other_ip_topics

[heavy gate]

God what have I started

[timid oak]

idk man

[pliant valve]

Just checking in, did I kill Arma yet by reporting mods with ripped content?

[hard ravine]

Yep, Arma ded and buried now

Entire franchise wiped from existence

[pliant valve]

Damn, @frozen jackal I did it. Bluedrake must know about this right away.

[hard ravine]

He's never really been a smart person but him saying that you should get Arma 4 just for owning reforger is big time mentally deficient

[frozen jackal]

Yep, you took the whole community down

[pliant valve]

I don't see why it can't come with a discount code for Arma 4, but for it to be fully included then reforgers pricetag needs increasing three folds, considering the game was half the value of Arma 3 when that launched. But that's beyond IP so I won't comment further.

[pliant valve]

Where is my Arma killer pin?

@meager fractal I apparently killed Arma, where's my pin?

[frozen jackal]

I don't think you'll get a pin, but you could treat #end_of_life_arma as your personal channel lol

[pliant valve]

Hahah

[clever oak]

"Like it or loathe it, it is the law. And honest decent people like staying on the right side of that line." - @willow crane

This is not a great viewpoint to have, even if most laws are beneficial to society.

Do you think the people who supported slavery/owned slaves were 'honest, decent people' for being on the 'right side of the line'? Yes, these things have changed now, but does that mean that they were moral and good when they were still in effect? Awfully close-minded viewpoint to hold

[willow crane]

Oh ffs not this crap. Extreme analogies do not prove the point. It only proves you have an opposing view and are going to ridiculous extremes to undermine another person's argument. Slavery and IP law are very different things.

So lets stay with today: IP law is an accepted INTERNATIONAL standard. There are world wide treaties and conventions governing its use. Its backed up by so Moral rights law and so much case law its impossible to list it all.

It is a foundation of capitalism. The right of an author or creators to be recognised as the creator of a piece of work and their right to protect that work is simply only fair.

Now whatever gripe you have with IP law, you have a right to your opinion. But do me a favour, make sure your opinion is based in fact and don't try and make me the bad guy because you do not understand the world we live in.

You want to debate me - explain to my why IP law is wrong dont try come here and compare me to a racist slaver.

[clever oak]

I am not referring to specifically IP Law, I am stating that your view towards laws in GENERAL is invalid. I am an artist, and I rely on IP law to protect my work. It is very valuable, yes. You jumping to saying ALL LAWS are good and can NEVER be bad, is what I'm trying to point out.

Again, I am not referring to IP LAW SPECIFICALLY. I am referring to ALL LAWS GENERALLY. You state specifically that 'honest decent people' are always on the right side of the law. Which is false.

Yes, again, I am an artist who relies on IP law. I am not stating that authors/creators should not be recognized as such, and they absolutely should be protected.

My opinion is based in fact. I am not "making you the bad guy", I am simply parroting your words, and comparing them to the previous state of society.

Perhaps if you would read the point that I am trying to make, instead of immediately throwing a fit, you would understand that I am not saying you are a "racist slaver", but that your stance on viewing anything that is decided upon by a majority is correct, is not the right way to go about life.

[willow crane]

Personal and passive aggressive attacks on someone just undermine your credibility. Don't do it. Be a decent human being and just be honest with us and tell us what you really have a problem with.

[clever oak]

Neither personal, not passive aggressive.

I suggest you read the entirety of my message, rather than responding to one or two sentences, and make your opinion off that.

[willow crane]

So your entire argument is you saw a single line, took out in a context that suited your argument and decided to post in an IP channel?
To what end?
What benefit does it get you?
You want to question my morals?

[clever oak]

Again, read what I wrote instead of responding to the first sentence, thank you.

Otherwise I cannot take you seriously.

[willow crane]

I did read what you wrote. And continue to and I still dont understand why you are trying to question my morals in aa channel dedicated to IP rights?

[clever oak]

Because you literally said all laws are right, regardless of context or morality

[willow crane]

And frankly no i'm not taking you seriously right now. I'm not seeing anything in here that is anything but a poorly veiled personal attack on my morals

[willow crane]

Not what i said. You have decided to take a single phrase out of context and made it fit your own narrative.

[somber fiber]

Perhaps the two of you take this to DM's? this has kind of gone beyond discussion of IP rights, and is instead a constant contest of making the other person sound or seem like an idiot. just throwing this idea out there.

[clever oak]

Not everything is a personal attack, if you cannot take criticism, or understand analogy, then you are absolutely stuck in your mindset and will stay that way

[willow crane]

I'm not the oine @ and cross posting

[somber fiber]

regardless of who started it, this is the point we are at now.

I understand your frustration mr. rock.

[clever oak]

The whole purpose of this channel is to take discussions from #ip_rights_violations , out of #ip_rights_violations , to not clutter

[willow crane]

See another attempt to undermine my argument by deflection.

[clever oak]

So it's not 'cross posting', it is the actual intended use of this channel

[willow crane]

This is not about IP rights anymore

Its about you trying to prove a point about morals. Not moral rights

[potent moss]

He didn't say "all laws are right", he simply said that "it is the law" lol

[somber fiber]

I do see how this started here though. from mr. Sundowns post arguing with the law is the law, and honest people want to be on the right side of the law.

[willow crane]

Someone that looked and understood the context

[somber fiber]

however, I can also see how an exception was made to that statement

[potent moss]

I mean it was plain English lol

[clever oak]

I understand the context, I do not understand you saying that if you're agreeing with a law, you are automatically 'decent and honest'

I know plenty of people who are neither, who are on the right side of the law

[somber fiber]

"Like it or loathe it, it is the law. And honest decent people like staying on the right side of that line."

just posting this here so I dont have to channel hop.

[willow crane]

Some people, English isnt a first or second language. I make allowances for that. But this has nothing to do with the previous discussion. Its take a phrase out of the obvious and stated context and using it to shit stir.

[potent moss]

He didn't say that. He said (paraphrasing) that generally, decent and honest people tend to want to stay on the legal side of things.

[somber fiber]

this is the exact quote.

[willow crane]

Its is and its now out of context of the large discussion about IP law

[clever oak]

Yes, which I do not agree is correct 100% of the time.

IP law is great. Not all laws are great.

[potent moss]

The word "generally" is the key there.

[clever oak]

His phrasing rubbed me the wrong way

[willow crane]

I'm busy right now helping someone with an issue related to this channel's actual topic. I'll let the <@&105621371547045888> decide if I'm a 'racist slaver without morals' 😉

[somber fiber]

so, the original statement is that people who are honest tend to strive to be on the correct side of the law.

what I believe mr sundown, and now mr. Malaoka, have argued (though in interesting and off topic ways) is that the IP right enforcement actions as seen in these channels may not be on the right side of the law. its just worded poorly and I will admit, in a seemingly inflamatory way, though I believe that is due to ignorance other than a deliberate attempt at slander or character assasination.

[clever oak]

You are the only person who called yourself that

[willow crane]

Your personal assault on my character annoyed me.

[willow crane]

But you implied it

[clever oak]

I never attacked your character, I used a different set of laws as an example, I did not say that you would have agreed with those laws.

[somber fiber]

not neccesarily an accusation, just an inquiry of intent.

again, just worded in a poor manner.

[clever oak]

I think you are projecting, and I beg you to come back to this discussion once you have calmed down and can look at it from a rational point of view.

[willow crane]

Not how I've chosen to see it..... see it works both ways 😂

[clever oak]

Please outline where exactly I called you a 'racist slaver', and I will apologize. Because I cannot see it.

[potent moss]

So this whole thing was because his phrasing rubbed you the wrong way? Could've done this in DMs then lol

[somber fiber]

which is what ive been saying

[clever oak]

Probably, hindsight is 20/20

[willow crane]

I will again repeat this is an IP rights channel. Not a place to pick apart a phrase you have chosen to take completely out of context and make an issue out of .

[clever oak]

This is in response to something you said in that channel, yes.

[willow crane]

Which is why i said this isnt about the phrase more about the issue of IP. I mean why else try and undermine the IP argument?

[clever oak]

I also didn't say you don't have morals LMAO

[somber fiber]

@willow crane @clever oak here is my honest opinion on the root cause of all this drama. if you both could just take a look and determine if I was in the ballpark, that'd be great.

not forcing ya too of course

[clever oak]

I am not undermining anything by taking this to the separate channel, meant for discussion of things in #ip_rights_violations , nor was I saying IP law is bad

[somber fiber]

just trying to resolve this before yall get this channel slowmoded, haha

[clever oak]

I am not opposed to taking it to DMs

Rock?

[willow crane]

You compared my position on IP laws with the laws on Slavery? And for what reason? The only reason i can think of is to try and undermine my argument about IP law. So as others have said, why did you feel the need to make a public spectacle instead of just asked in private? You obviously have an agenda....

[willow crane]

I just want him to be honest for once about his agenda

[somber fiber]

the intent was stated before i thought

[clever oak]

Again, I'm not opposed to taking it to DMs and continuing our discussion. Again, I disagree with your stance on LAW, not on IP LAW. I do not know how I can drive that into your head. I am, AGAIN, reliant on IP law in my career. Sure, I could have just DMed you from the start, and I should have, but hindsight is 20/20.

[willow crane]

Why would I want to? Its obvious that you are not willing to take the phrase in the context of the discussion. Straight out of the gate its obvious any attempt to show you the error of your assumption would be pointless.

[clever oak]

The only agenda I have is in you seeing the error of your stance on law in general.

[somber fiber]

I understand where you are coming from, the intent from what I can see is that they were comparing a universally agreed upon standard of conduct as not neccesarily being morally right. not saying that you are incorrect or that your morals are wrong, just to take a look at the situation as a whole and inquire as to wether or not something similar is happeneing with IP regulation. not the law itself but how it is enforced.

[clever oak]

Alright, then I would ask that you stop complaining about speaking in public? If you don't want to move to DMs

Otherwise, I am open to making this private

[willow crane]

I'm not interested in endless debates about semantics. I have better things to do. Now if you want to debate me on IP law and show us your position on it I'm game. It will likely help others. But I will not waste my time trying to persuade you to read a phrase in its proper context.

[somber fiber]

Mr sundown went a bit far with the 1939 germany comment, I will admit. however Im assuming he was just fed up with this place anyways and wanted to go out with a bang, you know how some people can be Mr. Rock im sure.

[clever oak]

All right. All I hope is that you take something away from this conversation.

[willow crane]

Public or Private its obvious i am simply wasting my time and increasing my post count

[willow crane]

LMAO

You seek to educate me on my morals?

[clever oak]

Not a waste of time, I am trying to show you my point of view.

[clever oak]

Again, not a personal attack. Not once did I question your morals.

[somber fiber]

No that was not the intention. it was merely to provide a critique on IP regulation practicies.

you just happened to bring up a good comment to base that critique off of.

[clever oak]

YOU are the person who mentioned anything about YOUR morals specifically.

[willow crane]

I beg to differ. However I have someone waiting for me to help them. So I'm going to leave this here and leave the community to judge the situation for themselves.

[willow crane]

Not what you said

[clever oak]

You are also the person who called yourself a 'racist slaver with no morals'. I think you need to take a breather and come back to re analyze this conversation, when you are more calm.

[potent moss]

Malaoka stated it wasn't about IP, it was about his (Rock's) "view on laws". But the reason it started was because Malaoka didn't like Rock's phrasing.

[clever oak]

Thank you for having this discussion with me, and good luck!

[willow crane]

You just tried to make the IP issue about morals by compaing IP law to slavery.

Chalk and cheese 😛

[somber fiber]

@willow crane Is this not the same thing? worded a bit more flowery I will admit.

[clever oak]

Again, I did not bring your morals into it. However, you are not comprehending my words? And are instead putting your own bias into them, and responding to that. Good luck with the helping someone bit, I wish you luck.

[willow crane]

No its not

[somber fiber]

May I ask what you took away from it then?

[willow crane]

Its nothing to do with the context of the discussion

[clever oak]

I also did not state that IP law was like slavery LMAO. I just said that ALL laws are not ALL morally correct.

Don't let me keep you

[willow crane]

I take away a lasting feeling that this was a needless and pointless discussion and a poor attempt to undermine the argument for IP law by deflecting the conversation onto personal beliefs by comparing IP law to Slavery laws, thereby implying that IP law is a terrible and unjust law that means it should be over turned.

[clever oak]

If you continue to only reply to what you think I said, vs what I actually said, then of course the conversation is pointless. I think you would have a better time if you took all my words at face value, instead of trying to give them an ulterior motive.

I think the difference between us, is that I came here to discuss, but you seem intent on arguing. I feel like a little trust goes a long way. Have a good evening gentlemen.

[somber fiber]

well that is true. the context of the current discussion is you two arguing over whether your morals were questioned, with quite a few passive aggressive comments on both sides at this point (not unprompted, but still typed).

however the intent of the original post, the one mentioning slavery, was not to attack your morals. it was to compare devotion to a belief without critique to a similar concept from mankinds past.

the misunderstanding occured there, with you taking it being about morals, and its not your fault for thinking that, the original point was worded strangely. so its not your fault for responding the way you did, I would have a similar response.

