#ip_rights_violations

1 messages · Page 67 of 1

manic laurel
#

they don't "copy" stuff, they integrate it with the respective author(s)' permission, see above ↑

I really don't see RHS cherrypicking the workshop for what they like and just add it - and no one should

outer hamlet
#

So the share alike licence still does not granted that one mod can copy another?

soft egret
#

"share alike" doesn't mean you can share and copy

#

it means that if you use the content according to the license, you need to keep it under the same or similar license

#

In this case, APL license allows you to redistribute the content as is

#

But not to modify it, or copy it into your own mod

outer hamlet
#

So I can't retexture a weapon that Niarms has and I need to make my own model?

soft egret
#

check NiArms license

chilly silo
# outer hamlet So I can't retexture a weapon that Niarms has and I need to make my own model?

Depends if the original object has a licence that allows derivatives.
If it states No Derivatives then you need to make your own.
Share Alike is complicated but if the Original Work is Released under APL-SA (for example) you have to release any derivative works under the same licence.
(EDIT: its also important to understand not every Share-a-like licence is the same. Read the terms properly)

faint nacelle
#

also retexturing generally does not require the model

#

if model supports retextures, all you need is a config that uses the original model from the original mod (dependency) and then in hidden selections the config uses your new texture

#

so config + texture file is all a retexture addon needs

#

there is absolutely no reason to copy models for retexturing

chilly silo
#

Or...and just thinking out loud... you could just ping Toadie and ask her for permission. She may just give you the texture template.

faint nacelle
#

Radical thinking

bitter sierra
#

I love people in here telling the creators of ACE/ACRE/CBA/etc how they have control of their IP.

#

It's a real fucking laugh.

#

And as someone who deals with IP issues on a day to day basis this chat is ... hilariously bad to say the least.

#

You absolutely have the right to reupload ACE/ACRE/CBA to Steam as part of any larger work. You can fork them to your hearts content and say "THIS IS MY VERSION OF CBA MOD"

#

As far as the license is concerned with ACRE you can go resell it for all we care.

#

If someone wants to pay you for it when they can get it for free, or you improve upon it in a way that someone is willing to pay you for it, more power to you.

#

What you can't do is turn around and limit our license as we intend it and tell us that we can't allow people to reupload it.

#

That is the only violation of IP going on.

#

Also if you read the Steam license agreement, the only applicable scope of law that we are talking about here is specifically the law in the US, and in the State of Washington specifically, because that is what you agree to in the terms.

So unless you live in the US, and live in WA, maybe you should defer to those that do (like myself) and know this system.

marble coyote
#

Interesting read the last days. Still not sure what's valid tho 😆

bitter sierra
#

I mean I'd listen to the people who deal with this shit as part of their job and running a business who have consulted legal counsel directly related to similar IP over quite literally children in some cases.

#

And live in the country and state of jursidiction.

#

BI developing policy based on a fallacious legal standing though would just be par for the course though.

marble coyote
#

Thanks for your input then. Appreciated

bitter sierra
#

No problem. I was raised by a rabid family of contract lawyers.

muted grove
#

Living in a part of the world is not a prerequisite for knowledge of that part of the world.

#

I live in Norway, and I was completely unaware of the butter crisis of 2011.

spiral cape
earnest mirage
#

It has a fixed Bikey

upper wing
#

But the message at the bottom of the mod make it seems like he doesn't have authorisation to do so :p

sinful pivot
#

@rich ember

bitter sierra
#

They stated in comments on their mod pack that reuploading is fine.

#

That literally took me 10 seconds to find.

#

Do your due diligence before posting.

#

And quit bothering authors.

manic laurel
#

oh man, sorry that someone tried to do the right thing 🙄
there is also still a discussion about are reuploads possible, may I remind you.

soft egret
# bitter sierra

The person who asked in your screenshot, was not the person doing this reupload in this case.
He gave one person permission (one year ago, and that person since took their upload down), but that doesn't imply that another person who apparently didn't ask, also has permission.

In fact the "If you are autor and dont like me re-uploading your mod DM me on steam, and I will take mod down." in his description shows that he's unsure if its even allowed, but just uploaded it anyway.

And the author said "Yep you are free to use my GGE mods in your private pack" which the link reported above is not (a private pack that is)

So yes, please do your due diligence before posting.
It might be fine, it might not be. We don't know and you don't know. Which is why the Author (atleast I hope he is the right person), who knows the answer, was pinged above.

bitter sierra
#

It's more that people here seem to have an agenda and this isn't the first time they are out trawling for good boy points.

People here have literally tried to file dmca requests on behalf of authors who have said redistribution is fine.

It's probably a better cya for bi to police actual felonies than facilitate this insane virtue signaling.

soft egret
#

"People here have literally tried to file dmca requests" That would be illegal and we certainly don't condone illegal behaviour.

#

Some people doing wrong things doesn't mean we should tell everyone "yeah its fine" when it is, in fact, not fine.

The "ah noone will care, this will be fine" mentality is the main issue here, and you are just supporting that.
Its fine if the license or author says so, otherwise its not.
Please stop making it seem like everything is allowed and generalizing over everything just because a handful of mods (ACE,CBA,ACRE) are indeed giving people the rights in their license.
We don't care when people follow licenses and upload stuff with permission. We care when they do it despite not being allowed to.

bitter sierra
#

Except right now you're ambiguously chasing stuff.

Message the author privately and move on. If they care enough to protect their copyright they'll be on the lookout for this already.

#

Reeeeee they didn't specifically let this person do it reeee.

It's childish and annoying to actual content creators to have to deal with concern trolls trying to police our stuff for us. Thanks but no thanks.

soft egret
#

To some content creators maybe. But not to all.
There's no need to bother people who state that its fine to do whatever with their stuff.

carmine folio
#

I'm pretty sure anyone who actually uses Good Boy Points is violating The Queen's IP. GBP is her thing

manic laurel
#

Game Boy Pocket shakes in its boots

carmine folio
#

The Royal Wii was such a success that Nintendo were given a Royal pardon

muted grove
#

I'd have to agree with Nou, one of the latest blatant good boy point hunts was the IOTV, you can only model that so many ways, and the UV indicated that it was clearly different in geometry. It doesn't even meet the substantial similarity standard. Textures were completely different, the normals were completely different.

It's cool and all that you want to help police bad infringement, but there comes a point where you start scaring people off, people have a right to use your work for reference, that's how copyright works. So long as they're copying your idea, and not your expression they can do that as much as they want. (excluding patents and trademark because that's just a huge rabbit hole).

#

Anyways, I digress from the IOTV thing, my only concern is people being too aggressive in policing things they have no business policing. Just PM the author and move on like Nou said.

spark bay
#

All the IP stuff aside. I think many of the re-uploads are created because players still think that the mod limit (28mods?) is still there, although (as far as I am aware) it was fixed with 2.00.
I think one of the CM should spread the word through all the channels to point out that there are better solutions e.g. collections and dependencies to repacking things into a "private" mod pack.

manic laurel
#

@hollow rain! No weekend for you!! ↑ 😄

hollow rain
#

I'll make a thing.

spark bay
#

Great 🙂

soft egret
#

What IOTV hunt? first time I hear of that?

rapid cypress
#

^

#

see that and above

soft egret
#

What hunt?

#

someone thinks something might be wrong. Was told to report it to the appropriate place.

tawny berry
bitter sierra
# spark bay All the IP stuff aside. I think many of the re-uploads are created because playe...

A big one really is that everyone has different mod release schedules and collections on Steam don't really solve that. Steam does solve the considerable bandwidth issues of distributing large mod packs.

It's not unreasonable for a large gaming group to want to have tighter controls on their mod packs and not worry that on their gaming night one random mod is going to update and potentially break missions (which does happen, and we've had plenty of people complain to ACRE/ACE/CBA about it, which is one of the major reasons we are so vocal about people just reuploading our stuff if that works best for them).

#

At the end of the day my overriding goal as a mod maker is to make the users of my mods lives easier.

#

If that involves reuploading my work and has the benefit of me not having to hear about how we broke their modset right when they decided to do their Tuesday game night, then I am alllll for it.

hallow idol
faint nacelle
#

If I recall right it was a command line length limit

hallow idol
#

Never encountered it

faint nacelle
#

or something like that

#

yeah you probably launch your server in a way that just bypasses it

hallow idol
#

Anyway, back on topic - On the discussion about "are reuploads even possible":
Just like Nou said - people shouldnt put their noses in other people's business', same goes for steams business. They've given a vague rule to follow, it is up to them to enforce it and its vagueness. There is no need to hunt people who read it differently than you, and there is definitely no need to make it harder for the original mod makers to simply allow their mods to be redistributed

#

Sometime ago a man had reuploaded a mod which he was allowed to reuploads by the author
Yet here people @'d him, harassed him n threatened him because they weren't happy with the license that the original mod maker provided. They wanted him to find the man, who had since left Arma, and ask him again to repeat what his license already said
That is an example of the "agenda" that happens here taht Nou spoke of i believe

manic laurel
#

it's so good to have a community not caring about creative people's creation, really 🙄

hallow idol
#

And since people love to bring up how mod "theft" makes moders leave - this too has just as much potential to make modders leave, nobody likes beurocracy

manic laurel
#

There is no "agenda" here; people DMCA'ing instead of the authors are going too far, yes. But also making sure everything is in the proper place, it makes a solid framework for the future

I am all for the copy/paster """modders""" to leave, really

hallow idol
#

You thinking that only "copy/paste modders" leave is answered with this places favorite quote:
"stop saying what you want to be true as being true"

manic laurel
#

let's not overdo it, of course
let's not make people be afraid of doing something because they might be accused of doing the same as someone - that is not the end goal here.

if modders know that there is at least some respect for their work and (reupload) decisions, whatever it is, I think it is a step in the right direction

manic laurel
hallow idol
#

Not sure honestly, but that quote comes up here very often, so chances are high)

hallow idol
manic laurel
manic laurel
#

Again, I am not advocating to make everyone have a lawyer - just some basic decency and common sense, and maybe a pinch of courtesy, that would be a great step

hallow idol
manic laurel
#

Thanks 🤝

On the other hand, if someone agrees to give his work to the community and Steam allow for reupload, which they apparently seem to do, then I am not going to enforce a witch-hunt 🤷‍♂️

#

(glad we can defuse a rising black/white debate btw)

hallow idol
#

But concerns and justifiable reasons for mod reuploads, especially when edited, I believe are fine.
Since its so hard to do it on the workshop - people use private means that can't be DMCAd, and the community doesn't grow since mods are private. Those mods instead are forever locked only to a single community due to fear of being taken down. (all of this ofcourse for mods that don't disallow it ofc)

#

The other common issue of "when updates break everything" is very annoying, as I don't think a reuploads should be made just for that sake - it honestly should be solved by steam by allowing people to download older versions of a mod from the same workshop page

manic laurel
#

I can't agree more here.

hallow idol
#

If steam had that option - probably 9/10 of all useless reuploads would be solved

#

And the last 10% would be people who don't know how to do it))

manic laurel
#

even though I don't see this happening for storage reasons, unless they allowed 1-2 previous versions only (which would still multiply their mod storage by 2-3 unless they make it deactivated by default or conditional like >10k sub)

hallow idol
#

Yeah, think that would be the best solution

#

Or maybe even allowing the author to choose which versions are backed up

#

So e.g mod Ver 1, Ver 2, Ver 3
Whil if it was last 3 it would be Ver 3.1, Ver 3, Ver 2 - which would mean Ver 1 is not available anymore due to a spam of smaller updates unrelated to older versions

manic laurel
#

though, the allowed storage could feel unfair between the infinite stamina mod and the whole CUP suite 😬

hallow idol
#

At the same time I don't think steam would have a storage issue, as they don't have a cap on how much a modder can upload - nobody is stopping people from uploading separate versions of every single update on steam afterall (through taht would be extreme cancer)

hallow idol
manic laurel
#

yeah, some could argue that "then my small mod could be backed up ten times moar!"

tawny berry
manic laurel
tawny berry
#

there is a revert to version button on the change notes page

hallow idol
#

Also that, completely forgot

#

That means all old versions already are stored, which means steam has no excuse!

tawny berry
#

if you want to try to explain versioning to some of my members , best of luck i have devs at work that cannot grasp it

muted grove
gleaming fable
#

lol, people other than the mod creators are trying to dcma some mods? You literally can't submit a valid DCMA request if you are not the IP holder, or specifically authorized to act on their behalf to submit DCMA notices.

bitter sierra
#

i mean you can, but its fraud

gleaming fable
#

right, so you literally can't submit a valid one if you aren't the IP holder or are authorized by them to submit them

hallow idol
#

Yet people still do

#

And rarely do people fight that DMCA, as most don't know that they even can

soft egret
soft egret
soft egret
spark bay
#

A big one really is that everyone has different mod release schedules and collections on Steam don't really solve that. Steam does solve the considerable bandwidth issues of distributing large mod packs.
@bitter sierra
I agree on that. It's unfortunate that there is no way to prevent auto update.

soft egret
# hallow idol But concerns and justifiable reasons for mod reuploads, especially when edited, ...

