CUP might actually have that agreement on paper though
#ip_rights_violations
soft egret
paper prawn
Basically what you're saying is that it is not allowed to upload a derivative no matter what permission is given. But if you have got permission you can do so, but you need to rely on that permission not being revoked. But the process of doing so (uploading with permission) is not, in that case morally wrong, but you may have to remove it if circumstances change in the future? Is that sort of right?
soft egret
Like many other laws that morally make no sense or that no one really listens to/cares about if the laws are violated.
But technically the law is there and people could punish you for breaking it. But no one cares enough.
No one's gotta bring you to court for tossing a chewing gum paper next to a garbage bin instead of into it. But technically they could.
narrow topaz
Permission can always be rescinded. Think of it like your neighbors' pool. You may be able to use it as your own, but your neighbor can always ask you to stop, and you certainly shouldn't move it into your own yard and claim it's now yours.
paper prawn
Basically just worried because my plan is to release a version of Epoch (which is allowed - but apparently not allow) that fully integrates ACE3 (with the exception of advanced fatigue, repair and rearm - which is apparently allowed, but not allowed) and also includes food and drink from MattAust's mod (which I have permission for, but apparently don't) and gas masks from Hidden Items Pack v2 (which I have permission from Cunico for, but apparently don't)...
🙃
soft egret
Only the mod authors who'se mods you are using can really punish you. And Steam staff could. But Steam staff has millions of workshop items that they would need to check to find yours. Sooo.. You are fine I'd say.
paper prawn
I just don't want to do the wrong thing tbh... all the shite here in the last couple of months makes you think you know?
soft egret
But the same applies if you just take someones mods without permissions. Which is shit. And which is what this channel is about.
But we can't do much about it besides reporting it to BI and hoping they can remove it. And again there are thousands of items for BI to remove. They just don't have time
mint edge
pretty sure bi legal department is only paid to enforce stuff for bi, not for modders so i can imagine why it feels like nothing really changes
someone at bi prob gets forwarded alot of stuff for modders however usually its modders themselves that push stuff to steam to get their content issue resolved
fossil basalt
And to take it back to the Jonzie comment. All of his stuff is ripped/stolen from other games, so it’s not relevant.
wheat wave
what would this CUP special agreement be? please do tell
soft egret
I think you know way better than I do ^^
Redistributing game files is against EULA. which is what the CUP workshop upload is technically doing. Like Arma 2 models n stuff
I heard that you got the OK from BI for doing everything you do
wheat wave
👀
i didnt even come here for this but this sure is entertaining
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial and ArmaOnly purposes only; and
produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial and ArmaOnly purposes only.
this is the APL license
now that i've played internet lawyer, i dropped by to tell you that the whole withSix database has been uploaded to ModDB, so if any of your stuff is in there and you're not cool with it you might want to give them a piece of your mind
CUP got uploaded and they certainly did not ask us for permissions
as far as i know
soft egret
Yeah. We already talked about withSIX here
wheat wave
then i guess im late to the party
soft egret
Also we talked about how APL license doesn't allow you to upload other peoples stuff to steam workshop.
That's where the "CUP agreement" comes from regarding reuploading stuff that belongs to BI.
wheat wave
???
soft egret
I'm sure you have some kind of verbal okey that you can upload your mods that contain BI's content?
I thought I remembered someone saying that in CUP discord
soft egret
Because the steam subscriber agreement says that. About the Steam workshop specifically
That's exactly what we talked about here for an hour yesterday
Though I guess the subscriber agreement statement might not apply to CUP. Because you are contributors to the project. Not like you just repacked BI's stuff.
wheat wave
thats probably the case
but you said we had a special agreement with BI to do what we do
which (as far as i know) is not the case
BI never bothered us with redistribution of our content or what platform we could use
and i think they put rhs and cup specifically in their monetization email because we're the guys they get most reports from
soft egret
This topic has also be discussed in CUP discord btw. Concerning workshop uploads https://discordapp.com/channels/94832760677470208/94833592668000256/237839244041650177
I'm looking for the message from cup discord. Maybe I missremember
wheat wave
well, as i said, BI never bothered us on where we could or couldn't reupload
same as steam
as you said changing the content is enough to have the rights to do what we do
olive sparrow
dw about steam and BI assets, that's a red herring, the APL allows you license to develop the content within arma, meaning also rights to redistribute your work based on their content.
looking for exact wording to confirm things with respect to a general license is not that useful. unless you are in breach. then it's important to check the wording more carefully.
unfortunately a lot of commentators on arma licenses have no proper experience to inform their understanding of how legal processes work, and as a result they can see everything as black and white, when legal terms within licenses actually allow a lot of flexibility.
soft egret
@wheat wave I found what I remembered!
https://discordapp.com/channels/94832760677470208/94833592668000256/411790482272681984
Here. Wasn't about CUP but about the CUP license
wheat wave
we had the license go by BI to make sure we weren't violating any rules, that's true, but its far from an "agreement"
APL allows you to make changes to the license to some extent
soft egret
Yeah I just missremembered what that thing said half a year ago ^
wheat wave
😃
shell orchid
Just making A2 content work in A3 is enough to satisfy the APL-SA and APL license from BI to re-upload their content as a "mod"... because you've modded it....
Literally anyone could do CUP under a different name starting with the same BI source they released for exactly that purpose... it would just be a mountain of work...
BI released the source so that they didn't have to pay a contractor to port it into A3 lol
paper prawn
Dedmen was not talking about BI's permission, but Steam Workshop's conditions. But now I have gone back and read and reread what he posted, which was this: 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).This is where he and I disagree, since I say that if a mod owner (or BI) give you permission to redistribute then you can. I believe he says that they need to explicitely give permission to distribute on Steam Workshop, due to Steam's conditions.
Which I don't necessarily disagree is the case... just silly if the license in question says that you can distribute in any medium...
narrow topaz
Think of the license like a driver's license. Just because you have one that's completely valid doesn't necessarily mean you can drive anywhere you please with it. Some roads are privately owned, some require a toll, etc, etc. (In this case, Steam says you must drive your own car (or a car you helped build) and cannot borrow a friend's to drive on their road)
paper prawn
Nah... A license for software is a legal document, not a permit to do something like driving. When I worked in technology for Morgan Stanley we dealt a lot with software licenses, especially GNU ones - since we were on the bleeding edge of Linux integration on Wall Street.
My own view is that if a software license gives permission to redistribute, with no conditions other than keeping the licence intact for your distribution and all credits then you have permission to distribute on any distribution platform...
narrow topaz
Steam workshop is a private service. They can have their own rules which are more restrictive than the licenses used by the items uploaded to that service. If Steam says you must have permission to use their service, it's as simple as that.
paper prawn
We are not talking here of monetization and mods... but the conversation is not OT
But they are not: 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).ACE, for example, give you the right to submit workshop contributions on behalf of those other contributors. The ACE devs have indeed said so outside their license but some people disagree and say that they cannot give that permission...
Specifically on ACE's github, Dedmen said this: ```You can re-upload (license is a written reference) to SW all you want, as long as you clearly mark your upload as "unofficial". :)
Yes. The ACE team generally allows it. But Steam still doesn't
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/
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).
Meaning. You can only upload stuff that
You made completely by yourself
Was made by yourself and others. And all others gave you permission to reupload it.
As long as you are not a contributor to ACE none of these apply to you. Which means you cannot reupload it according to Steam.
I don't know if
you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors
Requires permission by all contributors or if the license is enough. Getting permission from every contributor is impossible I'd say.
Also
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.
Do you have enough rights on ACE that you can just let others put some different licenses onto it?```The reason I have an issue with this is I am producing a version of the ARMA3 Epoch mod with full ACE integration, which means I have to distribute ACE, Epoch client and Epoch server. I am a contributor to the latter two, but not ACE... But both the ACE and Epoch teams give their permission to distribute derivatives on Steam (so long as you distinguish them from the official mods)... But I am trying to work out whether legally I can. Some say no, some say yes...
narrow topaz
You cannot without Steam having the ability to take your work down if they choose to do so.
paper prawn
Not under their current license. They would have to release a new version under a new license surely? In that case sure
But you would still have the rights to the old product under the old license surely?
narrow topaz
It has nothing to do with ACE's license
paper prawn
Then no license should be needed for any mod. All mods need the permission of the mod dev/team or else...
narrow topaz
Steam's policy is that if you fail to meet one of these criteria: ```(made the product)
OR
(helped make the product and have permission from all other contributors)
Permission from the mod dev team should fulfill the latter
narrow topaz
But you are not a contributor to the mod, hence why you do not meet the requirement
paper prawn
"permission from all other contributors" includes the team in a colaberative mod surely
BTW, ACE team's view was You can re-upload (license is a written reference) to SW all you want, as long as you clearly mark your upload as "unofficial". :)
Dedmen's post was after that... disagreeing...
narrow topaz
Realistically, the ACE team has given you their approval. Nobody from Steam is going to investigate thoroughly enough to remove your mod, or else all of the blatant reuploads would be gone by now
Correct. You have ACEs approval. You do not have Steam's approval (ergo, if Steam wanted to they could remove your upload on the grounds of failing to meet one of the two criteria above, as you did not create the ACE mod, nor are not a contributor to the ACE mod)
paper prawn
But that's where we need the input of Eggbeast or someone who really knows this stuff tbh like Karel
But no one has actually given a legal opinion, just a personal opinion... 😦
narrow topaz
There aren't any legal repercussions here. If you have approvals and permissions from all IP owners, worst case is Steam removes your upload and you have to use something else.
paper prawn
True, I guess. As I said before, I am the sort of person who does care and wants to do the right thing... reading this thread emphasises this at times... But I do have a additional bit of code for ACE3 so maybe I'll submit it (I should then I'll be an ACE3 and Epoch contributor and all will be golden 😉 )
Again though, would be nice to actually get a legal opinion on this (because ACE is not the only mod released under the GPL license). That's where we need the input of Eggbeast or someone who really knows this stuff tbh like Karel because in my previous IT life there was an explicit understanding of GPL that seems to be somehow different when uploading to Steam...