[willow crane]

Taking the single line completely out of context and directing your indignation at me is in my experience a very weak attack on my vocal support of IP rights in this community. You are not the first person to try this. Fail. Then attempt to filibuster their way out of it by trying to deflect the issue onto another topic, typically by attacking the person's character you have chosen to disagree with.

[somber fiber]

Both people were offended, you both defended yourselves, which prompted a cycle of attack and defence. its a misunderstanding, it has gone on long enough, and we can hopefully leave it at that. can both parties at least agree to that?

[clever oak]

If you actually read my original post, you would see that AGAIN, I did not take YOUR morals into question. Please point out specifically where I said that, and I will concede the point

[clever oak]

Absolutely, thank you, Rebel, for being a voice of reason. I bear no ill will towards anyone in this discussion, and I can see how Rock would be on the defensive.

[vast stump]

ehm

[willow crane]

This 😉

[vast stump]

so far im seeing this too

[willow crane]

You two make a great double act.

[clever oak]

Lmao?

I think you should come back when you're calm, and I'll do likewise

[somber fiber]

dude I was just trying to get yall to chill before we needed a mod.

[vast stump]

so TLDR whats the point you were going to @clever oak when you started

(I did read this, have no idea what you were about )

[clever oak]

All law is not always right, all the time

[vast stump]

like you said you support IP law

[clever oak]

I can see why this would be taken as directed towards IP Law, but that was not my intent

[willow crane]

#other_ip_topics message

[vast stump]

this is not place to debate law philosophy though

[willow crane]

Its got zero to do with IP law

[vast stump]

all of this is offtopic

[somber fiber]

exactly.

[clever oak]

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for taking it this far. This is just something I feel very strongly about

[elfin coral]

@clever oak Your entire argument is based on comparing technical pieces of law (Intellectual Property Rights) which are recognised and respected internationally, and then proceed to compare it to the abhorrent practise of slavery which is decried internationally and unfortunately still occurs to this day.

You are pushing a strawman, you have intentionally set up an argument which is easily defeated because you cannot defeat through polite argument & conversation the point that Rock was making - that intellectual property laws are nationally & internationally recognised, therefore it is the law [in all 193 member states that are signatories to WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation)].

[clever oak]

This is incorrect. The point I was making is that you cannot uphold ALL LAWS as the moral high ground simply because they are laws, and I used slavery as an example, because it is widely recognized as being morally unjust, and yet, still legal at that time. This is not a strawman, it was simply not the right place to discuss law philosophy. Again, my argument is not directed towards IP LAW or copyright. Just laws in general.

I will drop this subject now, but my point is 100% not directed towards IP laws or anything therein.

[somber fiber]

...so this couldve just been handled in DMs then?

[elfin coral]

by your own admission your conversation was entirely and deliberately off-topic.
I'd advise against continuing down this tangent.

[willow crane]

@clever oakSo you are friends with Sundown that was banned earlier for trolling. Kinda proves my suspicion correct. You are simply trying to undermine my argument and troll.

[clever oak]

Yes, it could have been handled in DMs, and it should have from the start. That is not the first thing that came to mind, unfortunately. I did ask to move this to DMs, but Rock did not want to continue in DMs, and as such we kept our conversation here.

Conversation was not explicitly and deliberately off topic, no.

[clever oak]

He is my husband, yes. That does not mean that we share the same viewpoints on everything.

[willow crane]

HAHAH

[clever oak]

I have been done with this argument, and have apologized for continuing this in here.

[clever oak]

What's funny? Me being a woman? I hold entirely separate beliefs

[somber fiber]

oh. apologies for callin ya mr. then.

[clever oak]

Uro has advised we do not continue this conversation as it is not on topic for the channel

[willow crane]

No that he went and cried to his wife and you came on here tried to undermine anyone that that disagreed with him.

Have a lovely evening this has been ....interesting 😛

[clever oak]

He actually didn't say anything lol, I just lurk in the channel

I like the Arma3 discord, because I am a texture artist

[naive flume]

to ignore an argument and refute one through the use of personal connection is entirely an ad hominem argument lmao

to attack the individual based on individual connections is not any basis for an argument that has anything to do with IP rights and policy or anything in that ball park.

but anyway

the Russians didn't respond to my email

I assume they are busy

[somber fiber]

?

what are messaging russians for?

[naive flume]

russian state and company IP rights, it's this whole thing

I'll call the operator tomorrow when my jaw heals

[somber bough]

hm

[somber fiber]

that actually has me a bit curious: what is the russians stance on copyright law? mainly in how or if they enforce it. ive heard rumors about them essentially sponsoring pirate sites and shit like that.

[naive flume]

they often fringe on outright distaste and disruption on international law

[elfin coral]

The Russian Federation has been a WIPO member since 1970, I'm not familiar with the national laws of the country to comment further.
https://www.wipo.int/members/en/details.jsp?country_code=RU

[naive flume]

but when it comes towards national law and about protection of their domestic IP rights is muddy at best

they don't often like to make direct and official comments and mostly skirt around the bigger issue

[naive flume]

wha- what? the Russian Federation didn't exist in 1970?

WIPO didn't even have a presence in Russia until 2014

[somber fiber]

ah yes, I did see they signed it, I mainly was inquiring on how rigorously they adhere to its principles.

[naive flume]

but I guess they're membership was there since then

I can understand that

[naive flume]

unfortunately flimsy at best

[somber bough]

🍿

[elfin coral]

It did as the former USSR.

[naive flume]

less so genuine international law and protection which is unfortunate

[naive flume]

yeah I can see that

[naive flume]

they're very indirectly intrusive, if a group or individual is targeting other countries, especially ones that are not so friendly in terms of the Russian Federation they will willfully turn their ire. Edward Snowden for example.

Though direct attacks on russia can be seen quite clearly, with crackdowns being a very norm occurence

[somber fiber]

ah I see.

[potent moss]

It's legal as long as it's not against Russia is what I heard from a friend, not sure how accurate that is though

[heavy gate]

Probably as much as china, so whenever it suits them.

[somber fiber]

well not legal, just allowed.

as has been clarified here, the law is the law. its the enforcement of the law that oftentimes is up for... questioning.

[elfin coral]

To be fair, Edward Snowden went to the Russian Federation seeking political asylum from persecution in the United States for whistleblowing on the government, it's not really valid to pull him into an IP topic, and as there is no politics in this discord [#rules 5], that's an avenue we wont venture down further.

@marble ivy no flaming.

[naive flume]

I mentioned Edward Snowden outside of a political topic, it is merely an example of an individual that shows a good example of how Russia acts in terms of legality and protection of things specifically when it comes towards the intellectual property of other countries, I would 100% state that the Intellectual Property of the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other government organizations including the State Government itself are within every nature to be in concern of Intellectual Property Rights and Violation, recently "the Government of the U.S.A. was sued for infringement of a patent (US2885248)" which in no way brings into politics simply that state governments are not without the right and privelage to be treated under fair treatment and perview.

Respectfully, you are the one who made it into a political topic, I do not wish to bring politics into this, I am being entirely objective in my stance. I will end any conversation about this topic with this post.

I neither side with the Russian Federation or United States Government on the topic of Edward Snowden, only that the event happened, it is of objective standing.

[marble ivy]

Flaming? bro what?

Im stating fax

[naive flume]

I don't see how this is relavant?

[elfin coral]

!issuewarning 428309466291634176 Ignoring a moderators instruction to not flame.

[bright bramble]

Done.
Hárry#3266 now has 2 infractions.

[somber fiber]

jeez man.

[naive flume]

jeez indeed

[somber bough]

Jeez

[somber fiber]

anyways, @naive flume you didnt mention what you were working on that you needed the Russian govs perspective on. you makin a russian vehic mod or somethin?

[potent moss]

Hey Rock (or anyone I guess), as I understand it (from reading your post: https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/2020/01/battle-over-hmmwv-hummers-vipers-venoms.html) you can create say a tank and use it's military designation (Eg. Abrams) but do you happen to know about the legalities of using military symbols (eg. map symbols)?

I've been reading your posts and haven't seen anything about that. I'm specifically talking about things like map markings and such.
I haven't found anything specific on those (though I may not be looking in the proper places) my thought would be since it's a military marking it would be perfectly fine to recreate (eg. with Photoshop) and use but I'm not sure.

[willow crane]

Not sure what symbols you mean?

NATO map icons?

eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Joint_Military_Symbology

[potent moss]

Yeah like the symbols here:
https://mgrs-mapper.com/blog/military_symbols_fundamentals/

[willow crane]

?

[potent moss]

Exactly

[willow crane]

Ok

• if you make them yourself its no issue.
• If you copy and paste from another source, then it could be a problem depending on the creator's position.

But in general they are common map symbol across NATO and as fair as I can see not a "protected" item. So you should be able to use them without a problem.

[potent moss]

Awesome, thanks

[naive flume]

i'm simply seeking out an answer

[somber fiber]

ah, ok then.

[willow crane]

What specifically is your question?

[naive flume]

not something this chat can answer

[willow crane]

OK as you wish.

[meager fractal]

so… why seek here? beside trolling I mean

[naive flume]

I'm sorry?

if you want you can look to my previous points

I don't wish to further the topic here as I was told not too considering the direction it was going

[marble ivy]

Are you french?

[meager fractal]

mb, just joining

I thought you asked here then stated "noone can answer here"

[meager fractal]

irrelevant here but yes

[marble ivy]

Alright no problem, just a random question lmao, but thats cool i love french people

( No i don't)

[naive flume]

I realize that the points I make won't be respected here considering the reaction, so I will move on. Thank you though for attempting to moderate under your own discretions.

[meager fractal]

!ban @marble ivy 30d spam - and love French people, that's mandatory to be on this server

[bright bramble]

*fires them railguns at @marble ivy* Ò_Ó
Hárry#3266 now has 3 infractions.

[naive flume]

I do <3 french cuisine

[marsh magnet]

i hate the people

[meager fractal]

sorry for the lack of precision on my side, I will not interfere further for I would need to reaf it all… and it is late here so I shalt refrain

[somber bough]

I only like French food

[naive flume]

no worries, I understand the frustration

[meager fractal]

good 😄

[meager fractal]

while offtopic, please love people, it's nice to share love and not spread hatred ❤️

[tough cargo]

little edgy

[zealous ore]

this channel is for, as description suggests
Intellectual Property, copyrights, trademarks discussion which doesn't fit into #ip_rights_violations

• it has nothing to do with individual views on the matter
• it has nothing to do with general discussion about laws
• it has nothing to do with individual morals, or individual personal opinions about the topic at hand.

If you cannot discuss things on topic, in a civilized manner, you will find yourself limited to posting here, muted and or temp-banned.

[willow crane]

No just tired of people with hidden agendas and happy to be proved correct. 🙂

[meager fractal]

!ban @tough cargo 90d usual IP channels troll, just stirring it - you are welcome back, just not in these channels

[bright bramble]

*PewPewPew!!*
RIP @tough cargo

[minor cove]

Might be not fitting here, but recently we have trolls coming to our server asking for ingame currency in exchange for donations.
I always tell them we don't do that and it's not allowed. And every now and then, they claim to know it better and say "But it's allowed"

Can i get official statement here, so i can just forward it to this idiots so they stop wasting my time ? 😂

Looks like they are not able to comprehend whats written here -> https://www.bohemia.net/monetization

[meager fractal]

and do you want us to officially (medically?) tell you their actual state? 😂 I do not have an MD license I'm afraid, I shall pass!

Selling of in-game items, that don’t affect gameplay, is allowed.
but ^ this seems close - what is the currency used for?
Cc @thick vigil

[minor cove]

The Ingame currency is needed to buy vehicles, gear or to buy a territory (dayz style server)

Which falls clearly under affecting gameplay if you you exchange it for donations.
But some need it written word by word 😅

[potent moss]

It's pretty clear on the monetization wiki

If you want to forward them that as well

[somber fiber]

I mean, its your server is it not?

regardless of whether its allowed legally or not, you can just tell them to f off.

...really? you guys automod swears? aight then, good to know.

[minor cove]

You mind sharing a link ? Just tired of dealing with this trolls

[potent moss]

https://www.bohemia.net/monetization

https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/faq

[minor cove]

Iam aware of this, but i just get answers like this.

"If it doesnt effect the vanilla arma 3 gameplay then its allowed"
"They dont but we can agree to disagree"
"it doesnt effect standard vanilla arma3 gameplay lol"

Maybe adding "in-game currency" to the paragraph of things that are not allowed, would make it a bit more clear.

[potent moss]

I'll tell you what to do. You tell them to either accept your rules or find a new server. Bickering back and forth will do nothing but cause you hardache. You say "I will not allow donations for in-game currency." And leave it at that. If they argue you give them a warning and if they do it again you kick them.