"the community doesn't grow since mods are private"
Are you mixing two different things together here?
Sounds to me like you're saying the community doesn't grow because mods are kept private.

"Those mods instead are forever locked only to a single community due to fear of being taken down."
No they aren't, because the original will already be on steam.

Thats not the case, you are talking about reuploads. That means the mods are already out there and public and benefitting the community.
People keeping their reuploads in their private repositories doesn't really hurt anyone (except the mod authors when people use outdated versions)

soft egret
hallow idol
#

I wasn't talking about a re-upload of the exact same mod, but edits/partial re-uploads

#

Meant "specifically" rather than "especially"

#

As those mods which have other desireable content are locked for private use only

soft egret
#

People can just make a sub-mod that depends on the original.
Unless the original forbids derivatives (Which VERY few people do) thats a perfectly fine thing to do

#

There is however basically never a need to edit small parts of a mod and reupload the whole thing

crystal talon
#

most of the time "private mods" are either custom tailored to the unit and not useful to the general community

hallow idol
#

And partial reuploads as e.g. ace w/o medical

crystal talon
#

or it is just illegal content, such as rips from other games

#

from what I've seen at least

soft egret
#

You can disable ACE medical with a add-on mod. No need to reupload with files removed

hallow idol
#

those are less "nice", hence more mods that have lots of different features should have on/off switches for different features

crystal talon
#

How would you go about disabling ACE medical with an addon?

#

Don't you have to go about undoing all config edits and try to delete all relevant EHs/actions?

hallow idol
#

since ppl should do it properly as you said

soft egret
#

Wouldn't it more benefit the modding community if we teach people how to mod.
Instead of just allowing people to copy paste things together that are already available and reupload them?

crystal talon
#

or teach people to at least ask first

spark bay
#

Sounds like a call for a biki page 😄

hallow idol
#

ofc it would, I try to teach as many ppl as possible

soft egret
#

There is a wiki page on how to make config patches

crystal talon
hallow idol
#

but the issue is when ppl get scared away by DMCA stuff

soft egret
#

but I think its not really how-to step by step guidey

crystal talon
#

more of a WIP

soft egret
hallow idol
#

at least its the one me and Nou brought up

hallow idol
#

Aswell as modders abilities taken away with e.g the most recent discussion of "are reuploads even possible" - what Nou specifically spoke about in his last msg

rustic copper
#

There's no reason to get scared of DMCA's if you read and ask before doing something stupid 🤷‍♂️
Main reason people get DMCA-ed is because they're stupid or doing something illegal on purpose...

indigo thorn
#

Are innocent people getting targeted 'often'? It's an offence to file a false DMCA

hallow idol
#

Innocent people don't get DMCAd often, but they get threatened with them very often, specifically on others behalves

rustic copper
#

I've only seen kids abuse DMCA's to annoy modders because they took down their illegal copies... Or for being banned on a discord...

#

On the other hand, I've been annoying massive communities by taking down their repacks (which included my content).

indigo thorn
# hallow idol Innocent people don't get DMCAd often, but they get threatened with them very of...

I'm sorry that this is occurring in your community.
Like Grezvany13 has said, I'm not aware of any abuse of this type other than being on the receiving end of it as revenge attacks for filing legitimate DMCAs.

Perhaps the best thing to do is encourage anyone that is being threatened with DMCAs to ask questions about what they are trying to do in this channel?
That way, they should get clarity on what is and isn't allowable and have confidence (despite hollow threats) that once they have followed a legitimate process, their uploads will be within the EULA.

hallow idol
#

It's not occurring in my community, it's occurring in this channel, and rather frequently

#

Not saying anybody here abuses DMCA, I hope not, but the threatening part is what I speak off

indigo thorn
#

OK - maybe I don't read this channel enough. I've only seen the Mods and experienced members try to advise people on what they can and can't do within the EULA.

hallow idol
#

Mostly it's that, but sadly not always

soft egret
#

I'm not aware of that happening, but I'm also not specifically looking out for that

rustic copper
#

If someone is known to so something against the EULA or Copyright laws, the person(s) will be notified here as a warning to resolve it themselves before a DMCA will be issued.

#

Personally I don't do that, and just send out the DMCA directly when I see someone broke the rules/laws.

bitter sierra
#

You should be really clarify there that it's for content that you own the IP to
... Otherwise you're admitting to federal fraud violations in the US.

#

That's another reason I'm concerned. Scoring good boy points can mean landing a felony if you do not own the IP yourself.

And I will say that if anyone does violate my IP in that way, by issuing false legal claims in my name or claiming ownership to issue false legal claims that's where I'd definitely pursue a criminal complaint.

strange elm
#

I dont think we need to scare folks off from doing the right thing. we have lost a lot of madders , and many mods have ceased development because they are absolutely tired of people, re uploading as there own. To me, the common knucklehead in arma isn't going to DMCA especially if they arent an author because they know its Fraud, and well most common knuckleheads dont know how. for me if i see a mod that is illegal as in its ripped from a game or another mod without permissions known, or if its an illegal reupload, i report the mod, and report the offending profile for theft. as someone who wants to see this community grow in a more possitive way, im not going to be scared away from doing the right thing, we dont do it for "good boy points" we do it because its the right thing to do. and the minority of folks that do post DMCA's illigitimately, shame on them, but i dont think they speak for the rest of us who are trying to keep a more ledgitimate Arma and modding community.

muted grove
#

@strange elm That's all well and dandy, until people start seeing red and reporting things they have no business reporting. What we're saying is that there's a line, and right now people are crossing that line a plenty.

#

Idiots reporting mods because 'reupload' hurdur, without even bothering to see if the original mod has a license already granting it, because "Oh I'm assuming reuploading isn't ok!"

#

It hurts the community just as much as people who reupload mods without permission.

strange elm
#

how do you know people are crossing that line and there are plenty of them? is there like a database of that showing the statistics? im sure people are doing there do dilligence to make sure a "propper" license is posted before they consider reporting. if not then the person/s that are reporting without that knowledge are probably in the minority that are doing it for personal reasons.

muted grove
#

You just have to look back at this chat for the past 3 days and you have all the evidence you need.

strange elm
#

alot of things happend between now and three days ago, jog my memory of the specific event. so i can find it.

muted grove
#

IOTV that someone brought up, it's not even remotely similar in shapes.

#

Couple of ace edits etc iirc.

#

Nou was talking about how people try to tell ACRE how they can license their own mod, and that they apparently have to police their reuploads, which is completely contrary to their actual license, which tells people they can reupload whatever they want.

#

Which, you know. Nou being part of the dev team "MIGHT" just know better about that than some rando whining about reuploads.

strange elm
#

yeah and that conversation devolved into shaming people that are trying to do the right thing, and trying to keep a ledgitimate modding community, rather than folks re uploading peoples work without the propper permissions.

muted grove
#

Doing the right thing is literally as simple as "I spot something shady, I'mma message the author with a link" the end.

#

What is not the right thing, is witch hunting people in this channel because "OH this IOTV looks kinda similar to the Arma 3 one!"

random marsh
#

I believe the point of contention here is whether or not STEAM allows reuploading, not mod developers themselves.

muted grove
#

When in fact it's not even remotely similar.

#

Having read the steam subscriber licence, it's rather clear to me how that works, and reuploads are fine so long as you have the original authors permission to upload it on their behalf.

hallow idol
muted grove
#

Then again that's my interpretation of the agreement and we're still waiting for steam to reply to RKSL Rock (I think they were the ones that sent a letter for clarification)

rapid cypress
#

I dont think it makes any sense to argue wether steam allows or disallows reuploads with theur subscriber agreement, until we get actual info from steam sip

random marsh
#

The IOTV issue was hardly a witch hunt. The texture mapes were similar and those who brought it up made sure to confirm whether or not it was stolen before deciding to take any action, if at all.

strange elm
#

see to me i think there is another "witch hunt"going on aswell, ive been threatened by someone who i thought was my friend that me being involved in the IP_rights_violations "kangaroo court" is a bad thing. but shame on me for trying to build a better community, rather than a community of theft, and private communities that harbour private illegal mods, and even try to sell them, or use them for personal gain which doesnt build the community up rather just the individuals involved.

muted grove
#

I don't think any of us are saying to not alert mod authors of potential infringement.

#

What we're saying is people should not go out of their way to find it, because that will result in a lot of false positives and harassment, which in turn is counter productive to what you're trying to achieve, a better community.

#

If you're aware of infringement, report it to steam and the author. If you're unsure, dm the author.

#

Our problem is that, like Nou said, a lot of people think they're doing the right thing when in fact all they're doing is pissing off developers like the ACRE dev team, who explicitly permit reuploading.

#

Or doing whatever, according to the license.

#

In short, some people don't bother understanding what copyright is, how it works and what it covers, and so they end up reporting shit they have zero business reporting.

strange elm
#

something that could help in that last statement is if re-uploaders would properly document the permissions in there mod description, rather than just lumping the mod as there own. i feel like the vast majority of mods the come through this channel, dont have any propper licenses or permissions posted so they get swacked but the others do not. and sometimes contacting the Author is not an option because they either wont respond or, they have long since left steam so there is no way to get a response from them. not all the mods out there right now are being held by active steam profiles.

muted grove
#

Then in my opinion, it's abandonware (See orphaned works).

faint nacelle
#

Im glad your opinion is not what it really is

random marsh
#

If it's abandoned and the author doesn't respond, then you're SOL.

muted grove
#

@faint nacelle Literal definition of what he's talking about abandonware.

#

It very much would be that, and just because it's abandonware doesn't mean copyright is out the window.

faint nacelle
#

are you now then going the be the authority to decide when a mod becomes abandoned?

muted grove
#

He very clearly gave a hypothetical.

faint nacelle
#

are you going to bear the responsibility

muted grove
#

In this hypothetical the authors are unreachable because they left steam.

#

Thus, abandonware.

faint nacelle
#

for example someone might be in a coma in hospital

muted grove
#

I'm not being authoritative, or responsible for anything, I'm literally telling you what the law says in this example.

faint nacelle
#

not being able to respond

#

does that make the mod abandoned?

muted grove
#

Sure, but that wasn't the hypothetical was it?

faint nacelle
#

best not to go around making that kind of hypothetical rules then

dull moon
#

if not other stated, wait 70y. stuff then goes public domain 😉

muted grove
#

It's not a hypothetical rule, if someone's abandoned their work, the law says it's abandonware.

#

That doesn't mean copyright doesn't still apply.

#

It just means it might be impossible to track down the proper IP holder.

random marsh
#

What constitutes as "abandoned"?

strange elm
#

sooo... screw the hard work someone did, before they left steam its open for grabs? i kind of feel everything we have discussed the past few days have been hypotheticals.

muted grove
#

This is why you guys shouldn't be doing this, you have no clue how the DMCA works.

random marsh
#

If I decide not to ever update my mod or respond to people regarding my mod, does that mean I abandoned it?

muted grove
#

I say one word, and suddenly you assume that means open source?

