort of
The rule of thumb is “unless you have explicit permission from the actual mod authors, you DO NOT reupload!”
to workshop
Correct
otherwise it depends on the license
@cyan breach the guy was proably just lying all the time
Yup
Love this in the announcement of non-monetization: "If you donate during the pause we will reward you once we resume, but be aware there is a very small chance it wont resume."
from what you are telling the conclusion i came up with is the only feasible
From what I see there were a few commits, some of them only 1 line changes
Also this was not about him but about Frank
Except that is the same person
K then i am not sure why you brought him up here
Well this does not matter right now, what matters is that the given community now violated the rules
Without any doubt
Ignorance is no excuse
Ignorance at the expense of modders with his unauthorised monetisation is completely unacceptable.
Especially if you agree to monetization rules that state you must have the rights.
Can I re upload a mod to steam for a private collection for a milsim unit?
If they are on steam already, why not just make a collection for them to subscribe to?
Sorry worded that wrong. Theyre not on steam theyre on Armaholic
I'm by far not the expert on it, but if it's all unique content and their license says you can redistribute it or you get explicit permission from the author, I don't see why not.
Ok Ta
Steam workshop EULA might want to have a word with you
With Me?
You MAY NOT upload to the Steam Workshop unless the author has given you explicit permission to do so.
You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).
What if its private just for a collection thats also private?
You are still abiding by those terms.