This isn't really an IP topic though

[somber fiber]

This

this exactly

just tell them its your server your rules

[dark tulip]

the answer should be simple;

If I allow it, I have the chance that I'm not allowed to run this server anymore, regardless of how "we" see/read/understand the rules.
I don't want that, and nor should you if you like playing on this server.

and if people don't understand that... I'm sure there are other places they can go to play their favorite game

But to be fair

No, if someone is getting something back for donating, it is no longer a donation but a sale.
This is pretty clear for me; if you get anything by "donating" it's not a donation anymore

[minor cove]

Thanks, this should be enough. 👌

[meager fractal]

if it were allowed, would you do it though?

[minor cove]

No, i hate PayToWin.

[meager fractal]

then no need to even consider whether it is legal or not 😄 "my server my rules, have a nice day" 😄

[potent moss]

Yup.

[minor cove]

But that's "admin abuse", anyway enough offtopic here.
Thanks for all the input, have a nice day 👋

[somber fiber]

THIS

[meager fractal]

"admin abuse" hahaha
more like "play by my rules in my house, you are free to go"

[potent moss]

I have the perfect analogy for the "my house" bit but I know it's off topic so I won't lol

[meager fractal]

DMs please 😋

[inland sphinx]

"If it doesnt effect the vanilla arma 3 gameplay then its allowed"
Correct, if it doesn't affect gameplay (unfair advantage) its allowed... IF you have monetization approval.

But I would say buying ingame currency gives you a unfair advantage 🤔 Well if you're approved for monetization you can ask such specific questions to monetization people, if you're not you don't care as you cannot do it anyway.

[minor cove]

Iam fully aware of the situation, just wanted a clear statement from officials so i can forward it since some are not able to comprehend the existing documentation, because the word in-game currency is not clearly mentioned

[meager fractal]

it is nonetheless an interesting point that would fall under "does not provide abusive advantage over others" if this line existed

[dark tulip]

Getting extra "money" for donating is an unfair advantage, because it allows you to do things which normally would require a grind.

And with buying vehicles and weapons as a core feature, it is some sort of pay-to-win/pay-to-progress, which obviously is the reason of the whole monetization approval system.

If you would get a "I donated my moms money and all I got was the lousy t-shirt"-shirt in-game, kudos for wearing that 🤣

PS. I don't play on servers with monetary systems in place, but looking at P2W/P2P games in general it's how I look at it.

[plain sedge]

Cosmetics (aka skins) seem to be the best way to do this. Providing they aren't interfering with gameplay.
idfk a picture of Lou (or even better a stickbombed wrap) on your car(insert vehicle) to show you donated? lol

[deft abyss]

mandatory CoD camouflage skins mention

[pliant oracle]

are camo in Arma 3 copyrighted?
cuz i want to make a custom jacket with CSAT Hex camo pattern on it in real life.
(for personal use only, not commercial)

[frozen jackal]

there already is/was a cosplayer with full CSAT kit including the hex pattern so I guess a simple "ok" from BI would be enough, they might even feature you in some comrad if you decide to show your work on twitter or wherever

[unkempt sorrel]

I believe it’s ok, as long as you aren’t selling it I think?

Though, I don’t know shit on this subject

[somber fiber]

That makes sense

[inland sphinx]

best way is to email infringements

[meager fractal]

@frozen jackal yet it's still the best way to clear things up and get info

[frozen jackal]

I thought Ded's message is a leftover of deleted convo or something, couldn't connect the dots

[inland sphinx]

Oh sorry, I forgot the dots, here have replacement dots: ...

[fiery egret]

Nah, he has the dots already. What he is missing is: /\-|

[frozen jackal]

tent with a plow?

[shell scaffold]

Not sure if it's going to be seen as me supporting them but why does IP violation channel seem to be so toxic at times?

[meager fractal]

some people don't take well that illegal mods are taken down, so they take it out on others instead of taking a long, good look in the mirror

[frozen jackal]

when people with no knowledge about IP rights come there and tell lies about the topic, without a slight self-awareness and resurrect topics closed years ago, and any response correcting them is taken as an attack/insult/whatever, it can get messy; there's not much people can do

[south remnant]

i want these assets
you cant play with those assets
but i want these assets 🥹 🥹

(like 90% of people who cause the toxicity just want to play with things they cant)

[shell scaffold]

is this the new channel for popcorn about ip right drama?

[dark tulip]

nah, has been here for ages, just moved around

[shell scaffold]

ok

just seeing where i can watch drama

[vast stump]

These channesl are not for your entertainment mind you. This kind of "IP drama" attitude is not welcome.

[shell scaffold]

well than why is it happpening?

[deft abyss]

it happens whether he is here with his popcorn bucket or not 🤷‍♂️

[meager fractal]

solve IP breach situations.

[pastel delta]

Delete the workshop

Can't reupload to the workshop if there is no workshop

[shell scaffold]

big brain

[zealous ore]

you are pushing now my limits in terms of what i find allowable in this kind of channels. I am advising you in the most decent manner to refrain yourself from this sort of comments if you wanna stick about

[karmic widget]

i look in ip rights violations everyday and, i watch the community of my favourite game decay in front of my eyes.

[deft abyss]

more like "certain type of community members" but yes

[karmic widget]

"mods"

its like a bunch of people with insecurities jerking themselves off constantly

[deft abyss]

dealing with people who play lawyers and try to stretch the rules using the same arguments over and over and over again tends to have such effects 🤷‍♂️

[karmic widget]

i have seen amazing people come into the game and just get shot down instantly for no reason because people in this discord thought it was ok (jmax)

its like the 1% are scared of the 99% getting smarter

thats honestly what i compare it too

they have a superiority complex

"The majority of people here are defending their rights to their own work."

where is the titan fall mod
where is the fallout mod

this is just untrue and when someone says something about it they get banned

its annoying to watch

and just downright depressing to watch this stuff get removed

well made mods too

and its true what sundowner said it really does not feel like the channel is being used for what they are saying its used for and when he said it he was banned

it really does discomfort me

[inland sphinx]

Yeah it's sad.
Just two days ago I talked to a modder i was good friends with years ago.
He told me he left the community a while ago because of everyone stealing his stuff and that he doesn't care anymore.
I have heard of that happening, but it's my first time experiencing it first hand

[karmic widget]

that sounds like a cope and I don’t think the first part has anything to do with what I was saying

[meager fractal]

@karmic widget anyway, we end this topic now. you won't be convinced, we won't either.

[karmic widget]

Bruh u win fine just don’t ban me too I submit

[meager fractal]

have a nice day

[split meteor]

Good afternoon, can you tell me how to properly make anatomy in the steam workshop, let's say I use 2 other people's mods in the assembly of my mod, but the developers have nothing written about the prohibition of reloading their mod

[vast stump]

Reloading is strickly forbidden unless especially allowed in license. No license mention about it, no reupload.
Proper way to setup mods is collections.

And If you make a mod on top of another mod, you put the original mod as a dependency. There is no need to reupload anything.

[split meteor]

And if the creators of several mods allowed their mods to be used on reboot?

[vast stump]

It is still silly since then you force players to download same stuff mny times.

It's juts nuts

[pastel delta]

Then it's fine

Only time you can reupload without any DMCA or take downs happening is specifically when the creator allows it

[split meteor]

Thanks for the answer, but if the creator still does not send complaints, and does not respond?
Or is the mod not licensed?

[pastel delta]

If the creator doesn't send complains then he doesn't care.
But it is still against steam/Bi rules which means that Bi can delete your mod and ban you from here

The safest way to do is only reupload those mods which the creator specifically said "you are allowed to reupload my mod".
Even if some creator doesn't care, but he didn't say that ^, you can get in trouble here

[split meteor]

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer

[austere hare]

Unlikely to be true in most circumstances . If they don’t complain but do know about you reloaded, they don’t care but it’s much more likely they just don’t know.

[austere hare]

If no license is mentioned then the strictest license automatically applies.

[old jay]

No reply from the original author does not constitute permission/consent. If you are waiting for the author to complain about your use of their content, you've already screwed up.

[south remnant]

It takes 5 minutes to make a html preset file for mods or to make a mod with all the dependencies you want

[willow crane]

If you are trying to find a way around me denying you the right to re-upload my stuff I will point you at our EULA http://eula.rkslstudios.info/
And https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/

[split meteor]

...No...
I'm just wondering how this strange system works, I know 20 servers where there is a CHVD mod inside their server one, in fact, in this way you can simply convey and the server's work will stall due to showdowns

lol

[vast stump]

there are many servers that dont play by the rules and when found out they get shut down

[patent wing]

The whole Russian community servers work like that

So, we should ban all such servers

[south remnant]

youre the one who chooses how your server works 🤷

[meager fractal]

yep
or they should do with a game that allows it
or, well… they should follow the EULA! The fact there are many wrong ones does not make them right 😉

[patent wing]

It means that all big public server, I mean the server with online higher than 10, will be banned by the EULA. And the CIS community of Arma 3 will only have to wait for arma 4

[vast stump]

the server owners could just start using mods properly

[patent wing]

40+ men who come to play arma after working at the factory don't think so)))))

[meager fractal]

again, numbers don't make it right - deal with it

[patent wing]

No, I mean the age

Not the numbers

[dark tulip]

so why can most servers do it the right way? it's no rocket science to set up a server correct, and is even easier than repacking mods anyway

[vast stump]

the 40+ men just start launcher, find the server in serverbrowser and hit join and the launcher sets up the mods needed

they dont have to do anything more than what they do now

[meager fractal]

ta-daaa

[patent wing]

They are too old for this, they are veterans of OFP and arma 2, they know all the bugs and features of the entire arma series and it seems to me that they absolutely don't give a fuck about it, I'm more than sure that they don't even know such a thing as a user agreement

[vast stump]

they dont have to

server owner does

[patent wing]

milsim chads with their own rules💪

[vast stump]

then server owner sets up the server properly and players then play it properly and there is no problem

[patent wing]

I mean such people as the server owners

Not just the players

[vast stump]

well this wont change with Arma4 either

it will be even more difficult to do reuploads

[meager fractal]

also praising illegal reuploads here can get you booted
I don't really get what you are trying to do here - get us to say "oh my, you are absolutely right!" ?

it's wrong, period, and some people do wrong things, happens

[patent wing]

Maybe by that time someone will start reading the flattering agreement and generations of 40-year-old men will be replaced by youngsters

[patent wing]

Just discussing the topic

Just for fun

[meager fractal]

no fun in this channel, just hammers 🔨 muhehehe

[patent wing]

Just, I think, can go to the "dark side" and throw complaints at all servers in arma that I know, for the sake of interest and justice of non-compliance with the user agreement

💀💀💀

Okay, I'm a little tired after work, I kiss everyone, it's time to end this conversation

💜

[south remnant]

you can very much go and send complaints to mod developers about all servers who do not comply with their mods eula, yes

[willow crane]

So am i. I'm 50 years old and i dont struggle with loading mods

[split meteor]

Then the next question from me to the studio, there is a limited line of mods on the server, I renamed the files on the host via FTP, but the server refuses to start stupid, while I cut out 2 mods, it starts 🙂
Is it possible to dine mods without distributing and only on the host?

[shell scaffold]

im wondering if im really really really really really allowed to repack this mod since it said free access so one will accuse me of ripping

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1652947942

[old jay]

Firstly, never repack, it's just poor practice. Secondly, if the the origin of a mod is ever in question, just walk away. Having just done 10 minutes of looking into this "modpack", it appears to be rips of cars from other popular games. That fact that the uploader continually asks for "donations" only makes it more suspect.

[shell scaffold]

checked the guy's history he seem to have made vehicles in the past also i did checked the textures and its seems like he really made them so yeah this seems fine i guess

[lavish basalt]

You probably want to re-read what FM said

[bold roost]

someone want to teach me the ropes?

[lavish basalt]

With what?

[bold roost]

EVERYTHING IN ARMA 3

caps my b

[lavish basalt]

No allcaps you know, and this is not really the right place to discuss, though

!gettingstarted

[desert maple]

Arma Reforger
To get started with Arma Reforger its recommended to play through the tutorial, which provides a simple overview of the basic features of the game.

Arma 3
If you're new to playing Arma 3, its recommended to have a read of #info_help_tips and especially the getting started guide (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Getting_Started).
Those resources will provide you with a good way to learn the basics of playing Arma 3 in both single- and multiplayer.

[bold roost]

i got the game yesterday and cant join any servers

[lavish basalt]

If you want further go to #arma3_questions

[inland sphinx]

there is a limited line of mods on the server
The limit is in the hundreds, you're not hitting that.

If it works when you cut out two mods, something is wrong with these two mods. Find out what.
If you want others to help you, you need to provide more details

due to how modlist sending to Arma Launcher works, you cannot merge multiple mods into one folder

[fickle spoke]

do star wars mods and such count as IP violations? what exactly counts as an IP violation?