#

Abandonware != up for grabs

faint nacelle
#

but thats what people will assume when you say it

random marsh
#

I'm not saying that.

muted grove
#

Then they're dumb and need to read up on the law.

faint nacelle
#

there is no point bringing it up then

muted grove
#

And again, clear example of why people should not be trying to police things they have no experience with.

strange elm
#

yeah nah... id like to think if i ever had a mod i worked hard on and suddenly life happend, and i had to leave steam, my work would still be protected from people who would not respect my work

muted grove
#

Again

#

If you would bother reading what I said

#

Your work would be considered abandonware.

#

That does not mean you lose rights to it

#

or that other people can do whatever with it.

#

It literally just means it's been abandoned, the end.

#

You pick up on it later, no longer abandonware.

faint nacelle
#

I dont even think mods fit into that category since they dont fit into any of the given examples there

muted grove
#

The idea in copyright law is that, people can preserve abandonware with little to no criminal reprecussions, because it's preserving a work. Mostly relating to museums who preserve long since abandoned works of art.

#

They're examples.

faint nacelle
#

and that is why this kind of labeling will be used wrongly

muted grove
#

No?

faint nacelle
#

"the maker did not respond to me for a week, imma preserve this mod"

muted grove
#

Yeah good luck explaining that to a court when you get sued

#

I'm not going to stop using legally defined terms because some idiot might misinterpret it.

faint nacelle
#

yeh. I think im gonna just bury my projects.

bitter sierra
#

This should be a simple rule. Do you own the IP? No? Then don't report it to any authority besides the owner of the IP.

echo orchid
#

but that already happens

bitter sierra
#

Then keep it that way.

echo orchid
#

i have yet to see someone fill a dmca on my behalf

faint nacelle
#

I've been now told numerous times one should not release anything if I cant handle the theft and rest of the crap

echo orchid
#

i do get people reporting stuff towards me

muted grove
#

@faint nacelle Lol that's just dumb.

faint nacelle
#

thanks

muted grove
#

If you make something, it's yours.

echo orchid
#

i check and i am the one who takes the action required

muted grove
#

If you don't want people to reupload it

#

you can release it without a license to reupload

#

and people have to respect that

#

if they don't, they can get chewed out in court by a district court judge.

faint nacelle
#

I dont have money to go to court

muted grove
#

Good thing for you

echo orchid
#

@muted grove can you point towards any mods you have done please?

bitter sierra
#

Pufu that's not been everyone's experience. And it's usually been when the author says it all and people have taken action anyways.

muted grove
#

US just passed a new law that makes it incredibly easy to DMCA people

faint nacelle
#

good luck

muted grove
#

I did a project zomboid mod a while back.

#

I'm working on a female locomotion for arma atm.

echo orchid
#

nou - when it comes to mods, as the big ones and see if they had anyone fill a dmca in their name

#

tbh i have not heard of a single case

#

where that happened

#

sure, reporting or flagging yes, but surely not dmca

muted grove
#

Friend of mine had her mesh heads that she sells, DMCA'd. She made them and some idiot was trying to extort her.

#

Not arma related, but it happens.

echo orchid
#

again, rhs has been hit with 3 false dmcas

bitter sierra
#

Even reporting for someone else is beyond the pale.

muted grove
#

There's a lot of DMCA trolling that happens, and we should be actively discouraging that here, before it happens.

echo orchid
#

in both cases i followed through with vamve to find the one that committed perjury

muted grove
#

And as I said before, we should also encourage people who do spot infringement, to report it to the IP holders if they can.

echo orchid
#

it is up to individual ip holders

#

to protect or not their creations

#

not some 3rd party

muted grove
#

But people shouldn't be going out actively looking for it, for the sake of looking for it. That just breeds kangaroo courts and harassment.

random marsh
echo orchid
#

also, i do hold BI responsible for not drawing the framework clearly

bitter sierra
#

Framework for what?

echo orchid
random marsh
#

I remember a while ago there was a video on the RHS Youtube channel discussing IP theft and part of it was somebody using your M-ATV model for another game or something.

muted grove
#

Either way, this should be as simple as, if you see infringement, or know about it, report it to the authors. Don't take action on their behalf.

#

If they want you to report the mod or whatever, then sure go for it.

echo orchid
# bitter sierra Framework for what?

examples:
a. making sure people are aware that you need to own or have permissions before uploading to steam
b. having an official stance against ripped content that is being used in various communities
etc

#

a lot of people have zero idea that re-uploads are not allowed

#

for instance

muted grove
#

You mean some re-uploads?

#

Surely not all re-uploads.

echo orchid
echo orchid
#

sure i can point towards to certain “mods” that use forze meshes, or dayz models, or cos models

#

that doesn’t mean it is my place to enforce these ipa

muted grove
#

I wish BI would just port the DayZ stuff to Arma 3 already. I want a proper Chernarus campaign. Full fledged company sized fire fights between city blocks.

echo orchid
#

i can only send an email towards respective legal departments and they get to choose what they wanna do with that information or of it worth pursuing

muted grove
#

Big sad that we don't have that.

random marsh
#

The DayZ tactical jacket everybody rips is so nice. Shame.

echo orchid
#

i don’t get why people prefer to rip stuff instead or f making their own

muted grove
#

Right, just clarifying.

echo orchid
#

but whatever

muted grove
#

Some people just don't have the skill to make said level of quality yet.

#

Which, if they just rip, they'll never develop it.

echo orchid
#

that’s not modding to begin with

muted grove
#

I have a pretty lax ethical stance on what I consider OK to do though in regards to other peoples content. I'll use just about anything I find neat, for reference for example.

#

Which, according to copyright laws I can do. I can copy whatever concepts and ideas people have, I just can't copy their expressions of said work without permission.

#

And no I'm not getting into patent law or trademark law because as I said the other day, that's just another huge rabbit hole, but rest assured I'm aware of how those work and no I don't plan on breaking patent law lol.

bitter sierra
#

Also BI has profited wildly by not strictly enforcing their own IP.

#

If it weren't for Jaynus and I blatantly violating their IP to build JayArma2Lib they'd not have had DayZ.

muted grove
#

I think PuFu was just saying that people who re-upload mods without reupload permissions, just plainly aren't aware that they're breaking the law.

#

Which, I'd have to agree with, it does seem that a lot of these people just aren't aware of how it works.

bitter sierra
#

Yea I get that, but I still don't see how its BI's job to educate people on copyright law, be it for those that hold the rights or those that violate those rights. 🤷‍♂️

#

I mean my general response to that is "welcome to the real world, if you don't know the rules that is a you problem"

muted grove
#

Agreed, go watch Leonard French's channel. Lots of educational stuff.

echo orchid
bitter sierra
#

Again, welcome to the real world where protecting your IP has a cost.

#

That isn't BI's responsibility lol.

muted grove
#

Tbh, protecting your IP shouldn't have a cost, if you're actually protecting your IP.

#

If you're doing it right, you'll get your fees and costs covered.

bitter sierra
#

I mean it always has some cost, the question is where is that cost realized.

#

Yea

muted grove
#

If you're doing the dumb like a certain copyright troll cough Liebowitz cough then you very much won't get your costs covered.

echo orchid
muted grove
#

And yeah, I can say that without repercussion because multiple US courts have called him a copyright troll KEKW

#

In fact, how he's still practicing is beyond me.

echo orchid
muted grove
#

BI benefits the most by being as open with it's own community as they can.

bitter sierra
#

Yea, and I'd argue even more that if anything BI doesn't even understand how their community got this way or why it ultimately has value being this way.

#

You can literally tie back the successes of some of the largest current game properties to what Arma has fostered.

muted grove
#

Let's just say that, Bohemia releasing their data packages for use in arma games, made me buy the game twice over, even though I was the 100th something person to buy the supporters edition.

bitter sierra
#

Fortnite was a fucking unplayed joke of a game until they copied the KOTH model from PUBG, and PUBG was an Arma mod.

muted grove
#

I probably have more than 11000 hours in Arma total, and it's very much down to the modding community.

bitter sierra
#

The last 10 years of my life have been directly shaped by Arma modding. I have things flying in space right now because I made an Arma mod.

muted grove
#

That's pretty dope, got a link or something where I can read up on that?

bitter sierra
#

amongst other things

muted grove
#

That's pretty cool

bitter sierra
#

I also worked on an ISS science payload and a small on-orbit rocket engine.

#

Then I left to literally do ACRE full time for government customers.

muted grove
#

Really?

bitter sierra
#

And a lot of this success is built off of being permissive with our IP.

muted grove
#

I had no idea, that's pretty damn rad ngl.

bitter sierra
muted grove
#

Oh, as part of the Army's new VR training platform?

bitter sierra
#

its a non-training related use, more for research and analysis.

muted grove
#

Had no idea ACRE was doing these sorts of things, that's straight up impressive.

fluid elbow
#

might PM such stuff, not right place in here

muted grove
#

I mean, it's technically IP related innit? c;

bitter sierra
#

True, to tie it back to the discussion though.

muted grove
#

Sure tho, we can move the conversation elsewhere.

bitter sierra
#

This is what being permissive with your IP allows for.

#

If you want it to. 😉

muted grove
#

Yeah, when I finish my mod, whenever that'll be.

#

Been planning it for a few years, just kept pushing it off hoping Arma 4 would release so I wouldn't have to do it.

#

But once I do get it done and dusted, it'll probably be pretty open, for people to use and augment.

#

I'm a firm believer that open development breeds cooperation, and that'll be rather necessary to get people to develop gear for what I'm trying to achieve, which is female representation in Arma.

#

So, no strict license crap from me.

hallow idol
#

All other "modding games" and communities are very public and open with their stuff, I always wondered why Arma people are so uptight about it

faint nacelle
#

dont worry. the uptight people probably wont be around long and you guys have free reign with the next engine

muted grove
#

I'll probably only keep my mods core as do not reupload, simply because I intend to make it a framework for people to be able to build off of easily. And let people pick the rest apart for whatever they desire within arma.

hallow idol
#

Recent example of failed "ip protection" is Riot sending a seace n desist to 2 guys who made a mod, threatening them w some deep shit..
Meanwhile if you email Gabe - he will allow full non commercial use of any Dota 2 model

muted grove
#

Riot is a joke...

#

Same with Ubisoft's attempt to DMCA a tactical shooter because it copied the concept that Siege is based on.

strange elm
#

wasnt there some legal actions taken against BI for mods that had been in there workshop in the past that violated various IP's?

fluid elbow
muted grove
hallow idol
#

Indeed, my experience too

bitter sierra
#

tbh its mostly model makers, which makes sense as i've explained elsewhere, their work has value outside Arma, but tbh I've never understood why anyone would care unless its being re-sold.

#

SQF code is only really good in Arma 😛

#

Or VBS

#

but we dont talk about VBS 😉

hallow idol
#

But just how "a few mod rippers" can ruin it for many - a few uptight modders can ruin it for many too

bitter sierra
#

RIP Sickboy, Xeno, and Rocko. 😛

#

my mentors 😢

hallow idol
#

My models get ripped to p3dm? Don't care, people going there weren't going to pay me in the first place

#

But if I see any of them being sold on other websites, especially for less money - instant DMCA

muted grove
#

Neat thing about copyright is that you can chose to ignore violations all you want.

#

You still retain all rights, unlike trademark infringement.

#

Where you have to prosecute to retain your rights.

fluid elbow
#

search IP adress and make vacation in that country

bitter sierra
#

yea, people often confuse copyright with trademark, at least in the US, copyright is considered a natural right, as it is in most countries.

#

Its inherently all restricting, and can not be taken away. But you can choose to ignore it or grant all rights.

#

Trademark is the opposite. You have to apply for it and protect it.

#

And it is different in every country and super expensive.

muted grove
#

Copyright isn't natural actually.

#

You have 90 days from publishing a work where it has "natural" protections, basically time for you to file your registration.

#

If you don't, and someone violates your copyright, you don't get statutory damages or court fees covered.

#

I do believe you can still get actual damages still.

strange elm
#

maybe thats part of the probelm here is Arma 3 isnt strictly US, we have alot of modders from all over the world who have differnt views and the countries interpret these things differently than others

muted grove
#

Supreme court changed that a few years ago, requiring works to be registered before a lawsuit can be initiated.

bitter sierra
#

That's not the case in the US. It is a natural right with no need for registration.

muted grove
#

DMCA is covered in pretty much every country worth a damn though.