If only we'd known of ways to disarm GPL, man, we would have run riot at Morgan Stanley 😉
muted lantern
When uploading to Steam the site's licence takes precedence as it's the T&Cs for using the service they provide. Regardless of the licence the original content creator issues for use and distribution.
paper prawn
The issue is how we read this: 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).I (and others) read it one way, others read it another
The issue is whether a mod team can give you the right to upload. I (and others) say yes, others say no
muted lantern
In this case, legally, the Steam licence over rules the mod team
The company that owns the site sets the rules for you using their service
paper prawn
Although... reading it again... I have been misreading it for a while. Basically that does say that if you have made no contribution you cannot upload, despite the mod dev's permission. So all ACE distributions on Steam are illegal and subject to DCMAs
muted lantern
No, because the people that would issue DCMA's are the creators of ACE
I think the main problem is that the Steam Agreement was not written with this situation in mind
the repercussions of what you want to carry out would be a) ACE tell you to take it down (unlikely since you have an agreement with them)
or b) Steam takes it down (highly unlikely because they're not going to check everything and likely don't really care)
BUT
By uploading content that you didn't create you would be in breach of the Steam User agreement
The main issue in all of this is that the T&C's for Steam were not created with this kind of situation in mind
paper prawn
Commy2 had it right Just here to say Steam is shit. Carry on.
muted lantern
lol
The only light at the end of the tunnel is a mention of certain apps having different rules for uploading to their respective workshops. This infers that a change could be made, but that would be up to BI et al and given that they don't seem to have the largest legal team I would say that option is unlikely
I don't think Steam is shit, we all use it and the workshop is extremely handy, but the situation we're discussing isn't something that would have been envisioned when they wrote the T&C's.
paper prawn
I used GamersGate in the old days. When everyone started moving to Steam I knew that things would be shite. As a server owner, when a mod updates it is a crap storm, cause they don't even provide a way to not auto update the client side mod, despite the fact that it may take some time for a server owner to update... Steam, has, does and will suck forever cause they don't give a shit, and the game companies don't care cause it is just an easy way to get games (even pre-alpha ones) to market!!!
muted lantern
I would also state that I'm sure because Steam haven't considered this situation, there are a lot of technical (but with permission) infringements on there.
paper prawn
Agreed
muted lantern
I predate stuff like that, went from the OFP era to Arma 3 due to work
paper prawn
OFP I got and have on CD 😉 Great game, changed my life!
muted lantern
Steam/Valve is also a large tech company, they've never been the most adaptable!
paper prawn
Before that Microprose all the way 😉
paper prawn
You did. Thanks
muted lantern
np
paper prawn
I know I've been banging on about this, but in part it is to identify where mod devs appear not to have control over their work when they do want it redistributed. It really seems like the mod devs are sort of screwed when they don't (by BI and Steam) and when they do (by Steam)... It is a situation that really needs to be addressed but won't because cartels are just gonna cartel
muted lantern
Yup, the whole situation is both complex and open to abuse, sadly. But then there's not much that can be done a lot of the time until after it's uploaded (and consequently posted here).
Anyway, good luck with the conundrum. I've got to shift.
paper prawn
Cheers
echo orchid
the reason steam needs the uploader to be author or have some ip rights
is because you share these ip rights with valve for promotional purposes
you cannot legally share ip rights for stuff that you have none to begin with
paper prawn
Unless of course that the original uploader has uploaded it to Steam and given you permission to do the same... re: ACE3. But again... Steam seems to be saying that they will not enforce or accept any license but their's. I know about CC and GPL licenses, dealt with them on Wall Street... This is why Commy2 (and me from 10 years ago) are right: Just here to say Steam is shit. Carry on.Real solution is to remove Steam Workshop as a distribution mechanism...
But no one will do that because we have made people dumb with Workshop downloads tbh.... very dumb and the only other automated alternative is run by a money-grabbing whore!
With the way Steam works (state of the Ark) every time a mod releases server owners who have a life or are at work or with their kids basically 😱 and curse Steam
While Bohemia dont have the legal resources of a Wall Street form, Steam do. A class action lawsuit firm the game companies against Steam based on their obvious acceptance of game company IP violations would be interesting. But they are a cartel... So nothing to see here
prisma scaffold
I disagree completely, Arma community was rife with elitism, that held the modding community back for years. So many modders isolated themselves to whatever milsim community they belong to. See that cool thing they did with whatever mod? To bad, they will never share how they did it. Because that made their community more "exclusive". Steam has opened up a lot of idea sharing with communities, as well as much needed exposure to mods that wouldn't see the light of day in a dusty website. Does it open up the complexity of IP abuse? Yes, yes it does. But what we get in return has been a exponential amount of new content.
paper prawn
TBH, absolute rubbish... Steam has done more to harm modding, make players dumber about using their computers and irritate legit server owners than enhance it. Just IMO...
chilly silo
@prisma scaffold I disagree completely, Arma community was rife with elitism, that held the modding community back for years. So many modders isolated themselves to whatever milsim community they belong to. See that cool thing they did with whatever mod? To bad, they will never share how they did it.
Elitism. I’m sorry that’s complete cods wallop. I’ve been part of this community since 2002. Actively modding for it since 2003. Way back when, in the old days everyone helped each other out. Cooperation and information sharing between teams was the norm simply because there wasn’t a lot of information out there. A lot of friendships were made out of that sharing. Some of those people I still spend time with today.
From my perspective, there was a shift around 2009. Several main themes were the cause of this (in my opinion):
"New people" came into the scene around the middle/end of ArmA1, arguably a new generation with different values than us old farts. Mods were frequently ripped apart and parts stolen, repackaged and published without even credit. A lot of guys got pissed off with the public scene and retreated into their own little groups to build and play simply because of the bullshit that went on (and continues to this day)
“The Open Source Faction” A group that believed they had the right to data mine anything out there. A lot of content and especially scripts were lifted directly without even asking and repacked within a few of the “elite” mod packs. One particular ‘star of the scene’ claimed that it was impossible to copyright scripts “as there was only so many ways to write a function”. That particular line was shot down eventually but people still try using it. The constant screwing over of the biggest contributors is going to lead to protectionism, it was only natural.
"Too steep a learning curve" - Arguably the biggest reason modding slowed down. With ArmA2 came a new difficulty level for modding. A lot of the old techniques didn’t work anymore. Little or no documentation was available, the people that historically were the innovators left the scene to either work for BI or had simply grown up and moved on. Fewer teams were forming and fewer stuck around because it was so hard to get knowledge need to make decent mod. And we were ALL in the same boat. Several “Elite” teams formed. Mostly because they were friends to begin with. But in all that time when I asked someone for info or posted on the forums; someone always replied and tried to help.
"Commercial Value" - This is what did me in initially. 3d Models suddenly became valuable. People were ripping models from the game and the Mod packs and selling them online. And it wasn’t an isolated thing. I had an 3d asset development business at the time and it was a significant threat to us. I caught four people from this community selling mine and other people’s models on Turbosquid, CG trader and others. That lead to people becoming far more aware of their IP rights and is the reason this channel exists. - EDIT - I'll also say that "new" people have taught me as much as old guard ever did. Its one of the reasons i'm still here after 16 years
TLDR: All of these contributed to the reduction in the modding community. Its been my experience that its less about Eliteism and more about community. Spend the time to make some friends, contribute, help others and you will in turn have people step out of the shadows and help you.
Too many people take first without actually asking. Same in this game as it is in the real world. Sad really.
soft egret
@paper prawn I believe he says that they need to explicitely give permission to distribute on Steam Workshop, due to Steam's conditions. No I don't say that.
You still didn't understand? ^^. You can only reupload if you CONTRIBUTED to the Mod. Which.. As CUP Team are the makers of CUP.. They did contribute so ofc they can upload.
Then no license should be needed for any mod. All mods need the permission of the mod dev/team or else... No. Permission is also not enough. Read my line above.
Permission from the mod dev team should fulfill the latter No it doesn't just read god dammit.
(helped make the product and have permission from all other contributors) Here. just READ that. You cannot just ignore the first half.
"permission from all other contributors" includes the team in a colaberative mod surely Yes it does. But you again ignore the first half. You can't just ignore half of a contract.
If only we'd known of ways to disarm GPL, man, we would have run riot at Morgan Stanley No one disarmed GPL. You are free to share and redistribute on any platform you want if the platform allows it. Let's take as a bad example GPL-licensed porn. Can you upload that to youtube?. NO! Just because GPL allows you to redistribute freely, doesn't mean you can just upload wherever you feel like.
So all ACE distributions on Steam are illegal and subject to DCMAs Correct. ACE creators can DMCA you all they want. Because their permission for you to upload to workshop is actually not worth anything on steams terms.
Unless of course that the original uploader has uploaded it to Steam and given you permission to do the same Dude would you for once actually read the whole Sentence instead of always skipping parts?
snow bloom
I’m going to say this as I think most will agree, stop arguing about this. We’ve seen this debate dozens of times, unless you’ve got something constructive to add other than the “you’re wrong and here’s why” I’d suggest calling it quits.
pliant oar
in early OFP modding times nobody cared about licenses, until theft started to happen and various first major dramas , this became even more issue with A1
also modders at that time didn't really care about what TOS/EULA was on ofp.info, armedassualt.info or moddb
ironically over the time, most of the mirrors had came up similar ToS to steam's workshop...
as long as the mirrors exist for commercial purpose and adhere to laws including takedowns they need to have some
elitism was there always (still is) so that's nothing new or old, it's just part of ego problem which is omnipresent
but then there were also always those who shared knowledge and helped, so i would say balance is in match
what people maybe missing that early on it was easier (timewise) to make high quality content (at that time) than it's now
and the theft issue, it was there always, i remember OFP, A1, A2, OA dramas over stolen content way before any workshop existed
steep quiver
I mean you could in theory change some small stuff in ACE (sources are available after all), become a de facto contributor and upload then. ACE team is OK with unofficial uploads apparently, so I doubt they'd have much of an issue assuming you don't do that to try and bypass monetization permissions.
The whole point of ACE reuploads is to include compats etc in order for players of this or that community just download and not have to copy bunch of stuff manually.
Overall I feel like this is going by the letter, not by the spirit of the rules. Yes, you're risking to run afoul of Steam/Valve, but if ACE team is OK with it I do not see a reason to go around and report the reuploads.
And of course this would be resolved if Bohemia allowed checking optionals in the launcher saving them in preset files.
prisma scaffold
To further discussion into this. What would it take for a modder here to agree to have their mod on a monetized server? I mean if they are not dropping your mod behind a paywall, and selling say skins. What is the difference between people gaining money via their server that way, vs say people gaining money via twitch and youtube that utilize your mod?
soft egret
I mean you could in theory change some small stuff in ACE (sources are available after all), become a de facto contributor and upload then Exactly that's the way to go. Then you are even good on Steams terms.
but if ACE team is OK with it I do not see a reason to go around and report the reuploads. Yeah no one does that anyway. And ACE team really doesn't care.