[meager fractal]

see https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property
Doing something with permission is not a breach, of course

[fickle spoke]

so from what I can gather, running a battletech unit or a star wars unit goes against IP rules, am I correct?

[meager fractal]

the unit itself is not exactly the problem, using the mods is

[fickle spoke]

so mods which are based off an IP goes against IP rules?

[vast stump]

such mods need permission from the IP owner to use the IP

[willow crane]

Its a horrible complicated mess. But the rules here are up to BI Legal and the moderators.

However from a strictly legal stance outside and of BI's community platforms the answer varies depending on the IP owner's rules about fan art and competing platforms. eg The Rules for Star Wars/Disney licensed products are different for say Star Trek/Paramount and so on.

But general rule is any mod that rips content from an existing game to use in an Arma 3 mod is an IP breach. End of. No debate.

IF you make a mod using 100% new models, textures sound etc, don't use the trademarks and brands and only imply a connection to the existing IP then you can potentially scrape by. 😉 But again it depends on what the IP owner actually decides not what you think. (Fair Use does not apply in these scenarios.)

There is also an argument that any Mod that could possibly compete against an existing or planned future Official product that uses plots of devices set in an existing protected property, like the Star Wars universe is also going to be illegal. That depends on the publisher's and the owners community policy. hence the table in https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property

But in here, and in the Arma 3 Workshop its the policy of BI not to step on other IP holder's toes. Just to be safe.

[unkempt sorrel]

Basically yes and no. Companies like Microsoft/343 allow OPTRE to exist because of their generous GCUR. While, Disney doesn’t want anything taking from their Star Wars franchise

[vast stump]

Tiberian genesis exists without broblems due to permission asked from EA.

And self made content

[meager fractal]

[unkempt sorrel]

Yes, asking permission is good

Always do that

[potent moss]

Quick question about licensing:
Say I have a mod with 2 PBOs, I can give them different licenses correct?
Eg.
PBO 1 is licensed as "Do what ever you want"
PBO 2 is licensed as "Can not share/modify/etc"

[vast stump]

yes and you can even set individual clauses for individual files if you like

[potent moss]

Different clauses for files in a single PBO?

[zealous ore]

yes

[potent moss]

That's useful, thank you both

[split meteor]

Good afternoon, please explain for a strange joke from BI, they close my server for in-game momentization in the in-game store which
1- not momentized with real money (It hasn't even been introduced yet)
2- Inside the game store, money is earned simply by being on the server, you cannot buy them somehow for real money

@inland sphinx

Can you tell me who to talk to about this?

I am very interested in what kind of evidence this is, for which there are no things)))))) 0))

[meager fractal]

please contact [e-mail]

(with server details etc of course)

[cunning zinc]

Hello everyone, I am back from my modding experience and almost ready to publish my first mod.

I'm wondering if its possible to apply an APL to my content, as its originally just vanilla .paa that have been edited. From what I understand from @inland sphinx , there is no official license from bohemia so since i have no rights to the content, there's no way my mod could be licensed.

[willow crane]

If you are using content from BIS it should be APL-SA

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Licenses

Ni

Nice flow chart for you to follow

[cunning zinc]

Ah yes I saw this flowchart, was just confused whether vanilla content was licensed or not. Thank you for the clarification 👍

[willow crane]

All content is licensed

But if you are using BI content to create your mod. Then you must follow BI's licences. So if the stuff comes from one of BI's games or licenses data packages it must follow the APL or TOPL paths

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property There is more info here

[cunning zinc]

That's where I was confused. My previous convo left me under the impression that it wasn't licensed to derive content, but it was "tolerated", but your explanation explains it well.

[willow crane]

OK so reversed engineering A3 modesl is an immediate No-no

You may only use content fromt eh licensed data PACKAGES.

[potent moss]

Retexturing is ok though*

[cunning zinc]

I saw this convo when searching the discord for an answer 😅

[willow crane]

However retextures of A3 models are tolerated.

But not strictly allowed.

[willow crane]

So where are you getting your models from?

[cunning zinc]

original \a3\characters_f path

[willow crane]

Are you modifying those models at all?

[cunning zinc]

no

as i said, just the .paa

[willow crane]

Ok so your mod is a retexture and config based mod then?

[cunning zinc]

yes

[willow crane]

ok then you are fine as long as you use hidden selections and do not edit or alter the original pbos or take content from an original PBO or P3D. Textures are tolerated unless you really piss BI off.

[willow crane]

You need to use APL - but the flow chart gives you both options

[plain sedge]

#ip_rights_violations message
They are turning on each other 😅

https://gyazo.com/e800c90ca9d13624b86304cdf11c7b7b

[meager fractal]

see #ip_rights_violations yes 😄

[plain sedge]

the link above my comment, is to that channel/exact message 😅

[meager fractal]

ah mb 😄 ignored it entirely 😄

[mossy yarrow]

I dont turn on anyone its just when my Stuff got deleted why should others be allowed to have it up and im sure the uploader dont have the permission

[fiery egret]

when my Stuff got deleted why should others be allowed
That's what he meant by "turning on each other" 😉

Otherwise, you'd be reporting this just because it's infracting

[mossy yarrow]

Well okay then,not here to start a war again

[old jay]

Do be aware that in the vast majority of cases, models purchased under "Royalty Free Licenses" cannot be uploaded to the Steam Workshop as they do not adhere to the Steam Subscriber Agreement section 6 D.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/#6

[chrome hearth]

Can we make retextures for Reforger?

Reforger EULA says we can't redistribute parts of the game.

You must not redistribute or resell the game, any of its parts or any hacked version of the game

But Workshop TOS says we can.

Users may:

Upload and share
the content they have created within the Game or using the Game or any of its parts or using any software associated with the Game;

[unkempt sorrel]

You can make retextures for reforger yes. You just can’t take stuff from the game and do other shit with it

[chrome hearth]

I'm wanting a BI employee to answer me. Not some random dude. Lol

[meager fractal]

way to be nice

if you do a retexture, all you do is add your texture on an existing model.
you therefore do not redistribute any part of the game, if you do it right.

[chrome hearth]

I wasn't trying to be rude. I was simply stating that the info is more reliable when coming from someone who actually works for the company.

[meager fractal]

alright 👌 mb for misinterpreting then

[chrome hearth]

No worries.

A better question is. Can we use textures from the game and make variations for retexturing?

[meager fractal]

I believe the tools do not allow texture export
they may (big, big perhaps) allow to "tweak" a texture, but 0% certainty here

changing the hue (lorry) could be enough for colour textures

[chrome hearth]

You can in fact export textures from workbench by using a workbenchPlugin mod.

The question is are derivatives allowed or would that be a rights violation of some kind.

[meager fractal]

that is an excellent question to be answered indeed

[chrome hearth]

I just wanna make vehicle skins and maybe add tattoos to player skins lol

But I also don't wanna violate any rights.

[meager fractal]

I do not have the answer. my first reflex would say "no, it's redistributing game content, modified"
my gamer reflex would say "…it's for the game itself, dude"

I hope to bring the answer, or at least see it delivered

[chrome hearth]

That's the legally gray area.

EULA says no, Workshop TOS says yes.

I mean, what would screenshoting the texture and using the screenshot as a new texture be considered?

[meager fractal]

one should consider the tightest EULA/TOS in such case, it is not a 50/50 🙂

but
if BI states "it's ok, we tolerate it for same-game resources", it could be a thing
I will try to ask tomorrow

[chrome hearth]

I assume it would be something that's tolerated. Either way could you get back to me with definitive answer please. When you find out that is.

[old jay]

Also, you may want to re-read the Steam Subscriber agreement, it does NOT say yes.
(yes, I understand that you said "Workshop TOS")

D. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).

For example, if you and "Bob" created something, you cannot upload it to the Workshop without the explicit consent of "Bob".

But, as Lou has mentioned, if BI says "ok", then its ok. In the absence of that, its technically not ok.

Sincerely,

Not a random dude

[serene stirrup]

Reforger does not use the Steam Workshop but has a BI-hosted solution. I don't think any Steam agreements apply in this case.

[old jay]

In this context, I completely understand (and agree). But, as this Discord and Channel encompass ALL of the Armaverse, its best to clarify for others, else they will misconstrue what is being said. This can be easily verified by the 100+ instances in this channel alone.

[celest sundial]

Using existing in-game skins and paint on top of them has and will continue to he an IP right violation strictly speaking, BI tolerates them if they cause no harm to them. You won't get an official "it's ok to re-upload remixed textures", they can't say that without opening flood gates to other things. The only chance is to explicitly put the APL-SA license on them. They have only done that to "old" content so far

In any case, if you want official answers from the IP department, send them an email. See channel description of #ip_rights_violations you will a native response or none at all in my experience

[meager fractal]

@mossy yarrow see this ↑ message regarding your #ip_rights_violations question

(read section 6D to be sure)

[dense field]

Hope this isn't too off topic

So I have a program I've created for work (outside of work time, not using work equipment), that I plan on selling to my employer, I also want to open source it for non-commercial use as part of my portfolio, from my understanding Creative Commons is not really for code.

So what licence should I use to make it open source do whatever you want with it except commercial use?

And what licence would I give my employer so they can use it commercially, modify it as they wish, but not sell it to others or change the licence it came with?

[celest sundial]

from my understanding Creative Commons is not really for code
Correct, the CC org states that itself.

All common licenses recognized as "open source" allow commercial use with placing restrictions only on what happens with the software that was built on top in terms of having to share alike the results. There are some niece licenses like SSPL that for example elastic search uses, but I am not sure if that will be applicable to your use case.

Apart from that the only other options I see is a "custom" license that makes it free software with restrictions placed on commercial use, like a lot of free online services have that also feature a paid tier. OR you don't give any license at all. You can - and many people do - upload the source of a program on github while providing no license file, in that case all people can do is look at it, and "technically" use it as they want, but "legally" can't. You'd sue a company that you can proof is using your software then.

Depending on what the software is meant for you would be better off to sell usage rights to your employer - not singing over exclusive rights / ownership of the software - for a one time price, and later on when you are looking for a new job or something make it public. Alternatively do one year contracts, so that if it turns out your software becomes highly important for the company later on, you can re-negotiate pricing or force them to stop using it if they don't want to pay.

Depending on the amount you want to get paid for the software, spend a bit of money on a lawyer that puts together the terms you care about. There are some online generators to click this together, most of which are too general and might end up leaving loopholes, so that's not worth it.

[cursive sedge]

Even if you made it on your spare time on your own hardware it might belong to your employer. Best to check up on your country’s IP and employment rights and if it can be considered your employer’s IP if it is even remotely related to your employment.

as well as your employment contract

[dense field]

Not an issue, they are interested in buying it from me, I just want to do it as professionally as possible within reason as its just a small piece of automation software for a tedious part of my job that they pay me a small bonus for. I just want to be able to put a professional software sale into my portfolio while still being able to add it to my github portfolio.

[cunning zinc]

Best consult with a lawyer since this an IRL sale for money

[zealous ore]

if in europe, that cannot happen, even if it is related to the employer - european ip rights does have that sort of employee protection irc

[cursive sedge]

At least in Sweden it is a grey zone, companies may have contracts that deal with such scenarios

[dense field]

🇻🇳 so its the wild west 🤣

[shell scaffold]

I'm not familiar with those laws but that sounds like crap.

[potent moss]

It's quite common to have it in employment contracts and such.

[shell scaffold]

Let's say I work at the autoshop and decide to build myself a turbocharged cadillac in my spare time, using my money.

Who owns the junker

[potent moss]

That's different lol

[shell scaffold]

Sounds like exploitation to me

[potent moss]

Wait until you hear how they toss a non-compete clause in there as well so you can't go start your own company with your better product...

[dark tulip]

In my contract there are several things which may sound hard on the employee, with stuff like:

• "not allowed to switch jobs to clients" (eg. I quit job and start at a client with a similar job)
• "not competing with company" (eg. start own company which provides similar work as current company)
• "not allowed to do similar work outside of company" (eg. work in own time for clients which could be clients of company)
• "not allowed to switch to competitor within range" (eg. not allowed to switch job at company which provides similar services in same city/area)

It's relatively normal, especially in specialized areas and development. And these are just additions to the basic company secrets and confidential clauses you'll find in basically any contract.

That said, I've build a lot of tools both in-company and in private which are used by my employers (either they paid me for making it, or I sold them a license to use it).
Although I never created something which could be used outside of specific use cases, so commercially not really useful. But I do have some contracts where is stated that even though I created/sold it to company X I'm still allowed to use it myself or for future companies I work for, just as long as I don't make it commercially available.

[south remnant]

They sound like crap because they generally are, but they're certainly not made up 🙃

[cursive sedge]

it can avoid scenarios where an employee holds a company hostage by claiming they made stuff on their spare time etc and are forcing a hefty licensing fee out of nowhere

[lime hinge]

Read your contract and ask your company

[teal pecan]

Rather read your contract and ask a lawyer before you ask your company.
Because the company is likely to say "all mine" either way, unless the person really is decent, which is very rare.