#

There's only like 7 countries that ignore the DMCA.

strange elm
#

yeah but its interpreted differntly like you said earlier, in the US is very easy to DMCA someone

bitter sierra
#

Well DMCA is only law in the US, but since the US is a massive market, most other countries follow the US law.

#

There are comparable laws in other countries but the DMCA is not a international treaty.

muted grove
#

iirc only 7 countries have not ratified the DMCA in one way or another.

#

Some differ as mentioned

#

But they're all generally the same.

bitter sierra
#

It... It isn't a treaty.

#

It is a US law.

muted grove
#

It's not, but countries still honor it.

bitter sierra
#

Right, but its non-binding.

#

Its purely a "we need to do this or get fucked by the US" thing.

hallow idol
#

Officially only 7 countries don't have DMCA, realisticly - way, waaay more

muted grove
#

Sure

#

The idea is that most countries honor the DMCA law.

#

As most countries share really similar language in their copyright laws. But there's also a lot of variation and a lot of difference in said laws.

#

Particularly when it comes to fair use.

hallow idol
#

Also politics and culture plays a big part, even if law language is the same

muted grove
#

Sure, copyright is complicated.

hallow idol
#

So in a perfect world - sure, but in reality, its often gonna be ignored

strange elm
muted grove
#

Which is why we really only need to worry about US federal law and Washington state law when it comes to steam and the workshop.

#

Because in fact, that's where your mods are being hosted, legally speaking.

#

So, you are bound by those laws when working with the workshop.

hallow idol
#

And it's steam law n agreement too, right?

muted grove
#

I'm not sure I understand what you mean

hallow idol
#

The Washington stuff, steam follows it, and is based on it, right?

muted grove
#

Valve is based in Washington.

hallow idol
#

So regardless of where in the wrodl you are, if you use steam(valve) - it's Washington law

muted grove
#

Yup

hallow idol
#

Was just making sure I remembered it right

soft egret
muted grove
#

It wasn't that mod in particular

#

It was the slew of mods being brought up which had a witchhunty vibe.

#

All pretty much mods that should've at most been a dm to the author.

soft egret
bitter sierra
#

I am not referring to ACRE. The most egregious one was Lancer having to tell people to fuck off about Roche when he released it. It was being rehosted and people were spamming him about rehosts and he told them to fuck off because he allows it and in specific cases people still filed take down requests on his behalf which he never allowed.

#

Even after telling them not to.

soft egret
muted grove
#

I may have misunderstood something @soft egret, been running at all of 12 hours of sleep total over the last 3 days KEKW

#

Yay, my mental health!

soft egret
bitter sierra
#

It's allowed if it is allowed though.

#

Please do not confuse my rights holders unintentionally.

muted grove
#

Either way, my only concern has been what appeared to me, to be a pretty active kangaroo court like mentality of finding and reporting as many potentially infringing mods as possible, without bothering to check for licenses or permissions.

strange elm
#

i dont see it as a kangaroo court so i wouldn't mock folks that are trying to do the right thing in that way. whether it be reported on steam or reported on here, the final say isnt up to us whether a mod is legitimate or not. we are just finding this as the come along, bringing them up and they get filed to whatever parties for review,the average person on here is not reporting anything without checking license permissions first, and lets not be naive that just because someone slapped some random license on there page or general permission of some sort does not make it legitimate, some folks do that just to avoid anyone that might find there mod potentially violating IP. also im not a mod but id like to say lets cut out the language, if i cant cuss (and i try really hard not to) nobody else should be either.

muted grove
#

It's real simple, don't take things into your own hands, don't go looking for violations for the sake of getting virtual good boy points, mod authors don't appreciate it. Report what you come across that seems infringing (do check for license and permission first.) and please, don't brag about it here. It's a good place to discuss though if you're unsure if it's infringing or not before you bother the author.

dull moon
#

RE witch hunt:
as german as we germans are, we even wrote a manual for that: Malleus Maleficarum
good read tho for whoever is interested

#

😉

muted grove
#

I'll show you a witch hunt alright.

#

It'll be a game of hide and seek, and if you're found you turn into a witch that keeps hunting.

#

Until last person is standing

#

lets go

strange elm
#

lol the early colonies had a witch hunt back in the day... it didnt go to well :/

chilly silo
#

So here is the reply from Valve. For those that don't know, Dawn is the Legal Contact you deal with when you file a DMCA with Valve. She has been very helpful to quite a few of us in the past and I'd like to keep it that way.



“If I have permission from the owner to include their work in my workshop content, then am I allowed to post my content in the workshop without violating the Subscriber Agreement?”

Per the STEAM ONLINE CONDUCT If you own, control the rights of the content, or have received all necessary consents to use the content, then you may post said content.  https://store.steampowered.com/online_conduct/.  

The subscriber agreement assumes that you will abide by the Steam online conduct rules.  

One thing to keep in mind is the original creator of the content always remains the original creator of the content, and they do have the right to withdraw their consent of use at any time.  ```

**(Ive been asked to remove the image of the email by Valve.)**
#

To put this in context I asked her to clarify how these scenerios sit with the Steam Agreement 6D

Scenario 1) Original Author grants a 3rd party (not a pre-existing contributor) permission to distribute/reupload a specific piece of work via Steam and other services that require granting of IP rights to the host.
Scenario 2) Original Author releases content with a Statement that the content is “Open source” and anyone is free to do as they like with it. (no specific license attached)
Scenario 3) Original Author releases content with a GPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html or MIT License https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT or similar open licence and a 3rd party user uploads to Steam.
Scenario 4) Original Author releases content with a “Share A like licence” eg: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ and a 3rd party user uploads to Steam.

#

Her reply should make it clear.

You must have permission to upload ANY content.
Opensource statement is good - ideally verifiable - we all know not everyone who releases stuff is the owner 😉
MIT, GPL licenses are also good. As long as the licence does not limit distribution
Share-a-like - As long as you have permission from the author its all good.

#

TLDR:
Uploads by someone that is not one of the original creators* and Re-uploads WITH PERMISSION are allowed by Valve/Steam.
HOWEVER
You still need permission or a licence on the source content that grants you rights the source. eg MIT/GPL or similar. Or even the Author's original post saying "Hey guys its opensource."

EDIT: *original sentence was "Non-author"

chilly silo
#

RE the "Witch hunt", while others reporting ripped content often goes bad here. I think its a good sign that people are aware of Creators rights. But as others have said, might be better to talk directly to the authors first. But if, as some appear to be, people try and brush this under the carpet or try to discredit the reporters because they dont agree with them or dont support the idea of IP rights. Then in my opinion thats just as bad as "Witch hunting" anyway. 😉

strange elm
#

Thanks RKSL, that clears things up much better! 🙂

#

so correct me if im wrong im trying to interpret your last statement, an non-author Re-upload is valid, if they seek permissions, and or a license from the original author and post it on there page? or if the author has a blanket statement on his page, that its open source to everyone, that works as well as permission?

chilly silo
#

@strange elm Sorry should have been clearer.

The previous interpretation of the rule here was if you were not the author or part of the creative team that made the addon you could never upload it.
With this clarification, If an author gives you permission you can upload content you did not have a hand in making.

That permission can either be email etc or by the use of an Opensource Licence such as MIT, GPL etc

Any clearer?

strange elm
#

yep that makes sense, so permission, license or, "hey its opensource to everyone" is a good upload, one without, is not a good upload? but yeah that clears it up really well thanks.

chilly silo
#

If there is no licence the strictest interpretation of Copyright laws apply. No editing, no redistribution, no tinkering etc.

#

If an author clearly states that his creation is Opensource, then its all good. or uses an "opensource" licence.

#

eg Duda's stuff released under the MIT licence.

strange elm
#

gotcha, that makes complete sense thanks! 🙂

chilly silo
#

no problem.

#

Biggest change really is the clarification that You can upload someone else's content with their consent. This was a sticking point before. hence why I asked the question.

strange elm
#

yeah that makes sense, its good to have a better picture of whats an author needs to upload/re-upload something. some of this stuff is beyon my not big brain so being that id like to get into modding its nice to know of things i should have.

fluid elbow
# chilly silo If there is no licence the strictest interpretation of Copyright laws apply. No ...

Thats what im talking about all the time.. but people wont understand.. and im always talking about respect and just ask the author.. the real mod developers will help if any questions are around their project.

Even my mod is under the license APL-ND + extra EULA which says its not even allowed to open any .pbo files

Asking is never wrong and cares with some respect to the author.

And thank you for more claryfication, hope this discussion calms a bit down for now 👍🍻

bitter sierra
#

this channel makes me want to just go to law school in my spare time

muted grove
#

Who do I contact about ban appeals then? As a friend of mine said he was banned for reuploading a mod with the authors permission. Idk the exact circumstance or what happened, he's just mentioned it a few times.

#

To clarify, I'm just wondering who to forward them too.

sinful geode
#

If they were banned on this discord, they should contact the moderators. And if you mean on Workshop, then Dwarden presumably.

spark bay
manic laurel
#

Yes, update is planned today

muted grove
#

@chilly silo Thanks for getting the clarification btw.

Also just want to make it clear that I'm not intending to discourage people reporting potential infringements, merely trying to say people should look twice before they report, and ask here or the original mod author(s) when they're unsure.

#

From what I gathered, friend I mentioned was banned off of here because he re-uploaded modified ace code as compat patches, that he had full rights to do. But because someone interpreted SSE 6D completely contrary to it's intent, he was banned.

#

That's why I was pushing for a retake on said interpretation.

manic laurel
#

if you have that friend id, unban can be processed

muted grove
#

I'll dm you if that's fine.

manic laurel
#

Sure

muted grove
#

Done

manic laurel
#

OK, I checked the history and that's not exactly how it went. His idea was "most of the mods I reuploaded should be ok, I asked some of the others, and did not get a reply in the next 24h so it must be fine" 😬 (back in 2018)

muted grove
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

manic laurel
#

not unbanning that one really 😄

muted grove
#

From what I know he consolidated a lot of compat mods, that have licenses that require them to follow the original license, and said license permitted re-uploads, but as I said, I don't know everything about it.

#

My understanding was that it was the "re-uploads are banned no matter what" stuff.

manic laurel
#

it appears that it is not the only thing that got him banned, but a blatant "IDC about IP" behaviour.

muted grove
#

Idk if that's true tbh, communication isn't everyone's forte. From what I've seen interacting with him, his stance is that "If you're not open source I'm just not going to bother dealing with you." and move on. Not so much that he's got no regard for peoples rights and end up using their stuff regardless.

#

Either way, I was hoping you two could reach an amicable solution, as I'm fairly sure he isn't one of those "I don't care about IP" people.

#

Not defending him if he did in fact do what you say (just saying that it does seem out of character), but people aren't always aware of how things work, and my personal stance is that you should give people a chance to learn it the right way before throwing them over the bridge.

If they just pain refuse to accept reality after the fact, then screw em.

manic laurel
#

The latter.

muted grove
#

But did you give them a chance to understand, or did you just say "This is wrong" then hit the ban hammer?

manic laurel
#

The former.

muted grove
#

Whelp, they're screwed then I guess.

manic laurel
#

Yep

muted grove
#

Not going to argue that one any further, thanks for clarifying!

manic laurel
#

Thanks - back on topic

spark bay
charred basalt
#

Oh didn't see this channel ill put violations here from now

soft egret
#

@fallow stag and maybe kola.
Crawler is down 🙃

muted grove
#

I mean, I can tell you right now that modpack is not okay unless they have explicit permission from JSRS.

soft egret
#

I know they don't

muted grove
#

Then again, I kinda want to nitpick at JSRS, because they are both right and wrong in the license assertion lol.

soft egret
#

But you can see they atleast did their homework and didn't reupload CUP/RHS/TFAR which would get them shot down pretty quickly

charred basalt
#

Oooof imagine tfar re upload meowsweats

soft egret
#

but don't understand why they added ace as a dependency, but not acex 🤔

charred basalt
# muted grove Then again, I kinda want to nitpick at JSRS, because they are both right and wro...