@prisma scaffold Because BI's monetization rules say you need to have permission for any mods you use.
Youtube and Twitch rules don't say that.
prisma scaffold
But it's the owners need.
So I'm asking you as modders
Keep in mind all this is still "hosted" even when making potential live content
soft egret
You mean what a Server owner requires to get permission for example from me.
I personally want to see that they are not using any other mods without permission. And I also keep an eye out to make sure they aren't just trying to rip their players off.
steep quiver
Yeah no one does that anyway. And ACE team really doesn't care.
I just don't see why there is so much ruckus about it lately...
prisma scaffold
So what would want to prove said that? Also what denotes ripping off to you?
soft egret
Same. Grahame's problem is that he wants to play by the rules. And the rules say you cannot upload without being a contributor.
Most people just don't care about that rule. But if he want's to then that's his good right.
Just don't know what's the use in trying to prove that the rules don't say what the rules actually do clearly say.
to prove that. I look at the modlist. For most mods I know that they generally allow/disallow monetization. For some mods I request to see the permission. That's it.
And I don't know. Didn't see anyone trying to rip people off. I guess the answer to that is "when I feel like it"
prisma scaffold
Ok fair enough, I would be curious on others opinions.
I can't say anybody uses my A3 mods, since it's mostly my re-textured stuff. But in Space Engineers
I can name a few servers that have montization schemes with my mod.
I personally don't care, but respect people that do. I just think a lot of mod makers forget as a server owner myself. I owe $135ish each month, which honestly is a lot of money
When I made a mod, it cost me time sure, money?
Only if I took days off of work.
I'm actually looking to host a panel at Emerald City Comic Con this coming year about this topic.
soft egret
I'm also a server owner. If the BI rules weren't there I probably wouldn't care as much. But then again some mods are under non-commercial licenses.
I'm just not wanting to let people knowingly and blatantly ignore rules and getting through with it and even earning money while doing so.
prisma scaffold
Which I agree 100%
I just think people forget there is a BIG difference between some one hiding your content behind a paywall, vs it just being a feature that doesn't apply to a donation scheme.
soft egret
We'll many mods are used to make playing on that server more fun -> more players -> more money
So yeah they might only be indirectly connected to the "donation" scheme (Not talking about donations here. Everyone is free to accept donations all they want)
prisma scaffold
But then that gets into who is it costing more?
If my mods on SE collect dust, doesn't cost me a thing. I buy the cheapest server that could handle 20 players and it still cost me $30
soft egret
Just taking other peoples stuff without asking isn't suddenly totally fine just because you are paying money for things
That's like "It was fine that I robbed that old lady because I have to buy food for my kids"
fossil basalt
Herein lies the biggest problem. If you are worried about the cost of your server, get rid of it.
prisma scaffold
But they are not taking? Just hosting?
soft egret
they are taking mods. And hosting them on their server.
To make the server more attractive to players.
Why else would you run mods if it doesn't add any value to your server? You wouldn't.
And any added value means more potential player willing to invest money
prisma scaffold
Why would you make a mod if the community doesn't use it? or want to use it?
soft egret
That's not the point. It's not about the community.
It's about the few that choose to just not care about rules
prisma scaffold
To me, if we get into that logic we might as well go after youtubers, twitch, ect
Since plenty host servers with mods on them and get money via views
fossil basalt
There is an old saying, “gas, grass or ass, nobody rides for free.” With regards to communities, you will find that one guy had a server, another had his own mods, another guy was good at scripting, etc , etc, etc. That is how Communities grow. NOT by constantly trying to find ways to recoup the costs for your server.
prisma scaffold
I'm expecting a novel by Uro
fossil basalt
Most likely mobile and taking time to fix the autocorrects
prisma scaffold
lol
soft egret
Most of the youtubers/twitch streamers can't do anything about the mods on the server they play on though. They just play on there to have fun. They could also play anywhere else.
It's the server owners who put these mods on.
And if server owner == streamer that's a different game I agree.
prisma scaffold
I can name plenty of said ones
soft egret
Yeah I also have a couple that I reported over the last weeks
prisma scaffold
Shacktac could potentially be one 😄
I think it boils down to the Tesla and Edison argument.
Edison is generally viewed as a thief of Telsa's inventions. But it can be argued that if it wasn't for Edisons marketing abilities, Telsa's inventions wouldn't of had nearly a impact on life.
I guess what people see is a lot of rules, I see a more emotional argument. Similar to when a cop decides to give you a speeding ticket or when not to despite you actually speeding.
fossil basalt
The difference here is that Edison would have been sanctioned , Banned and DMCAd
prisma scaffold
And Telsa's ideas would of collected dust.
soft egret
Well if Tesla doesn't want his ideas to be stolen and instead collect dust. That's his decision to make. Not anyone else's
fossil basalt
You obey a creators requirements or deal with the fallout
prisma scaffold
Then why not go after said youtube, twitch, and to be frank pillar communities that are guilty of said thing.
heavy moon
Imo if you do not have spare income available to rent/buy/host a server then why do you expect others to pay for you to do so?
It is your choice to administrate a server, expecting others to pay for it when it was your choice to go into a rental agreement that you possibly don't have the spare income for it is poor planning and irresponsible.
A lot of people go into operating a server these days expecting to be able to monetise other peoples content/IP without even asking for a licence/licence exemption from those IP owners to do so, this is wholly more obvious when looking at RP communities as they are generally operated by younger people, who are not aware of, nor have any care for, the legal implications of doing so.
They have it in their heads that donating and getting items in return is ok (even is just cosmetic), when in actual fact as soon as they start operating any scheme where something is given in return for money paid it then becomes a business, those donations are now sales and of course when they cross that line there are legal and monetary implications outside Arma, such as business registration, taxation/VAT, ToS for using their services, conditions of sale agreements, etc. In addition of this they are profiting from the work of IP owners without licence to do so and in many cases where those IP owners strictly prohibit commercial exploitation of their IP.
So their "im only operating this for my friends" arguement is thrown right out of the window in those cases, they crossed the precipice from voluntary donations to commercial enterprise as soon as they have a website that offers items as a sale. Trying to dress that up as anything else is just wasting everyones time.
prisma scaffold
Again, not saying that yes and no have some gray area. It definitely doesn't. But the decisions behind them are far more emotional when it comes to sources the rules as a decision.
soft egret
Because it's not worth the effort
In some cases modders go after youtube/twitch though. Not like it doesn't happen at all
prisma scaffold
Also I agree Uro, I think that is a huge mistake that a lot of people make when first time hosting.
and what is the main cause that causes such harsh fights between modders and server owners.
Also I disagree with the server cost to some extent. On one hand yes, you should have the spare money to deal with the base cost of the server. But no one adds the fact the dozens of man hours to work, host, and play to build the community up. I remember spending 40 hours + 40 hour day job a week on a server and community.
Community management is constant, modding can be whenever you want, and when a game is like A3 is done with drastic changes, the after work can be very little.
heavy moon
My stance given the current environment and lack of ethics with a lot of server operators is that I prohibit any monetisation of content I create.
In regards to the workshop, I really feel it needs to be curated and not a free for all, that is the only way it will ever be cleaned up and operated with respect to IP owners and copyright.
Sure it would mean that BI would need to have a dedicated department to validate submissions, but all of the ripped content on there would never have the chance to be published in the first place.
If they are expecting to open up DayZ:SA to the same platform and inherrant issues then they really need to get it in order.
also FYI I used to operate multiple arma2, dayzmod and arma3 servers, I had a voluntary donation button on my website, nobody ever got anything for that other than helping support the server, we never got many donations even though the game servers were always populated. I had a strict game rule set published on the website and in-game via BE messaging, my code was error free and the servers ran smoothly, we had consistent server population of 30-40+ on each server. The rental costs were iro £40-50pcm and I paid for that out of my own pocket. We had a teamspeak that people were free to use, they could contact us if they wanted their own chatrooms, we never charged for anything
So the arguement of "I need to monetise to pay for my server", in my view, is complete crap.
prisma scaffold
I think to pay and to assist are too very different concepts
heavy moon
I do agree that administering servers takes time, I had a team of guys who were at one time regular players, they asked if there was anything they could do to support the server, so I made them game admins on the servers they played on, this fixed the time issue by delegation. 😃
steep quiver
You have to be willing to put in time and effort...
heavy moon
the initial time sink was short but fairly hetfy, adding additional mission features to the game server was negligable afterwards. the server administration itself was pretty hands off as I automated everything, any issues I was alerted via email.
prisma scaffold
At our peak with Space engineers when our Patreon was making $300ish
heavy moon
anyways we're kinda drifting off topic here 😃
prisma scaffold
True
I got to go to bed, it was a good discussion need to get up 4 hours for work. XD
heavy moon
I might go for an early lunch 😉
soft egret
Out of dedmen's tales of randomly clicking onto things.
Dedmen reported a Monetized server for half a dozen violations.
Then randomly clicked onto a server a few entries below and found 28 violations.
Literally the next server below that one, 8 violations.
Next one below is unmodded.
Next one 4 violations.
#WhenWillItEnd
stoic beacon
you got from 28 to 8 to 4. That's good progress 😉
narrow topaz
I play that game when I'm bored at work. "out of X servers I click on, how many will I report?"
carmine folio
This channel is running hot today
snow bloom
Okay so that community seems to have reuploaded my web files after I left my home for a few days. Best way to get my files taken down?
rapid wagon
hit them with a dmca
faint nacelle
or their service provider?
stoic beacon
You can find out the provider if you know the Server IP, which is fairly easy to get
snow bloom
I’ve issued a takedown through Hostinger (the hosting provider). I received a message from one of them this morning saying they were not my files, despite my name being clearly visible on the forum home page
snow bloom
Hmm so apparently according to a legal team I apparently have no IP rights, because there was a CSS library used, despite most of the work being my own
If someone could clarify that’d be cool
snow bloom
I created a series of web pages, as well as a forum theme, using an open source css framework. They have reuploaded said files with minor changes and they claim it’s no longer my IP property, despite my name in full view on the forum theme
dull moon
your idea, your changes, your IP
no matter the tools you used, the result is yours
you could also file a C&D
prisma scaffold
Yea, with something like that you will probably need to scare them with a C&D.
You also might need to read the open source agreement/license if it has one.