[lime hinge]

true

[lilac scroll]

Anyone in here know config well and is able to help me?

Been having trouble with my Space Marine helmets and setting up other colored variants of them

[dark tulip]

I believe you're in the wrong channel, this is about IP's, copyright and trademarks. Not about support for configs.

[lilac scroll]

where to then? This server is kinda confusin to look at

[dark tulip]

#arma3_config seems like a good place to start, which you scrolled past before getting here.
Or #enfusion_configuration when it's for Reforger.

[lilac scroll]

Thank you, I'll be on my way.

[meager fractal]

@silent spruce no spam thanks

[graceful hill]

Whatever license the attourney you hire tells you is best for your jurisdiction and other factors and interests

You should seriously not be seeking this kind of info from an internet chat room dedicated to a video game.

[manic crystal]

Says the guy that just got taught how DMCA and IP laws work through, in his own words, an internet chat room dedicated to a video game. 🙄

[fiery egret]

Being taught (or corrected) is one thing. Relying on such information for serious real life, money related things, is another

[manic crystal]

I can certainly agree with that. Relying on such information would be foolish, but gathering information from knowledgeable sources to get an idea of your options etc doesn't seem like it would be all that bad, as long as you aren't acting based off that info.

[fiery egret]

Sure, I can certainly agree with that 🙂

[dense field]

Lawyers in 🇻🇳 are few and far between and would cost 20x what I could make of this, so maybe don't necro and old topic with your useless negativity.

[shell scaffold]

American copyright law is hot 💩. I think the scion conflict devs are working on some lit star wars mod but if it ever releases I know disney would get their greedy mits all over it.

[south remnant]

Unlikely disney will do anything over it as it's neither canon material nor in a competing game nor ripped from any pre-existing games

[shell scaffold]

But when I had some code stolen once for a project unrelated to arma and tried getting the theif's work taken down nothing happened.

[zealous ore]

BI will not allow it on platforms they have control over

[south remnant]

sure thing 👍

[shell scaffold]

If I register something under a non-commercial license, because I don't want the mod on pay to win servers, can I still use it for commercial purposes myself such as create a donations patron or sell the models to anyone who wants them in their own commercial projects?

[celest sundial]

You always have full rights to do what you want with your own code. Licenses only apply to people who are not the authors

[shell scaffold]

Thanks

[shell scaffold]

If someone's license grants me rights to use a model in my mod if I credit them but they change their license a few months after my mod's release, can my mod be taken down.

[celest sundial]

No, the licenses at the time you obtained the files counts. One can only change the license for future versions.

[shell scaffold]

Think I'll just stay safe by making all my assets myself. No clue where the armour set originated before the dude published it and let everyone use it.

[fiery egret]

Wise choice! 👍

[shell scaffold]

I would rather release something sub-par or work months more on it than include someone else's fine work. It's like a time bomb disease with how the law works. Even if they let you use it you have to verify it's actually theirs and all, then keep proof that they actually allowed you to use it too.

[plain sedge]

#ip_rights_violations message
What I mean is, that often in certain large uploads its hard to find or even know the authors.

This being the best place to show that X mod contains various mods from authors, all of who may be here..
(remember, finding out others of mods is pretty hard unless you rip open all the mods (to look through configs, unless this has been wiped/changed also or generally know from looking rhs_ X USP_X )

Yes, juts posting mod link without stating/showing what mods are there isn't helpful, but thats not my point at all.
Ideally I would hope that (as I have done in the past) the thought process to posting that a mod has these various mods uploaded, are so that they can be easily as a community sent towards. (Not everyone has the same discord and steam names, I would have no idea that Pufu was even related to RHS without him being @ with a mod that is relevant to him)

[manic crystal]

Personally, I think reporting reuploads/rips (with details) so that mod authors can see is a good thing, since we aren't always aware of certain workshop items. Maybe if that isn't desired in #ip_rights_violations then it can be done so here. And if not here...then maybe a channel should be opened specifically for IP theft reports. There have been numerous times that mods get reported here that authors didn't know about and then they are taken down due to that report.

I can understand that generic reports are unnecessary, such as saying X mod has reuploaded content, without providing what has been reuploaded or who the content belongs to. Or reporting mods with rips from other games which have nothing to do with community authors here. That is things that should be taken to BI directly.

[grand fable]

Does anyone know who the creator of the workshop crawler site is? recent mods for arma 3 dont seem to be indexed but for Crusader King 3 and project zomboid recent mods (like uploaded yesterday) show up. I was not really sure where to look to contact them

[frozen jackal]

@patent copper

[patent copper]

Hey, I made everything index correctly again. Might take a few hours for it to catch up though with the DayZ and Arma 3 workshop

I made some modifications so hopefully it will stay running stable for some time now

Reason the workshops for these two games didn't get updated anymore was that the crawlers ran into a fatal error

[grand fable]

oh cool thx, pretty wild it didnt run into fatal error for ck3 and zomboid

oh right dayz has a workshop I forgot to check that

[patent copper]

Yeah has to do with the steam accounts it uses to do downloading and steam auth

[grand fable]

oh I see

[patent copper]

ck and pz run on a different account

[grand fable]

thanks for fixing 👍

ill try in a day or two

[patent copper]

@grand fable Should be up to date now

[grand fable]

cool cool thx, now gotta go learn glob cause I never used it lol

[zenith turret]

since beam.ng cars are all open-source, does that mean we can use them for arma?

[meager fractal]

if their licenses allow to be ported, then "yes"?

[south remnant]

open-source =/= free to use as you wish

[wraith nebula]

That is not completely true about beamNG 😉 they do have a licence with some rules/regulations for terms of use of the "open source": https://beamng.com/bCDDL-1.1.txt

[south remnant]

open source is not used once in that document so idk why its linked

[wraith nebula]

@south remnant
Just want to point out that how you replied you could implicate that there are no rules/licence/regulations for that game (even though yes it is open source) while that is not the case, some people could take your word for this and unwillingly break the licence as they were told by you it is "free to use", that is how many discussion have started in the past in #ip_rights_violations because someone said "its free to use" 😉

[south remnant]

no i said it does not mean free to use

[south remnant]

=/=

[meager fractal]

≠

[south remnant]

=/= == ≠ 🙂

[inland sphinx]

!=

[meager fractal]

don't get me to say <>

[celest sundial]

!==

[meager fractal]

get out

[plain sedge]

#arma3_troubleshooting message
Cheers for admitting that!

[north orchid]

I never did that.

[plain sedge]

Right because HAFM helicopters (as a single example of a few) isn't in that modpack that you linked, nor is it in the RPT that you sent on the feedback tracker.

and that mod totally doesn't state:
Copyright 2017 - This item is not authorized for re-uploading on Steam without prior written notice by its author [Aplion].
https://i.gyazo.com/a895dadba75ed6b77e7677c7ea099716.png

[north orchid]

Mr. I-Know-Everything-Right - this error is ALSO present when NO OTHER mod is included. This does mean this isn't a conflict with any other mod which is currently on Steam.

[plain sedge]

Idc about your error tbh.
The fact that are you uploading content that you don't have the rights for is more of an issue.

I highly doubt anyone will help you, knowing this information; especially as you haven't actually provided an RPT without any of anybody else's content in.

[north orchid]

if you have not say about this error, then please just shut up and let the BI guys warn me

[plain sedge]

Well as this channel is regarding IP topics and not the error in question..

And I'm pretty certain a DMCA isn't a warning...

[vast stump]

dont reupload stuff, that can end up you losing all rights to workshop.

not cool man

also we dont help with crap like that

[north orchid]

well, I didn't read the HAFM disclaimer right (and maybe it wasn't there some months ago) and if I cannot use the Publisher because of a yet unknown error I cannot even fix that

[vast stump]

could be karma. You'll have to try again some other time.

[inland sphinx]

and if I cannot use the Publisher because of a yet unknown error I cannot even fix that
You can delete your upload from the steam workshop page of it, you don't need publisher to be working for that

[stone bridge]

do you guys know about any copyright issues with using camo patterns made by the US government? like UCP, woodland, marpat, etc?
i know the eagle/globe/anchor logo is IP of the us marines and cannot be used, so i'd assume it would have to be removed

[south remnant]

falls under the case law set out by the humvee one iirc as its military material

[stone bridge]

so that means it falls under fair use?

i remember that case and how it ended but details are a bit fuzzy right now

[south remnant]

Pretty sure as is military equipment -- similar thing with calling multicam OEF-CP instead of Multicam as thats its military "designation"

[meager fractal]

@shell scaffold @mint nexus say no to spam

[south remnant]

Is copying a BI function to modify some of the code to make it MP compatible and more suited for your own needs allowed? Want to modify one of the contact campaign functions (hose for respirators)

[analog sphinx]

I would assume that if the function is not copy protected like before they were included in the public availability data packs, it should be ok to base yours on that as long as you reference the original one (?). How about asking in #arma3_scripting for this specific case?

Maybe Dedman or any other BI coder can clear this?
I've been having this doubt too recently but decided to make my functions from scratch instead

[south remnant]

It's literally just modifying the contact DLC function used in the campaign that displays the hose from the APR to the CBU -- It uses setObjectTexture whereas I want it to use setObjectTextureGlobal and fix a few minor things, otherwise it's the exact same

[vast stump]

I'll just clean those up since they are rather offensive

thanks for the report though

[plain sedge]

it's all good

[pseudo spruce]

as far i understand the graph in https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses
since you can take the code with out any third party programs, the code will fall on DML-SA, APL-SA, TOPL-SA or APL.
Since its arma3 code will be APL, where you have to attribute the code to the original creator, use it only in arma, a noncomercial use. right?

[cursive sedge]

Game data is still protected and has not been released publicly like earlier games or sample data. Don’t confuse EBO vs PBO with public availability

[cursive sedge]

Unless Bohemia explicitly licenses it under APL then no

[pseudo spruce]

ooh ok, so if you cant acess the .sqf file, you cant use it

[cursive sedge]

No, it has to be licensed

Access to the files don’t matter

Bohemia needs to say ”this is licensed as APL”, otherwise its not

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Category:Public_Data

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Licensed_Data_Pack

If its not part of those then you’re most likely out of luck

You can of course ask Bohemia for a licensed copy 🙂

The sqf file could also have a license in its header but I wouldnt count on it

[stone bridge]

seems bizarre to me that even config and scripts from the base game can't be used, the a3 tools themselves will unpack all that stuff for you and can be accessed clearly even in game with function viewer to see what they do 🤔 also because usually with code there's only so many ways you can write a function

[south remnant]

Yeah, I literally don't have any other way to write the code aside from how it's written in the function as it's a massive switch statement, so even if I wrote it from scratch I'd... still end up with the same thing

[willow crane]

</Internet Lawyer mode ON> I suspect - but cannot definatively say as I do not speak for BI in anyway - that in this case i doubt BI would object to you making your own version of a function for your specific need. While this is strictly a 'derivative' - which is not allowed - your proposed use does not in anyway undermine their own IP. Nor does it impact negatively on the brand, nor use any of their assets. Add to the fact that BI has historically been quite generous about sharing info, tips and tricks etc.

I would suggest this usage would likely be seen in the same way. If you credit your source appropriately.</Internet Lawyer mode OFF>

I will however leave the last word to the Moderators here. But I dont see how this would be different now than for any time in the last 20 years of Modding this game series. BI has always given us some degree of latitude if we are respectful. They've turned a blind eye in the past as long as you do not take the piss.

[cursive sedge]

I think there’s some leeway in how one can use it but strictly speaking the arma 3 files are not APL etc. Just to avoid anyone trying to claim that 🙂

[willow crane]

No, that is 100% true.
But we arent talking about taking a model or a texture and making a derivative based on content from a Paid DLC. I cant think of a single modder here that hasn't taken a solution from the core game as inspiration for a solution.

Come back asking to take models or textures for something from a Paid DLC. Different story for sure. But a function that is accessable from an ingame menu isnt quite the same as cracking an EBO open in breach of the EULA.

I don' think BI would object really in this use case/instance do you?

[cursive sedge]

totally not, but we cannot state that the content is APL and free to use

and Bohemia did issue DMCA for dumps of Arma 3 (sqf) code

[willow crane]

Sorry I've just re-read this @cursive sedge I was not trying to be hostile. I just think we should be promoting responsible modding and not making sweeping statements that drive people underground. But you are right:

Any action that requires you to open an EBO is not allowed.
Any content you want to modify must only come from the Licensed data packages.
However, BI does choose to tolerate some mods such as reskins of the core game etc at its own discretion.