This modification may not be re-uploaded by third parties to the Steam Workshop. All reuploads, whether individual components or the complete modification, in the Steam Workshop are explicitly prohibited and violate the Steam Subscription Agreement Section 6D! Reuploads will get deleted by DMCA warning and lead to penalties of uploaders!
LJ has stated though on his page not sure what's confusing about it :/

muted grove
#

It might be me misinterpreting but it seems that they think it means steam blocks reuploads, which it doesn't.

#

They're right in that it 6D, in their case, prohibits reupload, but that's only because JSRS prohibits reuploads.

#

Goes back to the clarification we got earlier today ish.

#

In short, their license agreement is right, just a little flawed.

#

And I was just making a joke about how it irks me a little.

#

Anyways, @spark bay I'd say you can't really find a better candidate of what you should report. JSRS is pretty clean cut, there's no license stated on the workshop for the modpack, which if they did have permission from JSRS would be plastered all over it.

manic laurel
midnight crystal
echo orchid
midnight crystal
#

yeah, I was asking more for source content, i.e. DEMs

echo orchid
#

dems?

chilly silo
#

And again I just want to point out a couple of things:

  1. I am not a lawyer.
  2. It is up to you to make sure that anything you use and upload is legal.
  3. You are legally responsible for anything you put out onto the internet. (DMCA laws and Article 14 in the EU make that clear.)
  4. While you may read something one way the author may see it differently. Best advice is contact the authors before doing ANYTHING.
  5. While your opinion of what is right and fair may be valid in your mind. Not everyone may agree, which is why laws are created.
  6. And from personal experience...never assume anything. Ask if you do not know. But try and get many points of view. Preferably from the authority responsible.
carmine folio
#

Question of curiosity

Since my nation (Bosnia) doesn't have any IP laws, if I decide to re-upload let's say TFAR; Can I counter-claim it on the basis of Intelectual Property not being regulated in Bosnia?

chilly silo
#

NO

#

The Steam agreement clearly states that the legal disputes are subject to the laws of Washington State US.
Edit: unless you are in an EU member state. Then the process is different but the rules still apply.

carmine folio
#

I had a Serbian dude try to play that card with me when he reuploaded my mod, so I wanted to double check

carmine folio
chilly silo
#

And under international law and moral rights clauses etc unless you are the actual owner of the content making a counter claim is illegal. Either perjury or fraud by deception depending on your local laws.

#

Either way its illegal 😉

chilly silo
#

And for disputes outside of steam the laws of the original Author's country dictate how the infraction is handled.

chilly silo
# carmine folio I had a Serbian dude try to play that card with me when he reuploaded my mod, so...

Well you can tell him he's full of it... Bosnia is a signatory to WIPO https://www.wipo.int/members/en/details.jsp?country_id=12

Information by Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Country Profiles, Information by Country, Contact Information, WIPO office, Case studies, Outreach campaigns, Statistics, Legal Information, Madrid System procedures, Industrial Designs (Hague System), PCT System procedures, National IP laws and regulations, WIPO bodies, Membership of, WIPO treaties, WIPO meetings, Number...

carmine folio
#

I litteraly thought we dont have a IP law, since I read that somewhere

chilly silo
#

Every nation has them. Even China! 😉 Its how enforceable they are across international boundaries. With WIPO membership they are supported internationally

carmine folio
#

Thanks man, owe you bigtime

chilly silo
#

np

strange elm
#

is it common for IP holders to ignore people seeking requests and permission? ive sent two emails, to 21st century fox, in the span of a month with no responses back. i would have thought id atleast get something even if its a big old no lol... kind of discouraging.

echo orchid
#

it’s common that larger companies the size of 21st century fox to simply ignore such requests, yes

strange elm
#

that is wack, i can see why some folks just bypass them and just make there artworks, or mods. but alas thats not what i want to do :/

echo orchid
#

what ip you trying to work with in a3?

strange elm
#

either Aliens, or Avatar just make a marine faction

echo orchid
#

might be easier to just contact someone else that can get you that permission instead

dull moon
#

formal requests by "casuals" are usually ignored (as PuFu said). formal requests by an attorney are usually answered

strange elm
#

i already started it in 2018 but i stopped and if i wanted to continue id want to do wit with the right concent

echo orchid
#

and yes, get a formal letter through some legal counselor instead

strange elm
#

thats lame how much would that be to do?

dull moon
#

depends on the attorney you ask

#

a couple hundred € i guess

echo orchid
#

it is not lame. i can assume their legal department has better things to do

#

also, whoever the emails sent is reaching might have no idea about licensing

#

or this sort of non-commercial avenue

strange elm
#

yeah i hit up Disney first and they sent me to some guy in 21st. might contact disney again maybe they can help me a little bit since they atleast have the curtosy to answer

faint nacelle
#

it is quite possible such question also is forwarded to someone else and either gets lost or forgotten in them way

strange elm
#

yeah thats kind of what im hoping, thats why i sent them a followup email about 2 weeks after the first its just frustrating im trying to go about it the right way but it sounds like us mere peasants get filtered out.

#

my boss would have chewed me out if i ignored emails from clients and customers n such

plain rivet
#

Yeah, that’s why I’m thankful that Microsoft has a usage license that allows us to make stuff legally without having to contact anyone at Microsoft or 343 for consent to make OPTRE. As long as we don’t profit off it, we’ll be ok

strange elm
#

i mean i could see if 21st century has something similar but i wouldnt know what to look for. i mean the silence could be misinterpreted as "hey its in our license that you can" but i dont want to make that assumption.

plain rivet
#

I’d take a look around and see if something like that exists. If it doesn’t, then should contact them through an attorney or something like what was suggested above

strange elm
#

yeah ill give that a lookise later tongiht, thanks!... lol im just a little hesitant about contacting an attorney because ive never done something like that before, and im to sure if it would be worth the money.

#

but i might look into that aswell

gleaming fable
soft egret
#

I have the feeling many people missinterpret the "share-alike" as "share as you like" which is totally not the case

chilly silo
#

If you go back and see what I said you need to have permission. And the reason I mention ed share-a-like was I was specifically asked about it. Some said share-a-like was not allowed.

soft egret
#

share-alike doesn't really say much about whats allowed or not does it?

chilly silo
#

No but it's dependant on actual text. And that varies per license.

soft egret
#

I saw a lot of people in the past saying "but it says share alike, so that allows me to share it as much as I like, thats why I reuploaded it"
so what it really means should be better explained when mentioned.
As your statement above can also be interpreted as "share-alike things can be reuploaded" which is not the case

autumn glacier
#

I also think many understand the Steam Workshop as a form of a "one-click host". Whereas I still don't understand why they can't just create a collection if they want to use the workshop.

chilly silo
#

In my question to Dawn at Valve i tried to cover the common licence types. The response makes the permission component of all this perfectly clear. The only confusing part left I can see is what the different types of licences actually mean for the end user.

#

And in that i also stated the each licence is unique and needs to be understood before using any content.

rustic copper
#

Share-a-like means that if you share it, it must be under the same terms/licence.
However the Steam Workshop EULA still forbids you from uploading content which you don't own, because it requires full permission (aka no license attached) which can only be given by the original creator.

chilly silo
#

@rustic copper Yes but if the actual licence terms allow you to redistribute - which some versions do - then you are covered. Which is why ive repeatedly said "you need permission".

#

Not every "open source" licence is the same

#

Not every Creative Commons license is the same.

#

And neither is any Share-a-like.

#

And Authors are free to add clauses to any licence type they like

#

Which is why i've also repeatedly said Each licence is unique and needs to be understood before using any content.

chilly silo
soft egret
#

Why are you writing "share-a-like" ? Isn't share-alike the proper thing?
Are we talking about different things?

muted grove
#

@rustic copper "However the Steam Workshop EULA still forbids you from uploading content which you don't own"

That's flat out wrong, as Valve's legal contact Dawn said. If you have the author(s) consent to upload, you have their consent to upload.

#

You don't need to own it, or have all the permissions.

#

You just need to have the permissions required to give steam a license to host said content.

#

And saying "Yes, you can upload this content" is license enough. Because that explicitly means you have the right to redistribute the mod. They can however, at any point pull that license from you.

chilly silo
muted grove
#

I have to say, it's neat that people are taking the time to understand license types and their rights, whether that be as the copyright holder or not.

chilly silo
#

I agree.

chilly silo
rustic copper
#

When you upload your content to Steam to make it available to other users and/or to Valve, you grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, for the purpose of the operation, distribution, incorporation as part of and promotion of the Steam service, Steam games or other Steam offerings, including Subscriptions.
It's the 'non-exclusive rights' part I'm referring to, which means there can not be any limitation to what you upload (which most licences have). And only the original creator can wave off the license or give permission to wave off the license when uploading content to Steam.

muted grove
#

You again fundamentally misunderstand how copyright and licensing works.

#

"non-exclusive right" means that steam has a non exclusive right to use etc, if it was an exclusive right, then no one but steam could use the material.

#

When an author tells you "Yes you can reupload this to steam", that infers that your reupload license covers all the neccesary rights to reupload it to steam.

#

Also I'm not going to take some rando's word off the internet in regards to steams licensing terms when their very own legal department completely contradicts you.

rustic copper
#

But how can you give non-exclusive rights on content you don't have non-exclusive rights on?

#

And like I said; if you get permission from the creator there is no problem afaik

muted grove
#

Because when an author tells me "You can re-upload this to steam" for that to be possible it must also come with the conditions that I be able to comply with steams license, so in fact, by the author telling me I can re-upload, it means that I have those rights.

rustic copper
#

FYI I also have a mod on the workshop which I took over from another developer, and I got explicit permission to distribute it on Steam and GitHub (with original licence attached).

muted grove
#

Which is fine.

rustic copper
#

However it does not mean I can just re-upload everything because a license has a share-a-like clause in it...

muted grove
#

I don't know the specifics of your license so I can't comment on that

soft egret
#

share-alike :U
"share-alike" being present provides no information about whether you are allowed to "share" the content.
So I don't know why that is even mentioned at all.

Everytime share-alike is mentioned here, its usually missleading and interpreted as "share-alike == share as you like == you can reupload"
I'd prefer if its just not mentioned at all, or atleast explained what "share alike" actually really means.
Out of the context of "allowing you to reupload" because thats not what it is about.

Especially not in a way that sounds like "share-alike means you can redistribute" even if its not meant that way but still can be interpreted that way. Why mention it at all if it doesn't matter.

muted grove
#

Share-alike typically only means that copies and adaptations carry the same license terms as the original, you as Dedmen said, can have plenty of restrictions ontop of that.

#

Such as a share-alike may have a no redistribution if altered, restriction.

#

Or do not alter, share freely.

#

Plenty of ways it can be shared.

#

There's even a lot of "Share-alike, derivatives ok, redistribution ok, no monetization"

#

Or rather, non commercial.

chilly silo
#

Wow ok - missing some contexrt here and going down a rabbit hole.

So non-exclusive in contract terms https://www.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html#:~:text=A Non-Exclusive Licence grants,exploit the same intellectual property.

This is the same as me giving you a license to modify one of my addons. say the Puma. I also reserve my right to license that same addon in either the same way or a different way to Dedmen. And/or several others.

If i gave you Exclusive license would mean that you had the sole rights to that addon. I still remain the author but i cede control to you,

#

Share-a-like (or however we chose to spell it) is just a term describing a licence. Its no different than MIT, GPL, CC-SA, CC-ND, CUP-L, RKSL EULA etc. The terms of the license still apply

#

As an author if i release something as APL-SA and grant you permission to upload to steam. It doesnt change the terms under which the original content is to be used.

#

I'm not giving you exclusive control

#

I have are given permission to redistribute.

#

IF the original Author (me) decides one day that the licensee (you) has broken our agreement than i can choose to Contact Steam and say: "hey hes breached our agreement and request that you remove my content that was shared under license" Valve will remove it

#

Now when we upload anything we are giving Valve a non exclusive contract to distribute content in a way that removes any liability on their part to the uploaded content.

#

Thats what that phrase is about

#

If any content is in dispute they remove it. And my issue is with you not with them.

#

Does that make sense?

#

@rustic copper & @soft egret

#

You arent giving them the 'work'/'content' just a license to distribute it under specific terms.