CSS style and HTML can be a hard fight though
Is a good article on the subject
#4 happens a lot.
keen trout
@prisma scaffold you know, mod teams needs servers too, build servers, GPU tests servers, svn hosting, git hosting, websites etc
and then all mod tools, photoshop, substance painter etc
that's a lot of $$$
heavy moon
@grand oyster unless you know for a fact such statistics, which I completely doubt, that is a pretty reckless comment and my £1200 Autodesk bill will disagree with you.
grand oyster
Oops, I dropped my /s
keen trout
I'm just glad I had to renew my entire jetbrains subscription the same week they had a 50% off promotion 😄
tight copper
Im just glad I am a student
90% of all the stuff is free
Oh and I get a lot of free stuff on top of that as a ministery of defence employee...
grand oyster
Oof
river spear
Tax payers money
But then again I benefit aswell so
Visual studio 2017, GitHub, lots of stuff you get for free to lure you in
tawny sentinel
@river spear Socialism is awful, isn't it? 😉
echo orchid
note here, very few software is actually free for commercial use
some might have lower prices than indie, but def not free
soft egret
Which is fine for us modders... Unless a monetized Arma server comes along
I think my student licenses also contain a non-commercial clause
tight copper
Without thinking about it, I have done quite some commercial work on an edu licence
during internships
mostly because my own gear ran circles around what IT gear they offered at the internship places
soft egret
Same at my workplace. I use 3ds max because the free tools that I get there make me rip my hair out.
But I don't use it for commercial stuff directly. Only to test commercial software on the models
I never actually thought about it. But if you make a mod using non-commercially licensed software. Can you then allow a monetized Arma server to use it even? Because that would be commercial use then
river spear
@tawny sentinel Sì sì
mint edge
@soft egret thats definitely jumping on very thin ice
vast notch
@tight copper "ministery"?
olive sparrow
This is one of the many reasons mod makers deny monetization rights to end users
echo orchid
lol, nope it isn't ^
olive sparrow
Speak for yourself Pufu, let me speak for me
echo orchid
mod makers
sure, then do so using singular nouns Rob
olive sparrow
I was also speaking for many mod makers i know. An opinion is an opinion. No need for you to contradict it like its an absolute state.
prisma scaffold
You would have to get Adobie or whoever involved on that.
Which they would give zero cares, unless your a actual business that has made large profits on a education license.
@soft egret
It goes back to the realities of IP, and how it's really just a gray blob in the eyes of the law.
paper prawn
Well, unless you are selected to be made an example of... after all, legal precedent shows that you have to demonstrably protect your IP to be able to protect your IP so best not to put yourself somewhere where you can help the IP owner enforce their rights.
IP is not a gray blob... it might be regarding games and Steam but in the real world it is something that is ruthlessly enforced
prisma scaffold
There is a example
There is actual laws in place to allow IPS to be taken from original owners.
Similar to how companies can fight for website addresses.
heavy moon
thats why companies so vigorously defend their IP, if they do not protect their IP chances are they can lose copyright, trademark, IP protections
photography is a good example field if you wanna microscope some IP cases
prisma scaffold
Yep, and there is plenty of legal cases to argue things like code/scripts
heavy moon
there is a large 'gaming' case going on atm, that just moved into discovery phase, it involves not only IP infringement but breach of licence and contracts. That case is Crytek vs CIG, it will be interesting to watch how that unfolds now that the Motion to Dismiss phase is over.
prisma scaffold
Yea, been watching that as well.
There is also, not so unrelated case of the lawsuit against Round-up about a guy that claims their product gave him cancer
Jury awarded damaged to him, DESPITE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE linking the two together.
Hence why a lot of people rather settle, then deal with a jury trial.
heavy moon
a lot of those companies try to go for settlements over trials as trials set legal precedence, which can hurt them in any future cases brought against them
prisma scaffold
Yea, hence why I always tell people. Don't think BI's rules and entitlement will protect your mods. We are but a spec of dust compared to big legal cases out there, and most judges will just look at us like "Dees Nerds..."
Get evidence, make a case, document everything. Even if none of it escalates to a court room. This holds very true to people living in the states, as decisions can be very emotional deciding.
heavy moon
BI's licences are designed to protect their products/IP, not anyone else's, they have no reason to protect content they are not invested in.
prisma scaffold
Can't even imagine how much it would cost them to sue some one a crossed the sea.
heavy moon
well they do state that their licences are served in CZ, so they could take you to court in CZ, outside of that WIPO gives them global protections
prisma scaffold
Wonder how hard it would be to get some one extradited on the matter.
heavy moon
no idea
I guess it would depend on any extradition agreements in place as well as how clear cut any IP infringement was
fossil basalt
echo orchid
I was also speaking for many mod makers i know. An opinion is an opinion. No need for you to contradict it like its an absolute state.
you didn't voice it like your opinion, you voiced it like an absolute state. also, in general terms, try and speak just for your own self.
none of the people i know and have been making mods are not allowing monetization because of the said reason, but i have NEVER tried speaking in their name either
prisma scaffold
What is BI's policies in regards to modifying and re-uploading say the escape maps so you can utilize modded units in them?
mint edge
escape maps?
paper prawn
They are missions, not maps though. What does the mission creator say?
prisma scaffold
BI made them
Escape from Tonoa, Malden, ect
Sorry I call them maps (old Half-life modding habit)
faint nacelle
@prisma scaffold from quick look I would say they are not BI made
possible roots in Arma 3 are here https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/180080-co10-escape/
and looks like lots of ports and remakes with different flavours
the ones on that thread look like theyre APL-SA so they allow modifications as long as you keep line of credits etc in there
and release on same license
guys over at #arma3_scenario might now more details
paper prawn
Uh, roots are here: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=16162
Though I guess you said A3
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/124404-escape-chernarus-mission-release/ Was ported to other A2 maps by many others... A2 versions are still at this point better than the A3 versions tbh
Historical note: Engima's Dynamic Weather Script is still the best available in ARMA. I use it on my A3 Epoch servers and it will (with permission) be added as an option to the ARMA3 Epoch release in its next update 😃
Engima's response on the first page of his thread to whether you can edit or port is: ```Response to edit/port mission:
Please do! It should be quite easy to port since I've had that in mind all the time during development. I have plans to port it to Takistan myself. PM me if you need details about it! I'd be glad if you then reference me in some way. Engima (with G and I in opposite order :)).```
DDG playing it with an ACE2 update in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5DFRCg-gvs "There is just blood everywhere!"
tawny sentinel
@paper prawn NeoArmageddon already has a fantastic port of escape from XYZ with modded units in REDFOR and BLUEFOR varieties for the most common mods like CUP AND RHS, if you're interested.
They're on all sorts of maps you can imagine, and it's on the WS too.
paper prawn
Thanks, will check that out
soft egret
APL-SA You must attribute the material in the manner specified by the author or licensor
With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) and share (i.e. copy, distribute or transmit) the material under the following conditions
https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license-share-alike
soft egret
And again. The 2 most recently montization approved servers.
First one is unmodded.
Second one.. Website link is invalid, but rules link works.
Steam workshop reuploads and no permission to use on a monetized server for atleast
9 mods.
soft egret
Went up to the 15 newest servers. 4 websites offline (Probably already closed down) and one more with atleast 8 mods without permission.
The others were btw all unmodded or not online yet. No modded server that actually has permissions came into my sight yet
dusk dew
Somebody should make a server called WeAreBreakingIPRights, and apply for monetization
See if it gets approved with no permission
languid fog
W.A.B.I.P.R
prisma scaffold
I'm curious on who does the approving
soft egret
Why?
I know who does. But why?
prisma scaffold
9 mods.
They don't check the mods
prisma scaffold
They asked us when we got approved.
soft egret
They have a checkbox that says "I got permission for all 3rd party mods"
And they say "you can't monetize CUP and RHS" in their email.
But still I found a CUP and RHS monetized server yesterday.
prisma scaffold
Then, clearly there is a miscommunication.
We were asked about the list of mods used at the time.
Technically we are a monetized server, although we never actually written any donation schemes.
soft egret
Maybe they did that back then.. But they don't seem to do it anymore
prisma scaffold
I personally feel that BI interprets their rules different then what we see it as.
I mean the original scope was really to prevent people from putting content that isn't theirs behind a paywall.
Vs now, were simply having it on the server is against the rules.
You gone after them yet
soft egret
Yeah... And the problem with that is...?
They are not approved nor do they monetize Arma
prisma scaffold
Fair enough.
echo orchid
@soft egret
But still I found a CUP and RHS monetized server yesterday.
where where 🔨
soft egret
carmine folio
why do they need a monetization approval if they are only accepting donations, visible on/for Teamspeak only? or am I missing something?
soft egret
They don't need it. That's what I was trying to say
carmine folio
although, the changelogs do say they have shops set up, but really vague about them
soft egret
Oh you mean that. I thought you mean the thingy Sabre One was talking about.
Yeah they don't need approval I think. But they have it, and that means that have to go by the rules
carmine folio
Nah, I was reffering to the DominationGaming one, I should have been more clear
soft egret
Their server will only Launch tomorrow anyway.. They probably plan to get ingame stuff going
Quite telling right? Their server didn't even start and they are already violating the rules 😄
carmine folio
I bet that store is gonna grow in offer tomorrow xD
soft egret
I've seen that Ak. Name with that ISIS flag as avatar before 🤔 On a different server that I also reported
soft egret
LOL. Just found this while scrolling through my PM contacts..
https://s.sqf.ovh/Discord_2018-08-23_19-07-52.png
Well dude.. F you.
echo orchid
well, i can't seem to find them on A3 monetization list
soft egret
Already gone! Nice
pliant oar
give finger, lose whole arm
merry kestrel
👌
signal hemlock
How would I go about protecting my work I have done https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198057298594/myworkshopfiles/
carmine folio
if am gonna assume those are not your uploads? guys will be giving you a tip how to do it (I have no experience in that)
faint nacelle
you would likely assume wrong. See usernames..
and you cant really protect your work so that someone could not use it against your license
you can however report a monetized that uses your mod to BI and they will lose their monetizing permission if they do not remove your mod.
stoic beacon
And you can file a DMCA if someone reuploads your content to steam. Just click on report and below the box is a little link to the DMCA site.
soft egret
Btw @signal hemlock After seeing your license. You should take a look at the CUP-License.
lone yacht
possible infrigments here https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1403885132
@lofty steeple , any cup guys and hamf guys
soft egret
i hope yoshoMum that you have permissions to reup these mods :D
Is that a joke? :D
@dull moon
lone yacht
somewhat, im still hopefull someone out there has the decency to ask first
dull moon
since i got nothing better to do for today, i might start another episonde of "audiocustoms furious workshop rampage"
¯_(ツ)_/¯
soft egret
Well... Even if he asked, how would he get permission to reupload a mod who'se license explicitly says reuploads are not allowed under any circumstances
lone yacht
not sure whos that is but yeah, i had extreme doubts haha
soft egret
Literally reported 2 dozen servers in the last hour.