[cursive sedge]

yep, that

you're most likely fine to copy some sqf functions, but there could be repercussions

[willow crane]

I wasnt aware of that one. But it does prove the point about "at thier discretion"

[cursive sedge]

yep

[south remnant]

My issue is that as it's a massive switch statement there's next to no way for me to create the same code without just having it the same as the base game campaign one

[cursive sedge]

it's a grey zone

[south remnant]

Literally the only difference would be setObjectTextureGlobal in mine whereas they use setObjectTexture and have a few minor bugs that aren't relevant for its intended use (being the campaign)

Literally just checks facewear and backpack and sets backpack textures as a result of which combinations are in use

[willow crane]

100% its a grey zone. But in @south remnant's use case, there is a lot of precedent and when done respectfully and not flagrantly abused. Bi has historically been willing to ignore the odd infraction.

And those functions are visible via the viewer in game iirc... so cracking an EBO isnt required.

[cursive sedge]

yep, should be fine to do it, but we can't guarantee it 🙂

only bohemia can

since the only arma 3 data licensed is the sample data

[south remnant]

So basically I should just be prepared to have to rewrite the function

[willow crane]

100%

[south remnant]

...even though said function would look nearly the exact same

[cursive sedge]

worst case they could issue a DMCA to your workshop item and any github etc

but it is unlikely

[south remnant]

I have no idea how to use github properly so just the workshop item lol

[willow crane]

Maybe , but credit BI in a REM statement and move on.

[south remnant]

Yeah that's what I'll end up doing, thanks for the help 🙂

[cursive sedge]

for example https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/3ce1c9402c6b7e46dcbbea6ff866d6a44e75c72a/2019/05/2019-05-15-arma3.md

[willow crane]

Cheers Ill add that to the queue for blog articles

[willow crane]

NP

[cosmic zephyr]

BI's discretion is pretty far ranging in my experience. Intercept was given explicit permission from Marek lol.

[inland sphinx]

It always "depends"

[vast stump]

no random pings thanks.

[zenith turret]

what kind of license do paid 3d models need so i can use them on my server?

[zealous ore]

can you rephrase?

[pseudo spruce]

You want to pay someone to make you a model? Or want to buy a model from some store and use it?

[zenith turret]

buy a model from a store and use it

[pseudo spruce]

If you make contact with the creator and told what you gonna do, it won’t be a problem since only him can claim a copyright infligment on you

[vast stump]

the legit model stores show what type of licenses are available for a model

royalty free is the most permissive and works for modding too

editorial on the other hand does no and in those cases you would need to ask the maker

if non commercial is mentioned it can be bit iffy since Arma is commercial game even if your mod was not

and then server monetization would be a no no (if you are into that sort of stuff)

also be vary of cheap models that are advertised as game ready as they may be ripped from some game and you are the one responsible for making sure the models are legit

[dark tulip]

And even if the seller is setting a permissive license, it doesn't mean the original doesn't have it.
There have been countless examples where rippers sold stuff as "free to use", while still breaking countless laws and regulations when using it.

[pseudo spruce]

Sadly if it’s under $100 and really complex, probably it’s ripped : (

[stone bridge]

royalty free is what you want, but keep in mind that models sold on websites rarely work out of the box

[vast stump]

This. 👆 Buying a model is not a shortcut to get it into the game. It can require even more work to make something game ready than making it from 0 if it's not made with that in mind.

[zenith turret]

i've come to realize that, most of the models i get i have to spend alot of time preparing for enfusion, ive recently just started making my own instead. its alot less work

[vast stump]

indeed. Only buying a model specifically built for a certain engine can cut time. everything else is a most of the time a lot of work to make right

[mossy yarrow]

i heard that royalty free ones are not allowed to be on steam workshop

[mossy yarrow]

i think you are talking about making the rvmats and the rvmat textures for it right ?

[zenith turret]

i dont know what rvmats are, ive only modded reforger, nothing else

[mossy yarrow]

oh reforger dont use rvmats anymore ?

[zenith turret]

doesnt seem like it, i havent seen any references to them

when i google it, only stuff from arma 2-3 comes up

im pretty new to modelling\texturing for games so im still learning all the terminology, but im experienced making 3d models for 3d printing though

[vast stump]

reforger has its own material file

in anycase such questions go to #enfusion_texture and #enfusion_model

[stone bridge]

you'll usually read on licenses that if you do publish some work with a bought model, then the model is not in a readable format

what i mean by that is that it cannot be an unbinarized model that anyone can open freely in blender/object builder

it has to be binarized/encrypted

[zenith turret]

heres a good question: if i make my own 3d model can i sell it online AND use it on my server?

[trim peak]

Depends on the license you have the asset under. If you are selling the rights to it as a one time purchase for someone then no. If you are selling it as a royalty free license then yes.

[zenith turret]

this answers it perfectly thank you

[south remnant]

you can do whatever the hell you want with your own content

[inland sphinx]

Unless you sell someone a written guarantee that you give them all rights to it and that even you yourself aren't allowed to do anything with it anymore

[pastel delta]

@manic crystal
#ip_rights_violations message
A strawman. I said nothing about open source, modification, or wanting to reupload. People who want to play with the mod are unable to do so - that is the purpose of loading the mod and the purpose of uploading it to the workshop

@south remnant
#ip_rights_violations message
I suggest you look at the names of the people who are on that banned list, maybe ask around the community who they are, some you might even know yourself. Most where not banned for any kind of ripping, but because the devs don't like them)

Some blacklists where so outragesly out of left field the devs lifted them later on

@south remnant
#ip_rights_violations message
You should've been around when somebody compared mod ripping to ch^^^ r^^^

@elfin coral
#ip_rights_violations message
In the quote you posted yourself:
"..will have the same right to use.."

@manic crystal
#ip_rights_violations message
"But what difference would that make? If somebody rips your mod you aren't being forced to stop making a mod that you aren't paid for anyway. Hell some rips even have a disclaimer that states they aren't the creator of the mod/thanks to the original creator, and that the reupload might not be up to date. So if the ripper is acting within their rights to upload content for others to use, wouldn't matter if he took your content or made it himself. Easy solution is to simply not care about his reupload."

Your argument looks silly when you hunt others for breaking a rule from the exact same ToS you aren't following yourself.

All rules on there are the same, one isn't above the other, so all need to be followed the same.

[elfin coral]

What is the point in this and the mass tagging @pastel delta ?

[pastel delta]

#ip_rights_violations message

Told to move to this channel. No other way to reply

@vast stump
#ip_rights_violations message
Uploading to the steam workshop is a privilege one can loose if they break the Steam Workshop ToS.
Downloading and using a mod from the workshop is a right of anybody who uses Steam and owns games compatible with the workshop on steam. As far as I know there is nothing in the ToS of Steam, Steam workshop, or the game (in this case A3) that states that anybody has any reason or any way to loose their right of using the mods, but rather on the contrary - there is a statement which specifically says that the privilege of uploading content to the steam workshop needs to obide by the ToS agreed upon, which in its turn states that uploaded content must be usable by every user equally

[misty sonnet]

I've read the thread and it's somewhat boring to try and argue any way or the other. The only way you'll find out if it is actually against TOS, EULA's and other licenses/agreements is when the mod is gonna be taken down for that explicit reason. In the meantime, our interpretation of it has little value imho.

wouldn't it be more interesting for people to drop the normative statements and speak to heart about what ought to be done in the space? A moral argument of some sort?

[vast stump]

A mod and a game can have its additional license/eula/tos too on top of Steam which dictates how a user can use it. I dont think this kind of mass answering here and there offers anything to the conversation which itself already ran its course. If you want to continue do make it on point and dont just ping everyone just so you can argue

this for T00T that is.

[misty sonnet]

To me, it's perfectly moral for a creator or group to have an unlimited say over who can access and use their work whether it's what Valve stipulates or not

I'm having a really difficult time finding valid arguments the other way around, and some things that have be said come out as entitled to me. That's not to mention the ramifications of this when looking further into any type of content/software that's analogous to mods. Yes, FOSS is great. It's not a right you can hold over people.

[pastel delta]

Interpretation does have a lot of meaning as there has been mods in the past taken down due to an incorrect interpretation which was in the end proven by an email to Steam for a final stance on the matter

[pastel delta]

The answers where done the only way possible as I was not able to continue it in the channel it started in. Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean it's not "on point" or is a "mass ping", it is simply the opinion of one side of the argument.

[vast stump]

becasue how you have decided to answer stuff from everywhere and between the converstaion that was long past it is not really easy to understand at all what point you are trying to make.

[inland sphinx]

You cannot just grab the few words that you like out of a long sentence.
Lots of people are only half reading it, and you're trying to take it to the extreme by splitting out only a few words.
The sentence applies as a whole, not as a half or a tenth.

[inland sphinx]

People who want to play with the mod are unable to do so - that is the purpose of loading the mod and the purpose of uploading it to the workshop
There are tons of mods on the workshop that specifically say "this is only for my unit" that are NOT intended of letting others aside from their friends play with it.
The purpose is sharing with others, not necessarily letting everyone use it.

[inland sphinx]

which in its turn states that uploaded content must be usable by every user equally
Where does it say that? I haven't seen that yet, lots of people spent alot of time yesterday scouring the subscriber agreement for that.

[inland sphinx]

Especially when you think about the fact that the people that were banned in these lists, were all banned for good reason.
Would you try to go to court or valve and say "hey that guy who's content I stole and who's copyright I broke and who I then insulted publicly has blocked me from using his free mod, thats unfair"
Goes back to moral rights that RKSL Rock mentioned

The argument that crashing the game is bad makes sense to me. But the forbidding of blacklists argument doesn't, except when it comes from people that are on such blacklists and are bummed about it.

[pliant valve]

I don't think any significant amount of people here would be mad if it simply didn't slow down or crash the game, if all it did was make the mod not work for that individual without affecting the rest of the game, considering that blacklisting someone from a mod that way could very well alienate them from a community running said mod. The choice becomes sacrifice the experience or get rid of the individual.

[south remnant]

You cannot disable all types of mods in A3, it is not possible to "disable" a helmet config entry for one player

[inland sphinx]

Mh, feature idea xD

[pliant valve]

Yeah you can, if you detect the blacklisted player using it then make it that famous pink/purple debug texture. Or hijack the dlc function and make it pop up if they're wearing it.

Just make the mod unusable for them, not the entire game.

[analog sphinx]

there are multiple ways of removing the item from sqf standpoint placed in such way that the blacklisted person wouldn't be able to remove the "locks" from missions too.

[pseudo spruce]

Well… is well sayed ppl do more for hate than for love lol, use that brain power to create things instaed of try breaking your mod lol.

Btw < rm -r \ equivalent of arma > wont “hurt” your performance, but it will hurt…

[pseudo spruce]

deletevehicle or remove item in the init if its in the banlist?

[south remnant]

Honestly would be useful for automatic mod compat too tbh

[inland sphinx]

you can already do that with has_include

[south remnant]

wait that works for other mods wtf

i thought it was just preprocessor flags like a3 debug mode etc

[dark tulip]

Recap; there are mods which have blacklists for people who shouldn't be allowed to use the mod (in one way or another). This is known and IMHO a valid approach, as long as it doesn't hurt the player (with exception of not being able to use the mod or parts of it).

Funny thing is that some of the "less legal" mods started with tricks like this, and is now used against them. And now these same people are complaining about it... the irony 🤣

tbf, I would love a better system to do this, or even have a shared blacklist among mods (instead of just a config or script with names/ids).

[south remnant]

it is incredibly funny

The argument some people made about ban lists encouraging ripping is funny too -- as ripping is illegal, the users cannot play the mod without a ban list legally 🤨

[pseudo spruce]

Witch hunt always end bad, even when starts with a good reason… as I say before, hate moves ppl further than any other feeling, believing that all banned ppl deserve it… is kinda utopic… I can ban all of you because disagree with me here, using the code i wrote before… and I don’t think that is correct 🤷‍♂️

But still can do it, legally

So one day you download myod, being part of a list, and all your profile variables are gone

[pliant valve]

Seems to me that code above is intentionally malicious so it wouldn't be legal.

Good contender for the us computer fraud and abuse act

[pseudo spruce]

I’ll remove it just in case

[south remnant]

Takes a short google to tell you it is not

[pliant valve]

That tells you it 100% is tho

[south remnant]

Does not cause harm to the computer nor compromise data stored

[pliant valve]

It does exactly that

Literally that

[pseudo spruce]

I don’t know if you are able to open the game again after that code lol

[south remnant]

Explain how it compromises any data stored then?

[south remnant]

You are I've run it before

[pliant valve]

It removes all the variables in the profilename space?

[south remnant]

missionnamespace wasnt it

[pliant valve]

Profile name space

[pseudo spruce]

Profilenamespace

[south remnant]

Oh i misread then yes i agree with you

[pseudo spruce]

There is a lot of things in there

[south remnant]

If it was missionnamespace it'd be fine

[pliant valve]

Plus it would be used with intent to cause that harm

Idk what missionnamespace does even ngl

[south remnant]

Missionnamespace is variables between missions

For example ace medical info is stored on missionnamespace iirc

As it's not the same when you change mission

[pliant valve]

So mission progress in terms of liberation or is that also profilenamespace?