#

By giving you permission to distribute it/reupload it i am giving you the right to use these services - not the right to claim ownership. Nor is Valve attempting to claim ownership. just ensuring that you make the declaration that you are legally allowed to upload it,

#

If you do not have permission from the the Author/Creators, then you are 100% correct

#

But if a licence/agreement exists between you and I then you are covered.

#

You as an Author always have the right to sub-license or re-license your work at anytime. Unless you have given someone an exclusive license where you deed them IP rights over the content.

#

I get what Dedmen is saying - but thats a problem with the end user misunderstanding the terms - its nothing that prevent the creator licensing their content how they want.

#

I know the language is subtle and confusing - and translating across different languages doesnt help - but its not quite as black and white as it may seem to read.

#

(ps typos and bad grammar are due to no reading glasses and typing on a crappy phone)

rustic copper
#

When (explicit) permissions are in place there is no problem, I think we all agree on that part 😉
But I believe there's a difference on how we see licences, open source (aka open source, not feel free to do whatever you want) and how to understand the EULA.
Or better said; how certain people are reading/understanding it.

#

Valve, understandably, says "as long as you have permission, we don't care". So the question is; when do you have permission?

Can this come alone from a license, or does it require more?
Personally I would say the latter by also requiring explicit permission.

soft egret
chilly silo
soft egret
# chilly silo Does that make sense?

I know what share alike means.

But your message up there is still there.

If the "Opensource" licence allows redistribution then you should be covered.
Same for "Share-a-like".
knowing people they will read the "same" as "you should be covered" and assume share-alike == upload is fine

#

REQUIRES PERMISSION
Almost any non-opensource licence
xx-SA aka Share-alike/Share-a-like
again, why are you bringing up and listing share-alike specifically when it really doesn't matter?

chilly silo
#

AGAIN OUT OF CONTEXT!

chilly silo
soft egret
#

I don't see that question about share-alike.
All I see is a post from 29th of a user that had the exact same missconception as I said of "share-alike == share as much as you want"

chilly silo
chilly silo
#

Not everything happens on this discord.

soft egret
#

Why are you handling share-alike as a specific type of license while its just an addon like non-commercial or no-derivatives.

In summary about share alike: "Share alike doesn't mean "share" as in redistribute/reupload and does not mean you can share the content"

chilly silo
#

Oh ffs. OK one last time.

Because I was specifically asked how Share-a-like sits in the context of "Opensource" vs ND etc when the licence states they can "SHARE A LIKE". You even said the same thing

#

I really dont see what the problem is.

soft egret
#

I know that.

chilly silo
#

Then what is the problem?

soft egret
#

I just stated that your statement above can be missinterpreted. Which people here really like to do to justify their violations

chilly silo
#

Which you are doing out of context for the sake of making a point?

soft egret
#

wat?

#

You just told me the context is in some DM that isn't here, and that i cannot see and thus others don't either

chilly silo
#

Ohhkay. Go and find that particular message you object to again. Read the messages above and below it.

soft egret
chilly silo
#

As for what you "cannot" see. In particular my DMs. Just like the email i was posting information that answered many people's questions to me in one place

#

You are THE absolute most pedantic person i have ever met.

#

Link me the message you object to

soft egret
#

Let me be one of the dozens of people who visited us in this channel over the past years.

But RKSL rock said its allowed!
open source licences that allow redistribution are fine and "share-a-like" licenses are too.
See here he said it:

Discord_2021-05-03_19-12-18.png
soft egret
#

why do you think this is some kind of personal attack towards you? its not at all?

chilly silo
#

You've just proved my point about completely out of "context".

#

You siezed on one line out of a conversation of hundreds that when read in context says something different.

#

Read the messages above and below it where i clarify that permission is needed

soft egret
#

Exactly! Thats what I'm trying to tell you

chilly silo
#

And i replied to you already

#

I explained many many times

soft egret
#

People who want to take it out of context (like has happened in the past) don't read the context or replies

chilly silo
#

Context

soft egret
#

they take whatever they can to justify their means

chilly silo
#

Well you can correct them now can't you and refer to this.

#

And use it as an example of how stuff is taken out of context

soft egret
#

yes. Which is why I told you that and clarified it.
I don't understand why you go at me like it was some personal attack at you

chilly silo
#

And if you read the actual messages....it explains it.

#

Because I dont understand why you arent listening to what i'm saying. its like you are are intentionally yanking my chain.

soft egret
#

I talked about the people who intentionally don't listen and take things out of context for their own benefit

chilly silo
#

Which you appear to be one.

#

Ok i'm done here. I've explained all i can

soft egret
#

What? no

#

I think we're completely talking past eachother

soft egret
# soft egret share-alike :U "share-alike" being present provides no information about whether...

I explained it all here already.
No need to attack me with a wall of text like I'm willingly missinterpreting something you said.

All I did was state that others like to missinterpret it, and clarified it.
I know what it means and how it works.

You must've missunderstood something on the way.
I didn't missinterpret what you said, I just said that others like to do that and did so in the past.

Yes people can come here to get clarification, but do you really think they're gonna do that when a friend tells them "nono its fine, see here a veteran on Arma discord said so"
They won't come here and inform themselves, but they will reupload content, feel safe about it and be a problem

chilly silo
#

No i dont think that will happen - I just think you are trying to nit-pick to save face as it contradicts what you've said previously. I genuinely fell like you are just Trolling now.

I've tried to help. I did what anyone else here could have done and emailed Valve asking for clarification. I explained when people asked questions. Clarified when my original post was questioned. And you just trolled me.

As for my Veteran status. Feel free to remove it. Or ban me. I'm now past the point of caring. I wont be posting for a while.

soft egret
#

contradicts what I said previously? I always knew what share-alike means.. I don't think I ever said anything other than what it means.

No i dont think that will happen
It DID happen in the past, thats why I said that

I don't see why you think I'm trolling, I'm not...
Maybe take some time off and read the conversation above again from the start. I feel like you're not reading what I'm actually writing

#

Ah I see I think.

I have the feeling many people missinterpret the "share-alike" as "share as you like" which is totally not the case
I think you missinterpreted that as me saying YOU missinterpret that. Thats not what I meant. I meant many people except you and except basically everyone who does more than most basic research about that topic.

As to me trolling and nit-picking to save face.
And people missinterpreting things never happening.

People missinterpreting things in 2018
#ip_rights_violations message

Here is me telling someone what "share alike" means back in 2019.
Same thing as I said today, and same thing you said
#ip_rights_violations message
And here again:
#ip_rights_violations message

I don't understand your sudden aggression.

strange elm
#

i didnt read this whole discussion lol but maybe what is happening right now is Dedmen might be bringing up hypothetical instances, or instances that might have already come up in the past, and hes just trying to see, with the new clarification how things should/ should have been addressed. im not taking sides on this and ive got a buttload of university work to do today so thats all ill say. i dont think Dedmen would want to knit pick something, i think hes adressing the mod authors out there that try to find loopholes through the rules, licenses, to justify themselves, and there mods. i could be wrong just a thought but like i said i wont dwell here today im busy 🙂 but remember text is difficult to interpret emotions and tone/intent 🙂

chilly silo
#

contradicts what I said previously?
Yes, your refusal for over a year to accept that someone can authorise a 3rd party to upload content.

As for misinterpretation. There is enough on that page for ANYONE to see explanation and clarifications. Far more than choosing to misread a single line of text. Your repeated and insistent refusal to focus on anything else kind of indicates that your are either trying to save face and trolling.

As for my " sudden aggression" - its not aggression. Just frustration. Enough people have seen this now. I know i'm not alone is seeing it as "face saving" or just plain trolling now. I've already had several DMs saying as much.

I've been a part of and tried to help this community for over 19 years now. Only now am I so utterly f'd off that i'm going to take a break.

Best of luck everyone.
TTFN

soft egret
#

Yes, your refusal for over a year to accept that someone can authorise a 3rd party to upload content.
I don't remember anyone ever having said anything against uploading while having explicit permission from the author to do so?

But yeah with respect to licenses we (me and multiple others) were apparently wrong and as I wrote in #veterans, its nice to now have clarification on how its really meant to be and I don't have any issue with being wrong about that.
And I don't see why I would try to hide that I (and many others..) were wrong about that. And I'm not aware of trying to hide it either.

And its not really far fetched to think that in

was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors)
the
"to which others contributed besides you"
and
"originally created by [...] you and the other contributors"
means that you must've also contributed something which is what we (Moderators and others in this channel, going back till before I was involved with this IP stuff) thought.
Not like I made that fact up and its my fault such that I need to "save face" for having done something extraordinarily bad now.

But we weren't talking about that just now at all. I was talking about people missinterpreting "share alike" and nothing else.
I don't know why you're being frustrated about things that aren't there...

But I'm pretty unhappy for people attacking me for things I supposidely have done that I never did and never intended to do.
Seems like you interpreted anything I said right from the start as an attempt to discredit you or hide my mistakes while I never did that.

fleet oxide
#

I have a question about IP rights, if I want to port content from another game and upload it to the steam workshop, am I allowed to? That is, if I have explicit written consent from a member of the other game's team giving me explicit permission to port said content? Or do I need a signed legal document giving me distribution rights and permission to do so? I currently have the former, and I am waiting on the latter to be provided.

soft egret
#

"from a member of the other game's team" does that member of the team even have permission to give you the permission?

#

you don't really need a written document. But its much safer than word of mouth.
Having something to point at when someone asks about it or says "noone ever said that to you" or "that person didn't have the authorization to give you that permission"

fleet oxide
#

I would assume so, as I opened a ticket with their official support website asking about it and they said "as long as you do not monetize it, it is fine".

#

I asked about a legal document and they are apparently working on it as well.

#

I'm asking this because I don't know if I should wait for the legal document to start doing the porting or if the current permission I have is enough.

soft egret
#

question is rather, do you trust them to provide you the document later.
If they say "yes its fine, we'll give you a document soon" then I would certainly say its fine to just go ahead

fleet oxide
#

alright, thank you

muted grove
#

I don't see anything wrong with starting the work now and only uploading it when you get the license in proper writing.

gleaming fable
# rustic copper But how can you give non-exclusive rights on content you don't have non-exclusiv...

You are getting yourself way mixed up. If you do not have non exclusive rights. You have exclusive rights.

Here is how you can be granted the right to give other non exclusive rights, while also not having exclusive rights (non exclusive rights)

Fact #1: I make a mod, I have exclusive and complete rights

Fact #2: I tell you or include in the license that you have non exclusive rights to posess and distribute, and that you can authorize others to non exclusively upload and distribute the content, such as through the steam workshop

Fact 3: You now have non exclusive rights to posess and distribute, as well as the ability to grant someone else non exclusive rights to upload and distribute the mod, such as through the steam workshop

#

This means that you can upload the content to steam and have them distribute it non exclusively.

Things you cannot do in this scenario:
-Tell steam that they have the exclusive right to distribute the content (They don't have exclusive rights, just non exclusive)

rustic copper
#

Which doesn't change my point...
If you don't own the content you do not have the right to give out the license or go into any kind of agreement with Valve...

fluid elbow
#

@rustic copper is right.

If you dont own, just keep your hands off it.

If you dont have any written permission by original author, just keep your hands off it.

Is it so hard? To think logical?

What is not yours, is not yours and doesnt allow you to make what you want.

.

muted grove
#

No he's not @fluid elbow, because the hypothetical isn't "You uploaded a mod you don't have rights too, and someone asks you for permission to re-upload"

#

The hypothetical is "You're an author of a mod(say ACE, for a clear example) you can authorize people to re-upload your mod."

#

The person who then re-uploads your mod, doesn't need exclusive rights to do so, that's /NOT/ how copyright works. When they get the permission to re-upload a mod to steam they get a non exclusive, sub-licenseable license that can only be granted to valve.

muted grove
#

Your license still needs to comply with what Valve says they need, but when someone tells you that you can re-upload to steam, you inherently have those rights. As no one can give you a license to re-upload to steam that doesn't comply with the requirements to re-upload to steam, you'd have to explicitly prohibit one of the inherent requirements. Which in turn would pretty much invalidate the license so why even bother.