Even ArmStalker.. Although I very much like what they do. But rule violation is violation, no matter who's doing it.
soft egret
And I'm still going. Another half dozen done.
soft egret
I think I'm at 3 dozen total today now.
prisma scaffold
You reporting for just TFAR?
soft egret
nope
all mods who'se authors are in AMA
or which I know they explicitly don't allow monetization
Btw total count today from my E-Mails: 34
Another 7 on wednesday
prisma scaffold
IMO you really should just focus on your mods. You have no evidence that they may have gotten permission or not. :\
prisma scaffold
Exceptions happen
midnight meadow
i want to play
soft egret
no they don't
midnight meadow
how?
soft egret
@midnight meadow #looking_for_game
prisma scaffold
I think you might find a lot of the e-mails don't get processed then.
prisma scaffold
Go to the #looking_for_game channel Nassar
Basically story of warning, false accusations can lead to bad rep and even open to lawsuits.
I'm only assuming you took the time to investigate on each case.
soft egret
I only report mods that I know that they don't have permission
prisma scaffold
and you asked said arthurs each time for each case?
soft egret
no
prisma scaffold
Becuase that is what BI is going to ask each one.
soft egret
No they don't
Some mods explicitly don't allow ANYONE to monetize their mods
no need to ask them again for every case just to have them say "no" again
prisma scaffold
It's called delegation.
narrow topaz
If a mod explicitely states "We do not allow monetization", Bohemia doesn't go contact the mod author. Burden of proof is on the server using the mod
prisma scaffold
So if I put that on my mod, and then allow a exception for a server then what?
merry kestrel
then you shouldnt have put such a disclaimer on your mod
narrow topaz
Then Bohemia would contact that server and they would have to provide proof you made an exception
prisma scaffold
Which requires them to ask 😛
narrow topaz
The server, not the mod author
soft egret
Most guys label their mods with a license that either allows monetization explicitly. Or says it's usually not allowed and people can get permissions
but again.
prisma scaffold
Yea, but the point is. Don't assume, and go on some crusade. We are talking about dealing with 100's of arma players. You don't enforce another companies IP on their behalf, why would you do it here..
soft egret
Mods that 100% never under any circumstances ever allow monetization.. No need to ask.
merry kestrel
I would like people to assume when I say dont monetize my stuff, then dont monetize my stuff
prisma scaffold
in reality, monetization doesn't mean they actually monetized anything. Maybe they want the process done to later ask, ect.
soft egret
Yeah I also had a couple of these.
But being approved for monetization is enough to have to follow the rules
narrow topaz
Long story short: Your personal opinion is largely irrelevant. Anyone can report a server for any violation. It then goes to Bohemia to handle. Unless you're the one reporting it to BIS, who reports who for what isn't really your concern.
soft egret
Yeah that's also true. I can report any server all I want.
The server owner then has to provide proof to bohemia that they can use the mods. Either they can, or they can't
it's just that bohemia staff will hate me for wasting their time 😄
prisma scaffold
They should just charge a processing fee unless your the owner of the mod in violation 😛
soft egret
Suuure...
Give a fuck about our rights.. And then even charge when trying to get it fixed.
Great idea
prisma scaffold
I'm all for modders IP rights, I also am for community rights.
narrow topaz
A community violating the rules has no rights to monetization. Doesn't matter who reports them
faint nacelle
all rights expect that rules are followed
there can be rights only if there are rules
back to modding though.
->
prisma scaffold
Instead of calling the police(BI) on every slight, maybe we should re-work the rules. Maybe require people to submit evidence of each permission to BI before approval, or work with the community to get permissions.
soft egret
We tried that already...
And that should already be required
but BI doesn't even check out what mods people are running
prisma scaffold
You think ArmStalker would not attempt to rectify the situation if you just approached them?
soft egret
Or people just apply with a vanilla server. And then add the mods after they got approval
They probably would
As I also wrote in my report. I would give them permission immediately if they'd ask
they didn't ask though. And they are just running it without permission, which violates the rules
prisma scaffold
Then, send them a e-mail and be like, hey, your voilating the BI rules. Lets work together to fix the problem.
narrow topaz
Not his place
soft egret
I don't have the time for that
I tried helping people already
mostly worthless so far.
narrow topaz
They signed an agreement with BIS stating they had permission. They lied to BIS, so it’s between them and BIS to fix it
prisma scaffold
Yea, and sadly the rules are very broad.
Which I think is a main cause of all of this hard end fighting.
narrow topaz
Not really. The agreement says you need permission from all mod authors to use mods on a monetized server
prisma scaffold
I also find it hypocritical, that servers are a easy target but not streamers who monetize their videos featuring mods.
narrow topaz
If they just checked the box without reading the TOS, that’s the servers problem
prisma scaffold
It should of been written that you need their permission if the mod is effected by a donation scheme. Like cosmetic skins, ect
dull moon
Then, send them a e-mail and be like, hey, your voilating the BI rules. Lets work together to fix the problem.
tried that, doesn't work... sadly
all one get's is the middlefinger
soft egret
that servers are a easy target but not streamers who monetize their videos featuring mods. Servers agreed to follow the rules, but they don't.
Streamers don't have any rules they need to follow
prisma scaffold
Then tell you what, if a cop pulls you over for speeding. Tell him he NEEDS to give you a ticket, because you agreed to follow the laws of the road when you got your license. 😛
soft egret
Yes.. That's correct.
dull moon
i'm not speeding, because i know the rules and need my license for my job
¯_(ツ)_/¯
bad example
prisma scaffold
A cop can pull you over for simply going 1kph over.
Unless it's different in Europe
narrow topaz
Correct. And you still chose to go 1kph over
dull moon
sure, and therefore i'm not going over...
prisma scaffold
I want video evidence Chris
Becuase no human being, even slow moving granny has done that before XD
dull moon
but that's not the point. the point is, there are rules that have to be followed. but most of the units applying for monetization didn't even read them
prisma scaffold
Then BI needs to clarify or add some system in place to fix this.
dull moon
you have no idea what we already suggested to BI 😄
narrow topaz
The rules are already clearly stated
Everyone must agree to them to get monetization approval
prisma scaffold
I worked in commercial management for 5 years. If something doesn't work, even for stupid reasons, you have to find a way to make it work.
soft egret
And they also say that in their email when you apply for approval. That you need permission for all mods
Not really their or ours fault if they choose to knowingly ignore the rules
dull moon
sure, first thing would be to "force" units who apply to read the rules. not working
prisma scaffold
Or just make official permission forms that could be integrated to a DB.
soft egret
We talked countless times about such stuff here
dull moon
already suggested to BI
soft egret
It's not like we didn't try
You seem to think this is the first time we are doing this
this has been going on for years
prisma scaffold
You could make one yourself to give to them?
fossil basalt
@prisma scaffold I think what you are missing is all the "behind the scenes" work that's been going on for a very long time. Without that context, you will not be able to grasp just how difficult the situation is.
prisma scaffold
I worked enough tradeshows to know murphy's law is strong with delegation to companies. 😛
fossil basalt
I know that my company will file a lawsuit at first sign of wrongdoing
prisma scaffold
The reason I doubt, is because I had a 30min chat session here telling Dedmen the dozens of ways to deal with a IP violation beyond just relying on how BI enforces their rules.
When dealing with PsiSyndicat
soft egret
PsiSyn is a VERY special case
dull moon
@prisma scaffold
there's a group called AMA (Arma Mod Alliance), and the reason for this group is ongoing violations by reuploaders, illegal monetizating servers (approved or not), and a lot of other stuff related to modders rights. this group has been formed like a year ago or so, and all we do is working out possible solutions and ways to handle those matters and send them to BI. but BI simply can not handle their own monetization demon they created. be it lack of staff or lack of interest. so all we can do for now is reporting, reporting, reporting. until BI decides to take real actions and adapt solutions we provided
fossil basalt
I have made it clear that my preference is to revoke monetisation completely.
prisma scaffold
The demons happen because they made some generalist rules, and honestly probably a good healthy dose that by giving mods a license that the community would deal with it outside of getting BI involved.
dull moon
like many others, but still ignored by BI @fossil basalt
fossil basalt
There is nothing general about "must have permission"
prisma scaffold
You have to look at the company context here.
A community that has 100's of players aka 100s of copies of Arma sold
dull moon
we do, we do
fossil basalt
And a company that allows its players to illegally monetise the content made my modders is complicit.
soft egret
Again. You don't know what's going on in the background
fossil basalt
One village at a time
prisma scaffold
I'll be working next to the twitch booth, want me to toss a torch at them at PAX? 😛
fossil basalt
This is why DMCA's are often the first tool that comes out of the box.
prisma scaffold
Which I agree
But the argument rather your mod brings people in, is a main feature of the server and is strictly the source of generated income is a MASSIVE gray area
TFAR, Cup, RHS totally get
fossil basalt
How so?
soft egret
If it's not. Why would they run it then?
prisma scaffold
Lets say we took this to actual court
soft egret
People usually run mods because they want to increase the value of their server
fossil basalt
Stop for just one second if you may.
prisma scaffold
k
fossil basalt
If this went to court, one of the first things asked would be "do you have permission to monetise this content?" or "The license says this is not to be used for monetisation", then that case is over before it began.
Do continue. (thanks)
fossil basalt
I've been to court a few times, I'm quite aware of how it works.
prisma scaffold
I given constant examples of IP cases that gone south on this channel
fossil basalt
@chilly silo is probably one of the most experienced with IP law here, you might want to listen to his input as well. As far as legal proceedings go, one of the first things to be established are the facts. Facts like monetisation restrictions/permissions/policy.
prisma scaffold
and then the judge goes, what monetization are they making?
soft egret
Doesn't matter because they accepted the rules when they got approval
prisma scaffold
BI rules are not written in legal code
fossil basalt
prisma scaffold
there for open to interpretation of the law.
fossil basalt
finite steeple
I'm trying to follow this conversation.. Is this an argument on the legitmacy of Streamers/Youtube videos making money off of content that is deemed as not being able to do so?
fossil basalt
No, it sounds like he's trying to mix apples and oranges
prisma scaffold
I'm not mixing apples and oranges. I'm explaining the reality of the court system.
narrow topaz
But why does that matter
narrow topaz
Your original argument was that X can't report Y's mod being used without Y's permission
prisma scaffold
That was my opinion. on the matter.
fossil basalt
No, it sounds like you're attempting to legitimise the prohibited actions of monetisation violators.
prisma scaffold
No, you can see I given plenty of advice on how to deal with IP violations.
merry kestrel
all which have been discussed, and found to not work
prisma scaffold
In chat history, not current.
merry kestrel
what does that have to do with anything?
fossil basalt
Ever seen a bunch of firefighters battling a fire and that "one guy" who comes up and says " y'all need to do it this way", you sound like that guy.
prisma scaffold
It's becuase I see the hard lines on both ends.
safe arrow
Still dont get the point. Your oppinion was that only the mod creator is allowed to report violating servers. This was stated as not correct. (as this is not about Steam Workshop). So whats the point in digging out this old other ways of going after violating servers?