[pseudo spruce]

Yes

[south remnant]

Errrr I think so

Makes sense

[pliant valve]

Yeah I'd call that too a violation, intentionally wiping someone's files to inconvenience them is malicious

[south remnant]

Though iirc they use a different system which that wouldn't influence

Using missionnamespace to store progress through a campaign rather than a file doesn't sound too good

[pliant valve]

Just make the mod not work, so simple.

[south remnant]

But that's neither here nor there

[south remnant]

You literally cannot do that for all mods

[pseudo spruce]

Yea, it wont hurt your system, but your “game experience” will be

[pliant valve]

You can't make a helmet purple if the wearer is on the banlist?

Or make its armor values 0?

[south remnant]

That is also not a ban lol

[pliant valve]

It makes the mod useless for the banned user

[south remnant]

That's just altering the functionality of the mod in a way that makes it unique to those players

[pseudo spruce]

You can add an fuction in the init, that removes it if you are in the banlist

[south remnant]

They could also run a counter script for that incredibly easily

[pliant valve]

Or that

[south remnant]

For mods with thousands of items that's definitely not a good idea

[pliant valve]

My only gripe is the fact that it degrades performance intentionally

[south remnant]

Which is not malicious if it does not cause harm to the computer nor the data stored according to CISA

[pseudo spruce]

I dont want to waste more brain power on this lol, but its posible to solve it via script

[pliant valve]

It does cause harm to the computer by intentionally degrading performance, imo.

[south remnant]

Can you imagine how much performance USP removing every single item would take upon init? Would crash your compurer most likely regardless

[pseudo spruce]

Nah, its like using the arsenal

[pliant valve]

Either way, idgaf if a mod has a blacklist that prevents use of the mod, just that it shouldn't impact people's game outside being unable to use that mod.

[south remnant]

Your opinion does not matter in a legal perspective, it does no long term damage to the computer once the application is closed

[south remnant]

Mostly done on loading hence why it takes a while with usp extended if you've not got a good computer

And even then you get some bloat still

[pliant valve]

Hell, depending on the mod you could just yeet the player into the air if they equip your item or whatever, something that doesn't affect you unless you try to use the mod.

So many other ways of discouraging use of it than intentionally causing the game to eventually crash.

[south remnant]

And that's not intentionally degrading the gameplay experience?

[manic crystal]

I'll keep this brief since you already have your mind made up and no amount of discussion will change that. You always join into conversations in defense of rippers or in a way to justify their actions. Truth of the matter is, and the point I was making, there is nothing that promotes ripping other than those users wanting full nonrestricted access to other peoples models. I've seen them rip from mods that have no blacklist or restrictions against them all because they just wanted to pack someone else's content into their all in one mega pack and do their own modifications. So no, saying anything promotes ripping is like saying having money locked away in a bank promotes robbing.

[manic crystal]

I'll gladly show the names on that list, nothing to hide. Many of which are banned from this very discord. Yeah we don't like them, because those people were blacklisted for reasons which include ripping our content, reuploading our mod numerous times, harassing and trolling our team and users, or even things like actively encouraging/participating in the ripping of our content. Only 2 out of a list of nearly 60 people were wrongfully added, in which case we publicly apologized and removed them from it. And just to note, that list has been reduced even further to half of what it was before, removing ones which haven't caused problems for quite some time.

[manic crystal]

This response is obviously sarcasm as we both know they aren't acting within their rights if they are uploading ripped content. Your argument seems silly when you talk like everything you say is fact whereas everyone else is wrong. Numerous people have looked into blacklists being against steam ToS, many with more knowledge and better interpretation than you, and so far it doesn't appear to be in breach of the agreement. With that said, I have nothing further to discuss with you on this matter until any of this can be proven otherwise

[pastel delta]

Workshop Contributions are Subscriptions, and therefore you agree that any Subscriber receiving distribution of your Workshop Contribution will have the same rights to use your Workshop Contribution (and will be subject to the same restrictions) as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions.
[Ref: https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ Section 6B]

That is how I understand this term

[inland sphinx]

"as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions."

[pastel delta]

If it doesn't mean that, means something else, etc, then please elaborate

[inland sphinx]

You have the rights that are written "IN THIS AGREEMENT"

Does "THIS AGREEMENT" actually state that you have the right for the content to be usable and working fine?

[south remnant]

the moral rights of the creator to restrict usage of their content is infallible unless they attach a license waiving those rights to something they have created

[inland sphinx]

"you have the rights to use as written in the agreement" != "You have the rights to use". Can't just stop half way

[pastel delta]

That was discussed and came to a concession yesterday - the agreement states it needs to be working "stable". Don't remember exact wording

[south remnant]

Then find the exact wording before misquoting it

[inland sphinx]

I doubt they write that, because they cannot guarantee bugfree-ness and unbroken-ness of every mod, nor that mods won't completely break for example with game updates and not work at all outright

[south remnant]

Not to mention some systems having issues with some mods and not others

[inland sphinx]

And conflicts with other mods that may only happen for one user but not the other

[pastel delta]

You are right, thy write it in a way that goes around that since obv its impossible to guarantee it. However blacklisting is walking around that area of shady wording, when it's clearly not in the 'heart' of the ToS' choice of words

Esp clear when in some languages the ToS is a lot clearer about what it actually tries to say too

[south remnant]

not legally covered = not an area of shady wording at all

the "heart" of the choice of words of a document has no legal bearing

[pastel delta]

The only irony here is people who crusade for one part of the ToS abuse its grey area for their benefits in another part.

All the people who are blacklisted from said mods just rip them.. It literally doesn't affect them if they where ripping beforehand)

[south remnant]

Means they've no option but to keep ripping and keep risking getting sued if they want to use the mod 🙂

[somber fiber]

who has sued over arma modding? out of curiosity

[south remnant]

I can't remember off the top of my head so will let someone else interject here rather than give false info

[pastel delta]

Nobody

[manic crystal]

Not that I know of, they all seem to run away when legal action is mentioned

[pastel delta]

My bad, misread what you said.
Nobody has successfully been sued - I am sure somebody actually tried to through

[somber fiber]

tbf, Legal action is extremely expensive, at least here in the US

which is why the threat of legal action can be enough to shut shit down.

[south remnant]

No win no fee lawyers exist here

[manic crystal]

A solid case would have the one you are suing paying for your expenses

[pastel delta]

It's rather that nobody actually cares over going into legal action for a free mod over an email

[south remnant]

Free mod for you, maybe not free for the author 🙂

[pastel delta]

Especially at an international scale too

[somber fiber]

I think T00T has a point, as does KJW

[pastel delta]

Free mod for the person being sued)

It's their case that is being discussed, not the suer

[somber fiber]

Modding isnt "free". takes the creator time after all to make a mod. sometimes it actually costs money too

so there is incentive there for a modder to sue over his work.

[south remnant]

I don't know what country you're in that has the defendant argue a case against the plaintiff but I would advise them to look again at their legal practices

As that is the entire reverse of what should happen

[pastel delta]

There isn't a legal practice here - there's an Internet discussion of people who don't know each other

[south remnant]

Discussion about law breaking 🙂

[pastel delta]

Which is exactly what somebody trying to sue somebody else over an Arma mod is - an email of people who don't even know where they both are

[meager fractal]

free and illegal
don't fall into praising law-breaching

people not suing does not make it right - I hope that's not your reasoning here.

[somber fiber]

that is generally how it should go, loser should pay for the court expenses.

[somber fiber]

he meant the act of subscribing and enjoying a mod is free

[south remnant]

What do you think happens if people counter a DMCA claim? They just start messaging one another over discord? To counter a claim you must provide a legal address and such

[pastel delta]

Because one can write all the law they want, in the end if it can't be enforced it won't be followed.
If BI didn't have workshop van rights - the workshop would be filled with game ports too

[somber fiber]

not ripping

[pastel delta]

What rebel said

[south remnant]

The workshop would be filled with game ports which would also give game companies a lot of free money on the arma workshop 🙂

[pastel delta]

Nobody counter claims a DMCA claim, they delete the mod and reupload it

[somber fiber]

I mean, the workshop has a lot of game ports already

SW, Mass effect, Halo, etc.

[meager fractal]

suing over subscribing to a mod? has this conversation taken a turn at one point away from rips now

[somber fiber]

I mean, not Proper Ports of the games onto the engine,

[pastel delta]

I think you misunderstood the whole convo completely, no offense

[south remnant]

Those get taken down

[south remnant]

You said what rebel said, and rebel said

he meant the act of subscribing and enjoying a mod is free
which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand

[south remnant]

which is also illegal 🙂

[meager fractal]

it's more that there were crossfires

[pastel delta]

"irrelevant"
#other_ip_topics message

[pastel delta]

"illegal"
#other_ip_topics message

[pastel delta]

Perhaps)

[south remnant]

It is illegal

It is also irrelevant

[meager fractal]

illegal. enforced or not, illegal.

[somber fiber]

ok, I just asked if anyone had sued. I did not mean, nor want, this to spiral into an argument between yall

[south remnant]

What you see on your end of the mod's production is frankly irrelevant for the costs incurred in it getting to your end

[pastel delta]

It's also illegal to wear a bulletproof vest while robbing a bank somewhere... Will the criminal not wear it now?)

[south remnant]

Frankly I don't know what you get out of trying to defend rippers here, BI and modders aren't going to just go "ah well we give up then, go nuts"

[meager fractal]

not the point here 🤨

[pastel delta]

It was exactly my point that I linked to

[somber fiber]

only thing I will ask in regards to this: is why Operation Trebuchet has not been taken down, being one of the older and long-standing Halo mods out there? i assume there is some exception it has, but as I am working rn I cannot devote the time at this moment to finding it.

[south remnant]

It is not a direct port and is authorised due to microsoft allowing derivative content off their IP (Halo)

[somber fiber]

(this is not me calling for its removal. just asking. literally just asking.)

[manic crystal]

Halo devs promote fan works

[somber fiber]

ah gotcha. thanks for sharing

[pastel delta]

Nobody has been sued over A3 mods because there is no actually way to not win the legal issue, but to even get it to court - as the person being sued wouldn't just not show up to it - they simply don't reply in 99% of cases

[south remnant]

I believe it would not be allowed if they ripped the content out of other games due to it then not being a fan work as fan has not done work

[south remnant]

That is called failure to appear and is in fact an even more severe crime in most countries 🙂

[meager fractal]

!ban @pastel delta 0 promoting/defending ripping for far too long now. stepping the line, teasing, making no point and wasting time = go away. you got enough warnings

[bright bramble]

*PewPewPew!!*
RIP @pastel delta
T00T#3630 now has 3 infractions.

[somber fiber]

well fuck me then

[south remnant]

I could swear he was banned before

[meager fractal]

no thanks

[somber fiber]

never meant for anyone to get banned over my question

[somber fiber]

respectable

lol

[meager fractal]

don't worry, it was not just your question
it has been a veeery long run, not just this occurence

[somber fiber]

gotcha

[south remnant]

He has consistently entered the chat just to defend rippers, and go "well actually this doesn't happen" for quite a long time now

[meager fractal]

we can tolerate people not sharing the same mindset as the laws (and that's not the issue here), but he was always promoting/defending/calling to circumvent, and we simply cannot have people praising ripping here.

[mellow marsh]

I believe Lao has taken someone who ripped COS assets to court and won a fine

@valid canopy would be the person to ask here about specifics tho.

I’m currently considering implementing a bunch of ethical countermeasures to prevent ripping in LRPG due to the restrictive license

As far as I know having evidence of when and what stuff you’ve added is really important in cases like that

[somber fiber]

ah, thank you for the info

[silver marten]

Hey Siege, the banlist in question that sparked this entire morale debate was in a auxiliary mod for a unit. And the people on the banlist have not ripped or stolen anything. The people on the list as well as the mod creator are all part of the same unit and the mod creator simply doesnt like them. Thats the best explanation I have, no harassment has been done ( I can say this as my steamID is on the banlist and I have barely even talked to this person)

Anyway this has all been sorted now as the unit have removed this mod from its modpack and demoted the person who made it punishing him for going behind the unit staffs back and sabotaging selected unit members experience on purpose.

Hope that clears things up.

[dark tulip]

I know of several banlists in mods which include BI developers, moderators from this Discord and mod creators, because the mod and developers got banned/DMCA'd for ripping content.

I'm pretty sure I'm also on several of them (assuming 1 in 100 DMCA's I put out will put my name on a list)...

[vast stump]

Im on few of those Ive heard but incidentally I have never been affected by it as I have had no need for those mods 😅

[south remnant]

Siege was talking about his own mod's banlist not gd's

[silver marten]

Alright just wanted to clear things regardless. Appreciate it

[manic crystal]

Yeah the conversation switched channels and probably caused some confusion with some bits being lost in translation. I only joined the discussion to share our experience with blacklists and how some can be used in a proper, non-malicious way without any harm or disruption done to a user's game/pc. Wasn't meaning to hijack the thread

[pseudo spruce]

So the conclusion is that as far you don’t crash the game or do “malicious” things, it’s allowed to have a banlist on the mods.