#

This has been repeatedly established in US courts, as far up as the supreme court.

#

If you were right about needing full rights, then Sony IE, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA would all be liable for half a trillion dollars of copyright infringement, as they're a publisher, they publish the works of other developers, and don't have absolute ownership of all they publish, they're just given a license by the developers to publish and distribute their works.

rustic copper
#

And we all know; if you have permissions it's all fine...
However the big question in this discussion is: when do you have that permission?

fluid elbow
#

@muted grove

I give up with that s%it because its going to run in a circle since a week.

If its not your s%it just keep hands off it. Or ask for permission of orignal author to what your plans are.

Even your plan you want to do i really hate.. you dont like to subscribe many mods for your unit and so you want to make all in one pbo file which makes 0 sense, absolutly 0 sense, because for compat patch you need anyway to subscribe the original. 🤷‍♂️

Only 2 ways are:

Permission of every original author to fuse all together

Or do your own s%it.. with 11'000 hours in modding you should know how 🤷‍♂️

muted grove
#

The point is, I have to subscribe to it, yes, but the unit doesn't have too.

#

So instead of telling 250 people to go sub to 59 mods, I can combine them into one, and tell em, go sub to this.

#

Either way, it doesn't concern you so you really have no say in the matter.

fluid elbow
#

Just dont hit my mod with such

soft egret
muted grove
#

If its not your s%it just keep hands off it. Or ask for permission of orignal author to what your plans are.

No one argued this ever.

#

@soft egret There is, point is having to get 250 people up to speed on a sunday evening because of mod updates, gets kinda old.

fluid elbow
#

Its how it is, its for everyone the same

muted grove
#

Also, some communities might want to modify compat files.

#

So make it work for them.

fluid elbow
#

Compat is just a patched of its oroginal, still original needed

muted grove
#

Yup, I'm aware.

keen trout
#

there's always the meta workshop item patch with the rest as dependencies to avoid having to sub more than one manually and then let the launcher figure out the rest

#

either way you'll still end up with issues if you remove a mod 😛

#

using presets is the only way to avoid that in the launcher

muted grove
#

I know how to work with presets, it's not hard.

#

The whole point, of bringing that up was how misinterpreted the meaning of 6D was.

soft egret
#

Thats what you get for the convenience of not having to host the files yourself.
Host your own Arma3Sync repository and most problems are gone.

I do that, absolutely no problems with mod updates.
And if we do have to update a mod, its mostly automated so not really a hassle. And also easier for our players because they only ever click one button.

muted grove
#

I'm well aware, I'm just doing the best I can given the parameters given to me by higher.

#

Idk why people latch onto the combining compats, it was an off hand mention of one use that's permitted in 6D that people woefully misunderstood.

soft egret
#

"that's permitted in 6D" if you have permission that is.
Yes ACE allows it, and majority of compats are for ACE. But there are also others.

muted grove
#

I'm aware

#

I haven't stated anything to the contrary.

soft egret
#

Others who read your statement stating "combining compats, it was an off hand mention of one use that's permitted in 6D"
will read it as "6D permits combining compats"

Those who want to do that, are just looking through here to find something that tells them its ok to do whatever they already planned to do

muted grove
#

People will be stupid, and not read context.

#

Not my fault.

soft egret
#

exactly. Thats why its best to always be specific

muted grove
#

We can just sit back and laugh when steam bans them for their incompetence.

soft egret
#

you sit back and laugh yes. The modders who have to spend hours filing DMCA's about their content because someone took a statement from here as justification that "its allowed" aren't sitting back and laughing

#

Thats why its best to always provide the full context.
Not "6D allows it" but "6D allows it if you also have permission (via license or by the author)"
people can't screenshot that second one to use it as justification

muted grove
#

If I had to write out a disclaimer for everything I said in here, I'd break discords character limit.

#

Because every message would be why X, with things a, b, c, d, e and g, h, e describing k, l, q, r would break 6D.

#

I'm not going to go out of my way to idiot proof things. People who are looking for those justifications aren't going to give a f' what you say. They'll just cut out what they don't like of what you said and misquote you.

#

Also I'm not a representative of valve, or bohemia, so what I say really doesn't have any sort of sway.

manic laurel
#

we want to avoid those

U3V0sRQ.png
muted grove
#

Yeah, they can go f'off

cold rain
#

Nice one @soft egret you trolled the only guy that actually knows what he's talking about off the server. Great Job.

soft egret
#

Why troll? I didn't... Please read the above conversation instead of just stating I'm trolling.
Also welcome on our discord new user

cold rain
#

Looks like trolling to me

soft egret
#

What specifically? I don't understand why

cold rain
#

I dont think Rock could have been clearer. Im no expert on this ip crap but what he said makes sense and he answered everything you asked. Al you did is pick on one ambiguous line that he clarified several time and you just would not let go. Thats trolling.

soft egret
#

But I said the same thing he said

#

I never asked for clarification.
I just said that many people missinterpret share-alike, and repeated what it means.

But for some reason Rock felt the need to re-explain, what I already wrote, to me several times

cold rain
#

Are we reading the same thing here?

soft egret
#

I don't know. I already felt that Rock didn't read what I actually wrote

cold rain
#

Yeah I read that and his reply but you kept at it.

#

I dont understand why you dont understand what he wrote

#

It obvious you have a problem with him.

#

I just dont know what it is

soft egret
#

I do understand what he wrote. I know what share-alike means.
Why do I keep going at it.
This is where I ended: #ip_rights_violations message
I was simply clarifying that some people might missinterpret his statement if they want to (which people have done in the past), clarified it again, and thats it from my side.

And here he got back at me long after it was already over (5 hours later): #ip_rights_violations message
Seems like he didn't understand what I was saying and thought I wanted a clarification (I didn't, I already clarified it above) and explanation from him.
I never attacked or trolled him, and I also don't have any problem with him. In fact I'm thankful for his help

#

But I don't have a problem with him. I don't understand why it seems that way

cold rain
#

yet you just kept at it didnt ytou

soft egret
#

Yes. I know.

soft egret
cold rain
#

how can you not understand that

soft egret
#

He pinged me 5 hours later

cold rain
#

huh?

soft egret
cold rain
#

Im starting to understand why he got frustrated.

#

He answered your questions

#

It was never enough for you

soft egret
#

What?

#

I asked a question. He answered it. That was the end.
Until he pinged me again 5 hours later.
I don't understand why you think that wasn't enough for me? where?

#

Here I asked these questions:

share-alike doesn't really say much about whats allowed or not does it?"

Why are you writing "share-a-like" ? Isn't share-alike the proper thing?
Are we talking about different things?
He answered the first one, and the second one was "oh my phones autocorrect does it like that"

and that was it.

cold rain
#

We are obviously reading 2 dfferent chats lol

#

back to work for me

#

#freerock 😛

random marsh
#

You don't have to worry about reuploading compats if you make your own 🤔

fluid elbow
random marsh
#

Obviously. Most mods allow it.

stable zealot
#

Why would you not be allowed to make a compat patch

#

That’s an additive process

#

I can’t stop anyone from making compat patches of any of my mods, what grounds would I have? You’re not taking any content and reuploading it, you’re inheriting some classes and adding your own work into a config youmade.

faint nacelle
#

While it would be quite unusual decision, wouldnt no derivatives frobid that? or you could just add more out of norm license clause saying something like "You may not make compatibility mods for this addon to work with other mods" or some such.

#

It might not be good move, but it is possible

stable zealot
#

I'm not great at this IP lawyer business, but personally if I had a "no derivatives" clause on my mod I wouldn't feel in a position of power over compat mods as they don't really feel like derivatives to me. My models and textures have not been changed or uploaded, the compat mod is not re-appropriating my work it's simply adding some code onto the side. It's taking classes already in game and injecting code alongside the class rather than deriving from it.

I suppose you can always ask people not to make compat mods but when push comes to shove I don't believe a clause like that actually grants any power for any meaningful enforcement

muted grove
#

Compat files depending on how they are made, can fall under fair use and right to repair.

#

Google just won a supreme court case where they used some 12k lines of Java, which totals to some 0.002-0.006% of the total work?

#

Basically a mega glorified compat patch for chrome to understand java rendering.

#

In this case the code was copied wholesale.

rustic copper
#

Fair use is the biggest 💩 in copyrighted content... And dies not apply...

muted grove
#

Just because you have copyright to your work, does not mean your whole work falls under copyright protections.

rustic copper
#

Right to repair maybe, but is useless outside the US

muted grove
#

And yes, fair use very much does apply.

rustic copper
#

Everything you write is automatically copyrighted...

muted grove
#

No?

#

Like, hell no?

rustic copper
#

If it can be copied, it's protected

muted grove
#

No

#

You can not copyright titles, slogans, ideas, concepts etc.

rustic copper
#

Those are trademarks, etc ..

muted grove
#

You could do a cursory google search and learn that...

#

Concept is not trademark

rustic copper
#

I did, and know my stiff

muted grove
#

If anything it's patent law

#

You very clearly do not

#

Anyways, if you're so right, explain to me how the worlds most powerful court is wrong

#

If you were right, SC would've voted against google, they did not.

rustic copper
#

There's a big difference between copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. And code IS copyrighted.

And I don't care about US law, because anything that needs a jury means it's not competent enough to do it themselves... But that is #offtopic_politics

muted grove
#

No

#

Only the expression of code is copyrighted

#

It's a huge difference.

#

And if you don't care about US law, maybe not chat in the room /Designated/ for it?

rustic copper
#

cough BI is european cough

muted grove
#

Valve is US based cough

rustic copper
#

And you know what, copyright is worldwide

muted grove
#

Lol no it aint

rustic copper
#

Just some countries/people don't care

muted grove
#

Good luck trying to tell Kim whom everthe f' they have copyright laws.

rustic copper
#

China has massive copyright laws z they just don't apply for anything outside of China 🤷‍♂️

muted grove
#

Steam workshop is subject to Washington State laws and US laws.

muted grove
rustic copper
#

It is, just followed differently

muted grove
#

No?

rustic copper
#

But this is becoming political and has nothing to do with IP Rights Violations anymore

muted grove
#

For chinese copyright laws to be world wide, every other country would have to ratify it in one way or another.

#

Maritime law, is world wide, because the UN said so.

#

Copyright isn't.

#

Copyright is unique to each state, and the DMCA is recognized in a whole heap of countries.

#

Doesn't mean it's a world wide law.

river spear
#

@stable zealot I, too, would say that a compatibility patch per se is allowed, if you only add to the existing base and your addition does not copy contents of the original

muted grove
#

I'd have to research it more thoroughly but iirc the SC said that variable names, while it might be copyright protect-able, falls under fair use when referenced in external code.

fluid jewel
#

I don't see how something that only adds to another work and doesn't even contain any parts of the original work could in any way violate any copyright

#

then something like a written review of a movie could be considered a copyright violation

soft egret
muted grove
#

It does

#

Though, thing about copyright fair use is that, you don't have to satisfy all 4 parts.

#

You just need to satisfy enough to tip the scale across the 50% mark, and each segment weighs differently, and is measured differently depending on circuit the court is part of.

#

So if it's transformative, non commercial, only uses the minimum amount required, and doesn't usurp the market, you can usually ignore the first factor.

indigo thorn
#

"Transformative" normally refers to commenting on, criticising or a parody of copyrighted work.
So possibly not what a lot of people would assume it to mean....

muted grove
#

"Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work."

#

Commenting, criticizing, parodies can certainly be transformative, but are by no means the definition of it.

#

So, a compat patch, is transformative in that it adds something new.

#

You're giving compatibility to things that did not exist there before.

fluid jewel
#

a compat patch isn't just adding something new, it's basically 100% new, it doesn't contain any part of the original thing

muted grove
#

Yes and no

#

You still have to derive class names etc, afaik.

#

But as the SC ruled with google v oracle, that's a fair use.

#

But for the sake of argument, it is basically 100% new, yes.

#

Washington being in the 9th circuit, has found that fair use isn't just an affirmative defense against copyright infringement, it's an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law.

indigo thorn
#

The Google/Oracle case is quite interesting as the Federal courts initially found in favour of Oracle.
If I remember correctly, it was only an appeal in the Supreme Court that Google won. (Which obviously over turns the original judgement)
So the fact the case went to appeal in the SC having originally been in favour of Oracle shows how tricky copyright cases can be!