The point is: Dedmen has the right to report violating servers
prisma scaffold
which is my opinion on the matter.
fossil basalt
Every big name in the Arma modding scene has been in direct contact with Bohemia regarding the matter. I know, because in addition to a few others, I helped facilitate the discussion. We did it as ONE group and spoke with ONE unified voice on the matter.
prisma scaffold
And why did BI not care then?
Or better yet, why do you think they gave the perception of not caring?
soft egret
Because.. Nothing happened after we flooded them with suggestions
and they even extended the monetization experiment
fossil basalt
If you want to be a part of the discussion, join AMA and help where you can, otherwise, you're just clouding the waters to the point that some idiot is going to believe you and think they can get away with it.
prisma scaffold
I would report them 😛
safe arrow
Werent you the one trying to tell Dedmen that he cant and should not report servers that have nothing to do with TFAR?
prisma scaffold
In my opinion
safe arrow
Proven wrong
merry kestrel
your opinion seems to have changed
chilly silo
Someone rattle my cage?
merry kestrel
from the start of this discussion
prisma scaffold
Because he doesn't know if their is exceptions to permissions, which would result in false accusations.
safe arrow
And now telling that you would report them yourself... i dont get your intention here
fossil basalt
If I see you growing Marijuana in your backyard or making bombs in your backyard, should people not report you?
This, in case you haven't noticed, is a community. Communities look after each other.
prisma scaffold
I just see hypocrisy because your willing to enforce IP on servers but not some one like Shacktac who makes tons of revenue on videos and such.
safe arrow
Everyone can report a server. Thats what these prominent red buttons are for: https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3
Its not up to the reporting person to check, its up to BI.
prisma scaffold
and communities support and delegate, and not just say "We tried" and go hard line.
fossil basalt
If I see anyone infringing on ANY modders, I report them.
safe arrow
And no its not hypocrisys. They are using the possibilities they have (without much effort)
soft egret
Because he doesn't know if their is exceptions to permissions Again your (absolutely clueless) opinion that's completly unrelated to the actual facts
fossil basalt
I just see hypocrisy because your willing to enforce IP on servers but not some one like Shacktac who makes tons of revenue on videos and such.```
Are they illegally monetising? Or are they following the rules?I see people enforcing a broad generalist rule under the name of IP protection. Which is what irritates me.
dull moon
he does. we have a list at AMA where all member mods are listed with their license and permission status. if dedmen reports a server, it is one that clearly violates one or more of the mods of the AMA members license/permission (in theses cases the mods are no commercial use only)
prisma scaffold
The one that defines monetization.
fossil basalt
It's quite clear actually.
prisma scaffold
Just like Dedmen has stated he reported 2 servers that had no actual donation scheme.
It's like banning a player for friendly fire just once.
fossil basalt
But were using his mod (or others) that prohibited their use.
soft egret
As i said.. According to BI's rules having approval is enough
and I am not banning anyone or anything
if they don't actually need the approval. They are also not loosing anything by loosing the approval
safe arrow
Thats not important. They applied for the list and therefor accepted and agreed to the rules for monetization. And so have to follow them and can be reported in case of violation. Is this so hard to get?
dull moon
small example:
CUP is not allowed to be used on servers that are approved for monetization. no matter if they are actually monetizing or not. once approved means no CUP anymore
(not the same for Core and Maps, but that's on another page)
prisma scaffold
Would you be willing to make a Exception for that? In Any argument? Charity? ect?
dull moon
no, our stance is clear on that
safe arrow
BI doesnt state any exceptions in their rules, so there are none
dull moon
no exceptions for monetizing CUP
soft egret
Also if a mod author tells me he never gave permission to anyone. I don't need to ask him a week later if that server that has been monetized and running his mod for over half a year got permission from him
prisma scaffold
Actually I would expect you to get a written statment from him if I was BI, but that is IMO
soft egret
Especially not if that server is also running half a dozen other mods that they 100% don't have permission for
safe arrow
Just a sidenote: Any player can report any of those servers if he thinks its suspisous. No need to be mod creator or something
soft egret
The server needs to provide proof that they have permission
if they can't then they don't have permission clearly
prisma scaffold
Yes, I agree Cosmo
soft egret
BI doesn't need to ask the author if he maybe gave permission to some server in the past
merry kestrel
and besides, they already had written a statement: No Monetization
safe arrow
So why did you blame Dedmen for reporting servers?
prisma scaffold
Because you don't accuse a shop lifter in real life unless you know by 1st and 2nd person accounts they did it.
soft egret
If you see someone driving a car of your friend. And your friend told you someone stole his car...
I would actually indeed accuse that guy.
fossil basalt
Because you don't accuse a shop lifter in real life unless you know by 1st and 2nd person accounts they did it.
Ever seen the LP guys at Home Depot do their thing? Or the Security at Aldi?
prisma scaffold
I am LP
safe arrow
If you see some running around with a gun, you tell the police. Then its their job to check if he has a license for it and is allowed to carry it here. Its not your own job to go over to this guy and ask him.
dull moon
what'S a LP?
prisma scaffold
Loss Prevention
dull moon
some sort of undercover security dude looking for thiefs?
heady stump
Home Depot, lol. I thought your locality was Germany FM?
prisma scaffold
Depends on the store, but that is a accurate description
fossil basalt
I am a multi-nationality kind of person
prisma scaffold
I just assume you are not Wierd Al, who I keep thinking your avatar is.
fossil basalt
Heretic
prisma scaffold
But anyways Someone is using a mod I have created on a server which has been approved for monetization. What should I do?
dull moon
ok, so you work for the store. you have the offical mission to prevent loss as a 3rd party (not the shop owner)?
if that's the case, see it like this:
dedmen is AMAs LP (or whatever similar). he has the GO to do his thing for AMA
heady stump
Wtf? Weird AL? Look closer
prisma scaffold
lol I know midnight
dull moon
OT
prisma scaffold
In my head I just go "Ow look, it's "Not Wierd Al" guy. XD
But yes, my opinion stems from the title of the FAQ
fossil basalt
Use the “Report” button next to the server in question and send us a report and we will investigate the matter and take away the monetization permission if this report proves to be true. Don’t forget to include as much detail as possible.
This does not limit you from enforcing your copyrights yourself and forcing the server owner to stop using an intellectual property.```Yep, as in mod author is finding some one using their mod.
fossil basalt
If you see someone is doing something that is illegal, do you need special permission to report it? Absolutely not!
safe arrow
And what about this one?
If we feel anyone on the list at https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3 is exploiting any loopholes or is not acting in the best interests of the Arma 3 community, we will remove them. That will mean they will have to cease this kind of monetization immediately or face legal action.
Right from the main page: https://www.bohemia.net/monetization
prisma scaffold
And we have our gray area of rules.
Hence why it's my opinion, despite the rules stating otherwise.
safe arrow
This point allows anyone to report servers in doubt. No grey area here, unless you explain where
soft egret
is exploiting any loopholes or is not acting in the best interests of the Arma 3 community Basically says If it's gray area, then report it immediately
dull moon
@prisma scaffold
if i got it right, your opinion is: "only the autor should be allowed to report any kind of violation reguarding his content"?
fossil basalt
When in doubt, report, and someone will investigate.
fossil basalt
@prisma scaffold Now you're just being pedantic
dull moon
ok, but what about autors that give permission to 3rd partys to enforce their rights?
like shop owners do with those undercover dudes, or firms with their external legal departments?
safe arrow
You believe is a nice thing. But its nowhere stated within these rules or can you show us?
prisma scaffold
It's not a perfect opinion, I'm not saying it's 100% right. I guess if you put a overall context is that even the most solid rules can be interpreted differently. Rather it's good or bad.
dull moon
was that an answer to my question? if so, i didn't get it
safe arrow
Then please explain where the above statement leaves place for interpretation
heavy moon
What you are saying is that joe blogs cannot report someone for violating a licence exemption granted to them by a licence holder?
prisma scaffold
Becuase the last rule you posed is strictly BI's judgment
It's up to BI to decide if it's a loophole, exploit, trolling, whatever
safe arrow
And players are reporting to BI. So your point is?
Dedmen reported to BI. So your point is?
I dont get it
dull moon
i'm affraid i can not follow either
prisma scaffold
That my opinion is that mod Arthurs should report only what is effecting their mods.
AS they are a 1st person source.
heavy moon
Ergo in your opinion because I made a copy of the mona lisa, its up to leonardo da vinci to report me for it?
soft egret
Okey good. Are you done now? can we end this pointless discussion then? Your opinion is different than everyone else's who is here now.
safe arrow
Yes your opinion, and only that. Still there is no point within BIs ruleset that limits reports to only that group of person. It states that anyone can report.
Unless you can show us the point where it says anything else
prisma scaffold
I just posted the rule...
But I don't feel that should be black and white like that, hence my opinion vs I wish to establish a fact.
heavy moon
Anyone can report to BI, just like if anyone finds someone using your IP without correct permission/licence they can report to you too, I really do not see what you are trying to make a point over.
dull moon
AS they are a 1st person source.```
ok, what about this one:
i am a modmaker, made a kickass itemset and are then forced to drop out/reduce modding due whatever reason. then i remeber, hey, there's a guy who knows a lot of stuff and is good in defending his stuff, i ask him to also take care of mine since i do not have the time anymore. like i hire him to watch out for my stuff too.
what about this then?And your opinion is contradictory to what the rules actually state and additionally, contradictory of "judgements" made by Bohemia.
prisma scaffold
It's not because it's how it's written. I only expanded the conversation to represent why rules can be gray.
fossil basalt
Further attempts to undermine these rules or even the appearance that the rules are unenforceable, will land you afoul of some other rules.
prisma scaffold
lol
heavy moon
blue, yellow, any colour bar red or green @soft egret , think of those less fortunate colour blind people.
prisma scaffold
Also, Chris I would be fine with said example, if person officially declared whoever as a rep.
Basically a psedo Client Lawyer thing.
dull moon
dedmen "volunteered" for AMA sort of by his actions 😄
bu then again, AMA has no offical "spokesman". the one coming close to this would be Uro, i guess
prisma scaffold
But yea I agree with Dedmen, this been going on to long. 😛
chilly silo
maybe so but its no reason not to report it (arrived late to the chat for some reason)
fossil basalt
Just to remind you @prisma scaffold ```16) Report rule violations
If you see a violation of these rules on the board, do not reply in the thread but send a PM to a moderator or use the "Report Post" link (next to the date/time of post) instead. Replying in the thread will be considered as spam. Reporting posts contributes to a well structured, well disciplined forum which benefits everyone.```
prisma scaffold
Which again, proves contradictions within the rules.
Rather good or bad
I think all this should be settled bn 1v1 quake
Trial by combat
fossil basalt
At this point I honestly think your're trolling and this is your official warning to stop.
prisma scaffold
I'm not, I'm trying to end it
fossil basalt
I will end it if you do not.
prisma scaffold
Then were done. 😃
heavy moon
I think you are overcomplicating things, the BI monetisation and reporting system exists so the public can let Bohemia know of servers on that list not adhering to the principles of monetisation they set out for that scheme. By not providing a method to report violations or by not enforcing their licencing, they could be seen as complicit in any legal wrangles that might happen due to abuses of the system.
In short, if you follow the rules, your fine, nothing to worry about, move along.
lone yacht
unsure if this is the right place or not but ah check out this guys files. All .EBO files.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1422131257, https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1485772478, https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1431610659
signal hemlock
Whats wrong with EBO's, just wondering
dull moon
EBO is a BI offical only data format
soft egret
EBO is in 99.999% of cases used to hide that you stole stuff from other people.
I remember the name of that uploader 🤔
merry oasis
and there are more than 250 other workshop uploads containing at least one ebo file
dull moon
@merry oasis
you sure?
merry oasis
no idea whether they are real ebo files - but at least they have the correct file extension
faint nacelle
🙈
stoic beacon
Just look at all the car mods out there. Most of them are ebo. And all are stolen models 🤔
dull moon
i spend a lot of time on the workshop looking for violations of sorts, and i haven't seen many EBOs.
throwing around guessed numbers is a dangerous game... just saying
merry oasis
that's not a guessed number
dull moon
then tell me how did you find them?
lone yacht
i guess in this case its down to BI to open the .ebo's in order to determine if the models are infact stolen?
or is that something that generally gets overlooked and are only concerned by the .ebo ext
paper prawn
Previous comment by Dwarden: usage of EBO is shady for several reasons(edited) 1st) is attempt to hide the content via our private DLC encryption 2nd) it's using shady tools via RE to actually pack that EBO format (irony same tools can be used to unpack it, so it's not unpackable either) 3rd) it can break anytime at any update of engine 4th) usually EBO is used on Workshop to prevent community crawler to analyze it (ofcourse catch 22, because point 2, but ofcourse i do not want to know) 5th) if you upload ebo to Workshop and i find it (private don't work), expect ban of the item w/o mercy
So, basically report any to him and he will take care of it 😉
lone yacht
mint, well links are above :D. ill be sitting in the background giggling like a school kid
fossil basalt
@lone yacht leaving a link here does not mean it will get removed. Hence the email in the channel description of where it needs to be reported to.
lone yacht
didnt actually see that up there, cheers
echo orchid
when you are this fucking ignorant
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/108618840304271360/482811570972262410/unknown.png
https://i.gyazo.com/aef14a434ca183c570afaf8c361dd75a.png
dull moon
soooo... business as usual then?
echo orchid
seems so
soft egret
Do these guys have TFAR reuploads that I can strike maybe?
echo orchid
😄 no idea, i took their re-upload down, now they are twisting their nappies about it
heady stump
Yikes, sometimes I am curious the age of these people. How do you all keep your sanity?
Ded, Ctrl + F "i don't own this" = fresh reuploads. :D
soft egret
MV22
NOT MINE
dull moon
ohoh...
soft egret
Mod Package
Includes many mods to slim mod list
ACE, Kiory, pook, VSM, TRYK, Man.. Is that guy retarded or does it just seem like it?
echo orchid
he follows the CC license to a T my man
soft egret
Uhhhh https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1422770834 unsung reupload @olive sparrow
Also HLC
I take no credit for these mods ye..
echo orchid
and some bad bad person is "copystriking" and destroiying his community
soft egret
🤔 @echo orchid you copystriked their modpack right?
Today they reupload this: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1493206035 🤔
it's not on the crawler yet
echo orchid
YOU MUST RUN THIS PACK AND THE 4 RHS MODS!```Thanks bud im on vacation will dmca when im home
frail flint
honestly the number of arma groups who are too cheap to host their own 3sync to do these 'custom modpacks' is beyond me. If you're using the workshop just use the official mods 😄
dull moon
¯_(ツ)_/¯
soft egret
If they have TFAR in there they'll get 3 DMCA's this week. Hopefully then they start to learn
Probably not though
burnt oak
You want a file list?
https://pastebin.com/BRMxtssW
lunar sentinel
Yuuuup
soft egret
complete lythium reupload.. man..
dull moon
what is that again?
burnt oak
a map
dull moon
oh, right
soft egret
VSM, no TFAR sadly
soft egret
your filelist is not correct.
dull moon
there is
soft egret
The one from the workshop crawler has TFAR. And also even now still RHS files
@echo orchid the RHS readme's. But they count too I'd say
dull moon
line 411
-a---- 26-Aug-18 4:08 PM 130485116 task_force_radio_items.pbo```you sure? just downloaded it and ran dir -filter "*.pbo" in the addons folder
soft egret
I didn't see it in yours
never did I see the RHS files
your filter removed the RHS stuff tho
burnt oak
oh you mean the build files? the xml structures have rhs references
dull moon
diwako's list has TFAR pbos, also the crawler file list has it
burnt oak
well here is the list of all items in the addon folder without any filter
https://pastebin.com/eL8gyiSJ
lunar sentinel
I wonder why people don't just simply make collections. They get updates automatically and don't have to pack and upload everything
burnt oak
some argue version controll, others argue that it is easier for their players others argue in case you simple put malicious stuff into your mods and others say as a back up if you just straight up delete your mod.
These are the reasons I heard so far from people reuploading
echo orchid
@soft egret cheers will have a loook
soft egret
Version control yeah... Have to reupload that mod that didn't get updates for 2 years so that we don't get problems when they update.. yeah.. sure..
RHS DMCA and take them down again.
The remove the files and reupload again.
TFAR DMCA and take them down again.
They remove the files and reupload again.
Laxeman DMCA and take them down again...
Steam is fed up and bans them
Atleast I hope that's how this will end
burnt oak
Then they just make a dummy account or someone else reuploads it. That is what often happens.
soft egret
Atleast they have to buy Arma again and give some money to Bohemia
echo orchid
i need to download it manually because crawler only shows readme files
soft egret
yeah. They have the RHS readme's and changelogs. no pbos
scenic swallow
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1459919733
This is a fun one.
soft egret
PuFu will you DMCA just for the changelogs? Technically they are part of RHS and your copyright.
If not then I'll do it
echo orchid
generically speaking, no, i don't DMCA if i see people having just the sign key or readme files
soft egret
DMCA is out.
Kinda funny.. Yesterday I found a TFAR DMCA template in notepad++.. I wanted to throw it away but I thought maybe I'll need it again soon.
That made this a quick copy-paste 😄
echo orchid
oh yeah i do have a template in notepad++, it is the first tab there 😃
hallow lark
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1493206035
King [author] Just now
Why has it been DMCAd again?```
Something tells me he doesn't get it, and probably won't.can we get a curated workshop already to stop this repetetive retardedness, I'd much rather spend my time making content than having to deal with open season.
submit mod to curated workshop -> gets reviewed by moderation team -> gets released on workshop, negative review no workshop.
instead we have to rely on reports of people wilfully uploading IP they have no licence or rights for and even when dmca'd they do not get punished for it.
then they just rinse/repeat and we're back to square one.
fossil basalt
@scenic swallow it is me.
soft egret
When did you change your name?
scenic swallow
@fossil basalt So i'm not crazy lmao. If y'all couldn't already tell Im The Senate
fossil basalt
@soft egret it’s been my name for at least the last 5 years
soft egret
I thought you had your full name on Steam 😮
carmine folio
The idiocy of some people is limitless, no idea how can you claim you are following the license "to the T", yet you clearly are not............
river spear
By the way, if you have something that isnt on the workshop crawler feel free to PM me the link or post it here then I can manually add it
Only condition is it has to be public
Sometimes items dont get indexed by pure chance and so it can take days for them to appear
heavy moon
soft egret
I think that's not possible from steam side tho
safe arrow
Sure it can be done, just look at games like Warhammer Vermintide that uses the Workshop with sanctioned etc. mods. https://steamcommunity.com/app/552500/workshop/
The only problem might be that it need people to check those mods. And Arma might have many many more then Vermintide
soft egret
We can automate most of it
heavy moon
I'd say if you have anything to input, post it on my forum thread, anything here will get lost in the abyss.
dull moon
my last comments got removed... sad...
rapid wagon
Well at least the DMCA gives them the message
soft egret
Only winning move is not to play
rapid wagon
wait a day or two until that gets taken down again and they resort to playing arma 2
soft egret
He deleted my comment too. Maybe he somehow thinks that fixes it 😄
dull moon
yeah, like putting a bandaid on an open-fractured skull
¯_(ツ)_/¯
btw, who put the DMCA on him? just curious
soft egret
me
mint edge
@dull moon I'm on the shitter at work and just wrote them a paragraph and they deleted it...ree
apes I swear 😒
better to not even respond and have them screech at their computer all day over the takedown
mint edge
aaaaaaaaand its gone
carmine folio
Hello Everyone,
Not sure if this is the correct section for my query however, I would like to know if you are allowed to re-texture vanilla and/or DLC buildings.
As I have heard conflicting information on the subject and would like to no before put time in creating new textures.
soft egret
yes you can
carmine folio
Oh Sweet, Thanks for the quick response.
soft egret
asks politely to please remove the mod or else I'll have to DMCA
Checks back an hour layer ... comment gone
Files DMCA
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1492614501 DMCA pending for this item
¯_(ツ)_/¯
F you guys.
soft egret
"Hey can I monetized your mod?"
"Send me your modlist and I'll make sure that everything is fine"
"ERROR! Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender! aspmx.l.google.com said: 550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist."