I think a compat patch could actually be quite a good example of what fair use is when it comes to mod making. 2 big factors being the amount of original work 'used' - just the inheritance classes and that the original mod is still required thus not affecting the 'market' for the original work. (In fact, you could argue compat patches might even increase the 'market' for the original work.)

What a lot of mod makers get fed up with is Fair Use being claimed in mods that are in breach of all 4 requirements for Fair Use....

muted grove
#

@indigo thorn Google won the district and supreme court ruling, appeals court as the SC said, did a massive f'up by ruling in oracles favor.

#

Yeah, I'd have to concur with the free use claim, it's entirely appropriate when talking in the context of compat patches. Very much not appropriate when it comes to copying mods, good example would be re-uploading RHS whole sale.

#

A more murky one that I still think is perfectly ok is normal patches, say RHS did a dumdum and forgot to tie textures into the model in the config, a patch fixing that link would imo be perfectly ok. Where it gets muddier is re-texturing.

#

I reckon you'd need permission to retexture, given that you're working with their creation directly at that point.

faint nacelle
#

If license of the mod says you may not do such thing, then you can't make such thing?

muted grove
#

Make what?

faint nacelle
#

Anything

muted grove
#

A compat patch?

#

They can say that as much as they want in the license. But I still have an affirmed right to fair use of their work.

faint nacelle
#

What are you referring to as fair use?

#

Define that

muted grove
#

The actual definition of fair use as described by the law and the rulings done by the US court system.

faint nacelle
#

Yes and previosly it has been noted that there is nothing there that applies to mods

muted grove
#

Massive misinterpretation of the law

#

Like

#

MASSIVE

faint nacelle
#

I'm sure you are absolutely sure about this then.

muted grove
#

Yes.

faint nacelle
#

Alright. Explain it then

muted grove
#

I'm sorry, I'll go tell Legal Eagle and Leonard French that their licenses to practice copyright law are null and void. Because apparently they are completely wrong about copyright law.

#

17 U.S.C. § 107 establishes the fair use test, build on 4 factors.

#

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

#

"The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."

#

Compat mods fall under this because it creates progress of the arts, through addition of something that did not exist before.

#

It's in this case non commercial because you can't sell mods.

#

The first factor as many misinterpret, is NOT purely for educational use, that is ONE explicitly stated permissible purpose.

#

It is also transformative because it gives function to a mod that did not already exist there.

#

Also I was mistaken earlier about saying ignoring the first factor, I meant the 2nd factor. The nature of the copyrighted work.

faint nacelle
#

Alright so what are the other allowed uses

muted grove
#

There's more than I care to mention.

faint nacelle
#

No which one applies to this case

#

You say there is some, please provide the accurate information

muted grove
#

Quote where I said that plz

faint nacelle
#

Wut?

muted grove
#

You say there is some, please provide the accurate information

#

Ok so

muted grove
#

As I've already pointed out, several times in the past half hour.

#

Google v Oracle, is as a direct "You're wrong BI" as you can get, coming from the SC.

faint nacelle
#

"In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. "

#

BI has nothing to do with fair use and mods

muted grove
#

"limited and “transformative” purpose"

#

Such as, means explicit examples permitted.

faint nacelle
#

As to comment upon, criticise or parody

#

And I believe educational use is on that list

muted grove
#

Those latter 3 are explicitly permitted.

faint nacelle
#

Is there more uses?

muted grove
#

Yes, anything that is limited and transformative.

faint nacelle
#

And where are those defined

muted grove
#

WHERE YOU JUST POSTED

#

Jesus christ

#

Quit trolling dude

#

I'm not going to explain the most simplest parts of fair use to you when you refuse to even read what you posted your self.

faint nacelle
#

No I'm not trolling. I'm not also native English speaker. So for me it looks like you are pushing this without any tangible proof and throwing big court cases and links to get your point through

#

I have read it and have not understood anything where it says anything is allowed

muted grove
#

You have to understand the meaning behind the law.

#

Leonard French and Legal Eagle have great videos on the subject of fair use.

#

Covering past court cases, and current ongoing ones.

#

They're both licensed to practice copyright law.

faint nacelle
#

Alright. Maybe you can reach out to them to actually say if such applies to mods.

muted grove
#

I know it does

#

Mods are works of art

echo orchid
#

not everything in a mod is a work of art

muted grove
#

Sure

#

I'm speaking generally

#

There are things that are purely factual, utilitarian, etc.

fluid jewel
#

what part in a mod is not a work of art, it's all creative work

echo orchid
#

@fluid jewel configs for example

fluid jewel
#

you could totally argue that configuring something well is a work of art

#

there's creativity there

muted grove
#

Something that would be 100% copyright protected would be someone making a png of something they drew, and threw into the mod.

echo orchid
#

you could, but you could be wrong

fluid jewel
#

says who

muted grove
#

Something 100% not copyright protectable would be config code relying on factual things like established class names etc.

fluid jewel
#

"work of art" is not really a specifically defined thing

muted grove
#

That BI made.

echo orchid
#

because work art forms are actually defined

echo orchid
muted grove
#

I forget the latter part but, for something to be copyright protectable it must be fixed in a tangible medium.

#

Then there's a whole bunch of caveats that follow

echo orchid
#

and unlike scripting, these aren't multiple ways of doing it

#

back on topic of fair use when in relation to mods

#

not everything goes under fair use

#

i suspect the topic is still going around compatibility patches

#

considering such patches are derivative work

muted grove
#

Yes, we're talking exclusively compat patches atm.

indigo thorn
#

Going back to an earlier point:
A couple of additional things, it is possible to generate contracts or licenses that explicitly exclude Fair Use. So just be a bit careful as licenses can take precedence over 'automatic' rights to fair use. It's not clear to me whether the 'No Derivative Works' license is such a license.

Secondly, just because mods don't make money, it does not mean they does not mean the 'not for commercial use' clause is automatically passed.
Examples being charities that have used copyright materials assuming they can do so because they are non-commercial/non-profit making. As using the copyrighted material can cause commercial damage to the copyright holder, this still classes as a commercial use. So charities have lost all cases in these instances, to my knowledge.
One might argue that some Mod makers who are using Steam Workshop as part of their portfolio to demonstrate their skills can be damaged by derivatives of their work.

Having said that, for compatibility mods, I think they might be a genuine Mod example of Fair Use. (That could be forbidden with a ND license?)

But I can't see how anything beyond this could fall under fair use.

echo orchid
#

and considering that these aren't for your own enjoynment (as in could be covered by the educational/research part of fair use)

#

i wouldn't say any derrivative work can pass as fair use in the term of the law

muted grove
#

Well

echo orchid
#

but because configs can only be done in a certain way

muted grove
#

Derivative works in copyright law are express creations that include major copyrightable elements of an original.

echo orchid
#

and you do not actually need to reverse engineer anything to make these, i would say compatibility config only patches are passable

muted grove
#

If you're changing configs, you're not taking any major elements.

echo orchid
#

but configs alone doesn't make things compatible on it's own

muted grove
#

Also as you said, configs generally would not be regarded as copyright protectable anyways.

#

At least I seem to remember you saying that.

echo orchid
#

again, talking about A3 realm here, where parts of the penetrations, materials etc are directly baked into the 3d models

#

i said that i do not consider writing configs to have any sort of creativity for A3 at least

#

minus a few exceptions, but these are actually creative because they create workaround a set system

#

but generally speaking, yes, configs for A3 are templates with values

fluid jewel
#

what if you're talking about event handlers that have scripts written in them

echo orchid
#

it's a bit of an oversimplification for the sake of this conversation

fluid jewel
#

I think you could say that values of some configs could be called creative works

echo orchid
#

@fluid jewel as soon as you talk about coding in itself, then it is different\

muted grove
#

I mean, we all pretty much have to oversimplify or this would divulge into a conversation that people are paid thousands of dollars an hour to have xD

upper wing
#

scripting != config files

fluid jewel
#

configs can have scripts in them

#

but I guess that's just semantics so nevermind that

echo orchid
#

yeah of course they have, but it is indeed semantics. and you need to agree that basic configs don't need that

#

anyways, back on topic. it's a bit of a touchy subject for a lot of us considering people in general have no idea what fair use actually is, and just because mods are non-commercial it doesn't mean there isn't any commercial value in them, quite the contrary as @indigo thorn said above

#

to conclude with the compatibility patches in general
let's take 2 examples here

#
  1. RHS - if you were to try to make a compatibility patch for RHS with say vanilla, you couldn't do it just config based, because a lot of the damage behaviour is set p3d side. moreover, just like with the latest update we pushed, a lot of the reported issues were due to actual compatibility patches and/or wrongly inherited configs by sound mods
#

the primary thing that would happen is that our social and feedback tracker would most likely explode with false reports, due to some 3rd party thing we have no control over.

#

example no. 2 - VTN - considering they have their own medical and aiming system (disabling the magic eye zoom when holding sec mouse button), you could in theory create a mod that re-writes most of the configs while keeping / pathing just the models

muted grove
#

due to actual compatibility patches and/or wrongly inherited configs by sound mods

Was about to mention that, just cuz you make one doesn't mean it works as intended KEKW

echo orchid
#

considering they have vocally express that such modifications are not allowed (they have a non-derivative EULA afaik)

#

are they withing their rights to enforce their own license, or does that go under fair use

#

?

hallow idol
muted grove
#

I'd reckon even if their license says no, you're still within your rights to make compat patches, so long as you follow the established guidelines for fair use.

#

Like, good example is don't include textures from another mod, reference it instead.

#

That way the original mod is still required to function, and is not causing any usurpation, even though that really does not factor in with arma, that's more of a general thing.

echo orchid
#

@hallow idol i remember some vocal discussion on BIF

#

again, i feel that everything that stays config specific is ok, considering you can do that without ever touching the original mod. as soon as you edit any sort of original work, it isn't really fair use anymore, unless there is a very specific reason, and that is maybe compatibility with core engine

hallow idol
#

As I understand their license - if you want to make a changes/modification to their mod - you have to inform them first. I understand a compat as a "change/modification"
В моде используются работы, 3D-модели, текстуры, скрипты и конфиги
целого ряда авторов, указанных ниже. Любые изменения, модификации без
ведома авторов мода недопустимы. Любое портирование содержимого мода
или его части, моделей, текстур и скриптов в другие моды ArmA 3 и/или игры
недопустимы.

#

(The English translation is a bit scuffed, but here you go:)

#

In the mod we use 3D-models, textures, scripts and configs of a number of
authors listed below. Any changes modification without informing authors
of mod are not allowed. Any porting the contents or part of mod e.g.
models, textures, and scripts in the other modes of ArmA 3 and / or other
games are not allowed

echo orchid
#

considering the general stance i would say "informing" actually means permission

hallow idol
#

Yeah, most likely, but I tried to stick to what they said, rather than put my words between theirs

echo orchid
#

i'll search for the BIF link when i'll have some spare

#

considering i didn't put my own 2cents in the mix

royal charm
#

VTN doesn't allow any touching of anything in their stuff, I know because I asked them. Had a convo with their lead dev a month or two back while I was hoping to make modifications to their LAV.. but now I'm just waiting for CSLA to drop 😉

hallow idol
#

They allow it to some

#

So it's possible, asking doesn't hurt)

royal charm
#

🤷‍♂️ They told me they can't allow, because they have a bunch of people who contributed to the VTN mod that did not agree to it back when they contributed, and they don't have contact with them now.

#

But yeah, asking doesn't hurt. I've been able to modify and reuse a few modifications that authors have given me and my community permission to use.

rustic copper
muted grove
#

I'm not going to argue something of which you're clearly wrong about.

#

I've already explained repeatedly what fair use is, if you don't get it at this point you're just straight up trolling.

tropic plume
#

calm down, ladies

rustic copper
#

Contains some good sources explaining it as well (and other IP related topics)

dull moon
muted grove
#

See, that link is wrong already.

#

Workshop is governed by US/Washington law

#

Where fair use is an explicit right