GG.. Try to ask for monetization. And specify a invalid return E-Mail Address so that I can't answer them now.
Registration on their website is disabled and no contact details anywhere.. Well. I guess you won't monetize then ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I wonder how long it takes till someone actually asks me if he can reupload to workshop.. All these people always saying they asked and got permission.. But somehow their requests never seem to reach me.. But they somehow get an answer back without me even knowing...
prisma scaffold
I never understood why people feel the need to re-upload if it's already up.
Anytime I feel I want to change something about a mod, I just make a mod for it.
mint edge
you always see bundles so its just people wanting to "simplify" their load order
occasionally its innocent but its usually some salty bastard who has not a care in the world for the person who made the mod he so enjoys to play
prisma scaffold
"Hey guys, we only got 1 mod!" XD
mint edge
all the mod makers can do is act indifferent while dmcaing them at every turn, that will make them more and more angry to the point of autistic screeching and they may possibly stop uploading
then move on to the next one
and repeat
manic lark
What we really need is a way for hardware ID bans and IP bans for content creators
So that they are unable to upload to the workshop
prisma scaffold
Would require Valve to get involve, but they are too busy tossing money at each other to get into that fight.
faint nacelle
While going a bit off topic @carmine folio since A3 buildings are not released in editable format you will not be able to use your textures unless a building has hidden selections set and you use it in game. Terrain objects always pic the texures set on the p3d.
but you can continue on the subject in the _makers channels
echo orchid
the little 1AD kids DMCAed RHS USAF 😄
muted lantern
That comment section though...
grand oyster
RHSUSAF comments are definitely something
https://majormittens.co.uk/Screenshots/2018-08-27_11-32-49.png
Not a common sight on the RHS page 😉
green rose
Their unit requirements: Be mature and sensible
faint nacelle
soo they do know false DMCA is a serious thing
well at least they will soon know..
fossil basalt
@echo orchid Be sure to smack them down with the False DMCA report.
prisma scaffold
Also one the few ways to get VAC banned
ebon ruin
I thought it's a steam community ban
echo orchid
@pliant oar ^^? is it possible to do anything about it?
snow bloom
Hi guys, im looking for some basic 1 to 1 IP rights help, would anyone be willing to help me out?
soft egret
Wow... Well good luck to them
just ask @snow bloom
I wonder why they suddenly DMCA RHS.. Although the last report was TFAR 🤔
snow bloom
Cheers, need someone to have a quick poke around some files to make sure I have a case before I start going down the official route with things
echo orchid
they think it was RHS again
anyways, first Valve investigates, then you get the information about who put the DMCA up
@soft egret coz we have been wondering about it not that long ago
i cannot officially counter-claim it until valve looked it up
and i have no info about whoever DMCA that one
soft egret
Wow.. And I had to report half a dozen comments for spam... GG
echo orchid
i am confident that i will, i already contacted Steam about it in advanec
soft egret
The second pack was uploaded WITHOUT RHS yet you still copy right strike it to spite our unit Now it makes sense 😄
echo orchid
soft egret
They probably took their pack down before getting the DMCA details and seeing that it wasn't you
I'll happily take down their unit tho if you don't wanna 😄
snow bloom
It would be so much easier if units just used private arma 3 sync repositories, I understand it isn't the most gorgeous tool about, but it is still very viable
heavy moon
interesting, valve will be sending you their dmca claim, you will get the full contact details of the claimant and now have to litigate with them, or you could just sue them for false declaration of copyright.
soft egret
the full set of fake contact details
echo orchid
^^ that
heavy moon
if they are fake then that is even more serious 😃
soft egret
Valve will probably just ban him and be done with it I guess
heavy moon
I would demand from valve his account removal in light of any false information.
echo orchid
i will take this as far as i can
i think the dmca is in relation with bf3/4 weapon models, and is filled by this bloke
https://steamcommunity.com/id/Kilo_Jet
soft egret
In the comments it looked like Wilson made the claim
Oh wait.. It says wilson right there 🤦
echo orchid
?
soft egret
I looked at "Kilo_Jet" and though that said "King" and thought it's King's account
Requirements to join their group is "Be mature and sensible"
Guess that doesn't apply to group leads
wooden ingot
look at the new comment @soft egret 😄
soft egret
I finally understood my unit followed the Creative Commons liscencing to a
He means they read it to the Creat
echo orchid
😄
merry kestrel
"We are an Arma 3 realism unit. Our goal is to create the most hardcore, realistic, and gritty experiance in arma! (without the yes sir no sir bs)"
isnt this a contradiction tho
heavy moon
most of them can barely write a coherent sentence I wouldn't waste much breath with them.
echo orchid
i will eventually clear all that spam. and i will make all the effort to get that wilson bloke banned.
i posted it here just to inform the others who's mods these blokes have been re-uploading who you are dealing with
soft egret
did you already report wilson's spam as spam? ^^
echo orchid
yeah
soft egret
You know what's funny? Both their group leads have VAC bans.
They are all just one big joke... I like playing with jokes tho
tulip nexus
I'm pretty sure they're a bunch of teenagers from the UK lmao
soft egret
Yeah they already said they're 16
echo orchid
anyway if PuFu would have a converstation with me it would all be sorted out by now but he wont
if pufu would acctuly tlak to man to man we can get this sorted out
lol - you need to be a grown up man to be able to have a man to man conversation
@tulip nexus they are all muricans, not brits
tulip nexus
They use british slang
soft egret
You mean words like acctuly and tlak are british slang?
tulip nexus
calling people a "melt" is very much modern British vernacular
also, the one lad has a link to some drill video on his profile.
Don't know there are many yanks listening to UK urban music
sonic blade
To be mature was one of their requirements? I guess that explains his account name and the posts on said account 🤔
echo orchid
i am very interested what valve will reply and see what the fake creds have been used
sonic blade
Racistic and antisemitic comments there, definitely a standup guy, even better if fake credentials are used
echo orchid
no, i mean the guy that filled the DMCA
sonic blade
Oh, my bad then, still lots of fun to be had in terms of reporting with the rest of these guys
soft egret
@prisma scaffold in case you're interested. BI revoked Armstalkers monetization approval and they just contacted me. They now got permission and can ask BI to give them their approval back.
No problem whatsoever.
Ohhhh.. What do we hav here.... Loopy sent me a friend request 😄
burnt oak
You should open up an Arma ip rights counseling Station. 100 buck per hour
Which is still cheap
fossil basalt
Or find a way to fine offenders for each minute they infringe on an author’s rights.
inland scarab
^ this
winged vapor
time for a global super state
were its easy to just send legal letters to someone on the other end of the flat earth 😏
mint edge
@soft egret how the hell does bi allow monetization for the arm stalker mod which is like 90% assets from stalker lol
soft egret
That is a good question.. I don't have a clue
mint edge
wouldn't that raise atleast like 1 flag a bilegal or something haha
monetization is commercial use is not allowed in the statement by gsc >.<
soft egret
I'll talk to BI about that tomorrow. Can you find me that statement? ^^
dull moon
ho... lee... fuk...
i came home, expected no big drama, and then this.
wtf :D
@echo orchid , i feel you
this might be a good source for the next #350 meme
idle sonnet
@proud flicker and @olive sparrow I need to ask you about some of your addons, can you Pm me? thanks!
proud flicker
You PM me, please. 😄
dull moon
@idle sonnet
since you're the one needing something from them, i suggest you approach them 😉
idle sonnet
@dull moon Yea @olive sparrow has his PM blocked, so i though i would let him know i am trying to contact him 😄
dull moon
fair enough
muted lantern
Looks like someone else from '1st AD' might try something else (from the RHS USAF steam page) , "Just a heads up, do you have liscencing from the US Military to recreate their vehicles, uniforms, and weapons in the game? No? Ok. " 16 year olds and copyright don't mix very well.
dull moon
¯_(ツ)_/¯
willow star
thats like multi-level stupid
dull moon
"kids"
dull moon
added my 2ct
willow star
I wish whoever filed that false dmca claim would actually have something happen
modders need more money just to sue the f*ck out of people
winged vapor
@dull moon untill then, the kids have to take the rear seats and remain silent! man that is germanism in a nutshell haha
winged vapor
lol that took a second
paper prawn
"Licensing from the US Military" ... LMFAO ... but I do wish that people would not give the government or DoD ideas like that 😉
dull moon
pfff... you can do as you like with mil gear 3d remodeling. what you not should do is put the real TM on it, or use the RL name/titel
paper prawn
I know... just have this idea of some Under Secretary being told: "We need more money for entitlements to bribe the populace... let's copywrite all the acronymns"
paper prawn
😉
paper prawn
Don't tempt the government... they can do what they want... mostly 😦
paper prawn
"okay, now we've trademarked the M4A1, let's go after the games companies... they are hippies with no guns" 😉
Though Bohemia does have a tank...
heady stump
I wonder how often they start it up
I would be in it everyday if I worked there (and of course didn't disrupt)
dull moon
the think is, M4A1 might be a model from Colt, but could also be something totally different.
like HK MP7...
no one can TM the MP7 since there is for example a stage piano using the same model name, or a car battery...
heady stump
"yo bro, I got this M4A1 in my trunk"
opens trunk
is miniature piano
paper prawn
You can trademark appropriate to the type of item surely. Same way you can have a "Tony's" pizza place and a "Tony's" clothing store and trademark both
And LOL...
I think the keys of the tank have been taken away until DayZ is released... then again... been watching SCUM streams today...
muted lantern
Apparently Pvt C Hughes was "...kicking in doors in Fallujah back in 04' while you were still probably sitting in your parent's basement. " Which is interesting.
"Several companies have been sued for not having proper liscencing for military equipment in their respective games. You're telling me that you have liscencing from the companies that produce the equipment then? M4's are trademarked. You're breaking their copywrite laws by using them."
paper prawn
LOL
dull moon
right... well, if colt would TM the "M4A1", no other weapon factory could call their gun "M4A1". but a pizza bakery wouldn't have problems naming their maffia pizza "M4A1". not (directly) related to weapons... i guess...
paper prawn
Exactly
You could make a car called the M4A1 if you wanted... and trademark it
You could make a sports version called the M4A1 ris if you wanted 😉
willow star
I mean you could design a very fancy gun and protect the design
dull moon
AAAAAHAHAHAHA... i pissing myself
😂
just reading last comments on RHS
@muted lantern
thx for the tip
😂
paper prawn
OMFG!
muted lantern
They do seem to be carrying on some. They probably need to be put right (without antagonisation); just because they'll keep clogging up the comments section.