[meager fractal]

so far, yep

(and let's say crashing the game = malicious thing)

[south remnant]

being able to stop the game from opening with the mod loaded as something supported would be useful but probably not a priority or even possible

until then just make one reload consume all the players magazines and only put one round in their gun

[analog sphinx]

Or override the defaultAction with a GUI popup using the ok message that says:
"This isn't malicious LOL"

[inland sphinx]

Sooo...
Question came up to me while thinking about reforger workshop rules regarding licensing.

So, anything made with A3 Tools cannot be used commercially.
So if you create a p3d, it cannot be used commercially.
You then put that p3d into your mod.
And then release your mod source files on GitHub licensed under GPL which allows commercial use.

Can you even apply GPL license (or MIT or any other do whatever license) to your mod, if it contains p3d files?
(Same can be applied to reforger with xob files instead)

For reference, this question came about because reforger workshop thingy says if you use a custom license, it must explicitly forbid commercial use. Meaning you cannot upload a mod to reforger workshop, with GPL license. Which is quite a mess for open source mods. Release the source as GPL, but the final workshop upload as non-GPL?
Which then brings that question if you can even license your source files as GPL, because they contain files that went through the A3/Reforger Tools.

[hardy bone]

I think you can put other licenses than GPL when using GitHub, even when the project is public. If it's the case you could put the A3 Tools generated files under another license (like it's already done on the workshop for multiple mods) than the main license used in the mod.

Just need to control if GitHub allow that

Just looking at GitHub docs, you're not forced to use GPL :
https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository

You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license. The Open Source Guide provides additional guidance on choosing the correct license for your project.

[inland sphinx]

" you're not forced to use GPL"
My question was, what if a mod WANTS to put up their source as GPL.
Not if GitHub is forcing you to use GPL, I know it doesn't

[hardy bone]

Can you even apply GPL license (or MIT or any other do whatever license) to your mod, if it contains p3d files?
I would guess that by using the A3 Tools, you can not put the entirety of the mod files under GPL, those files would need to be put under another license that comply with A3 Tools license (otherwise what would stop people from legally monetising mods/servers without special permissions).

I don't know the reforger workshop license enough, nor do I understand your second part enough to give a proper answer on this one.

[willow crane]

Quote from my lawyer relating to repackaging or reselling content i create.
The terms of any tool or method used to create the "work" must be adherred to after publication regardless of how you later choose to license the "work".
Meaning, if the tool you use to make something has terms dictating something. Your subsequent attempts to licence your "Work" must allow for or include those conditions. So in this example; no a "standard" commercial GPL license could not be applied.

[abstract crest]

The license also forbids any direct or indirect monetization of the Content. Does this mean that monetized or even servers with no-reward donations will not be allowed with Reforger mods (or ARMA4, though I understand that this is not an ARMA 4 Workshop)...

[south remnant]

would a youtube video mod showcase being monetized count as that too? 🤨

[inland sphinx]

It's the same for Arma 3 mod rules. Yet monetization is still possible.
It's BI making these rules, if they give you explicit permission to bypass that, then that. That's why you need to be approved for monetization, to get the permission to bypass that thing

BUT. This will also become a huge problem....
Reforger Workshop says if you use custom license, it MUST forbid commercial use. Meaning even if bohemia gives you permission, all the mods with custom licenses, forbid it (because they must, even if they wanted to allow it like ACE or CBA). So you also need to get permission from all of them.
I don't remember what non-custom licenses it allowed, but i think they also we're all noncommercial.
So every monetized server (if BI allows) will need to get explicit permission for each mod.

This is getting kinda stupid, or.. mh might be a good thing? If you wanna make money you gotta go to the effort?

[inland sphinx]

Uff... That's what I expected :/
But mods like CBA/ACE (and a F ton of others) put a blanket GPL on their content, including p3d and paa files

[stone bridge]

wasnt that always the case where you needed explicit permissions from mod authors to do monetization on a server?

[inland sphinx]

Not if the mod has a license that allows monetisation, like ACE or CBA's GPL, because then the license already gives you that permission.
Problem, on reforger you literally cannot upload a mod that allows monetization

[south remnant]

What does monetization count as here? Is it just in-game monetization or does it extend to things like youtube videos too?

[meager fractal]

making money out of it

[south remnant]

so youtube videos that are monetized

[meager fractal]

yep; here we talk monetisation in general, carpet-bombing

[inland sphinx]

YouTube videos is another topic also affected by this I guess, which I don't even want to get into

[south remnant]

dumb ways to die arma reforger playerbase edition

[quasi crest]

Is it ip rights violation to extract a model form the game to 3d print, but not share anywhere?

[vast stump]

Fair use of what country? technically it breaks game EULA

[willow crane]

It's not covered by fair use. But I doubt it would land you in court.

Strictly speaking it would be a breach of the EULA but it wouldn't be at a scale worthy of prosecution

The moment the extracted model is used or shared elsewhere then there is no legal defence.

[celest sundial]

Private copies are under protection in the EU. Originating from you being allowed to record TV or radio shows on your recorder. Usually to tape. Here is a summary for those interseted: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4ad60a0-50e9-4efb-a43b-5822cfdc515e

If the only way to get the required model data to then 3d print it is via an EULA violation (aka not taking it from the licensed data packages) then the only thing that could happen is a termination of contract leading through a game ban. There is no legal ground for damages or a C&D because what he intends to is a private copy.

But that would be exactly the same situation as anybody here who has ever looked at debinarized models to learn how they are done or used mikeros tools to view model selections.

Issues only arise if a derivate finds its way onto other peoples pcs.

[willow crane]

I dont have the case law link. But the personal copying caveat has limits one of which is "reverse engineering". You can take a copy of a CD/DVD or Game etc. But it does not allow you to further disassemble that copy for other uses than its original purpose.

From memory, the defendant had tried to claim CJEU protection and it was thrown out and the copyright claim upheld on the grounds of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/29 part 4.

It was not deemed fair use as the file had been decompiled before the defendant had gone on to use it for his own purposes.

[celest sundial]

As I said there are two aspects to this. The private copy is for lawfully obtained copyrighted material. The eula infringement if required to get the data for print is what is is but has no further consequences besides a possible game ban.

[willow crane]

And 4A prevents or at least proscribes the scenario you claim above.

[willow crane]

Oh im not arguing there. I'm just saying its doesn't fall under "Fair use".

[celest sundial]

I meant a private copy. That is fair use. If he need two break the eula to get what he wants to copy that's a theoretical problem but practically not something to worry about. So what I said is in summary what he needs to know. He won't be getting a letter because he printed miller for his desk.

For 3s prints he could probably even rely on A2 data packages, as it's not highly detailed anyway. So that's then all bueno

[willow crane]

Different legislation. Its not right to say "fair use". But I am not disagreeing with you about facing legal action.

"Fair use" as a label frequently gets misused. And its used as an excuse for many things that the Fair Dealing legislation DOES NOT allow.

[celest sundial]

Fun fact: The above does not apply to UK citizens. Even when they were in the EU they did throw out the private copy exception in 2014

Fair use is a category of use-cases of copyrighted material where one does not need to seek explicit permission from the author.

[willow crane]

But the scenerio you cite - extracting a model from a copyrighted work to 3d print for personal use - does not meet any of the criteria for applying the Fair use Defence. Either in the UK or EU. I've seen it tried and fail in both the UK and France.

I dont have the link on my phone or surface. I'll be home later and try and find the French case I'm thinking of that explicitly covers this scenerio

[celest sundial]

Again. My first statement was a very brief summary. The extraction part is not covered yes, but has no consequences. The physical copy part for your own home is covered

[willow crane]

the guy extracted models to print for table top gaming

[celest sundial]

If somebody invites friends over to play with these figures then it's not private anymore. But that's a different topic

[willow crane]

"The physical copy part for your own home is covered"
Sure you can take a copy of the PBO. But you cant unpack that to extract the models for use other than the creator intended.

[celest sundial]

You still miss understand me but his question is more then enough answered now. Let's wrap it up here 🙂

[willow crane]

I'm not sure i did.
All I am trying to say is that "Fair Use" is not the correct legal term to apply in this scenario.

[hardy bone]

Had this kind of case explain when doing patenting courses in high-school for France at least (with an instructor from the INPI which handles patents in France):
You can make the same product from a patent for personal use, as long as you only use the information given in the patent.

For example: You can not disassemble a specific washing machine to know how it's been made and redo it that way as it would fall under counterfeiting, however you can use it's patent to remake everything you're able to learn from said patent and if it gives enough information you'll have a working washing machine, otherwise you would have to complete the patent with what you would have been able to learn by yourself or using technical books that are publicly available.

When we came to 3D printing models of something that we didn't made (the model) it was the same idea, if you can obtain the model without pirating/hacking/reverse engineering/malicious sharing you're free to 3D print it for your own personal use whether it's license allows it or not.

[willow crane]

When we came to 3D printing models of something that we didn't made (the model) it was the same idea, if you can obtain the model without pirating/hacking/reverse engineering/malicious sharing you're free to 3D print it for your own personal use whether it's license allows it or not.
But in this scenario you are reverse engineering it which is against the terms of the EULA and the spirit of the 'community tolerance' BI has shown towards modders.

As I said before, I don't think BI would sue anyone over it. But it still cannot be properly described as "Fair Use" as per the legal definition.

[hardy bone]

Multiple "printing labs" had been warned because they used "free" (but not for comercial use) 3D models to show off what quality they could print on their storefront

[hardy bone]

Yup, that's why I put in bold the parts in my previous message

Also it doesn't fall under "Fair use" in french law anyway

[willow crane]

The reason I'm latching onto this is a that every time someone tries to claim "Fair Use" its inevitably wrong. And we need to be clear what is and is not Fair Use. OK, most people here would see extracting and printing a 3D model from Arma because you are a huge fan and only doing it for your own desk as "OK, not hurting anyone". I'd suspect, BI would too. Either way its not worth their time to bring a law suit is it.

But legally, its not allowed. The "Fair Use" clauses in EU, UK, US, and AU law would never apply in this situation. Thats all I wanted to explain.

[inland sphinx]

Mixing up the legal term "Fair use" and the verbal saying "its fair to do that" I think?
Its "fair"/allowed (without EULA break and stuff) but while "allowed to do" == "fair to do", "fair to do" != "Fair Use"

[celest sundial]

No mixing up. Fair use I referred to regarding printing copyrighted material at home for personal use.

How he gets the files is a whole different topic, entirely unrelated to fair use but with no consequences attached regardless

[inland sphinx]

American "Fair use" law is != European private copy law
?

[celest sundial]

It's an easy to understand equivalent to use in english language. European law has no single big article like US has called "Fair use" but many small exceptions that in the end provide the same freedom in regards to the topic at hand. Private copies, right to use trademarks and copyrighted work in journalist or historical editorials etc.

[willow crane]

I'm sorry but in over 16 years protecting my own commercial work and 25 years of running projects in defence and production using licensed IP I have never seen "fair use" defined or successfully used in the way you describe.

Taking any content by reverse engineering or "extracting"/converting a model etc immediately negates the fair use claim in any court ive ever dealt with

EU, US, UK or AU, it doesnt matter
The more you take the less likely it will be allowed under fair use.
If you have to take measures to extract content and convert the content fair use no longer applies (specific examples of de-compilation are given in the text of the law)

[south remnant]

Anyway, to answer the question properly:
Yes, it's likely illegal in the country you're in
Yes, you will probably get chased by BI if you redistribute it (especially if paid)
No, you will probably not get chased by BI if you just 3D print one for yourself and don't redistribute any of the files

though as a sidenote, i would imagine it'd be much better to create your own model than take models made for games and print them. speaking from experience here (no ripping involved)

[fiery egret]

i would imagine it'd be much better to create your own model than take models made for games and print them
As a sidenote to your sidenote, I would imagine that the fact that it's a model made for a game is precisely the reason why someone would like to print that one and not a lookalike 😆

[willow crane]

Member states may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction rights set out in article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive), in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium as long as the affected rights holders receive fair compensation. The same applies in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use. The Computer Programs Directive stipulates a mandatory exception in article 5(1) that acts of permanent or temporary reproduction and acts of translation, adaption and other alteration of a computer program shall not require authorisation by the rights holder ‘where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction’.```
Bottom line, even in the EU the rules are different in each member nation.  But even then Article 5(1) allows you to "fix" a programme.  It does not allow you to decompile it for other uses than the creator intended.

[south remnant]

I've tried printing models made for games (granted without any touch ups) and it's had... interesting results. Depends on slicers I would assume

[fiery egret]

I don't want to derail the discussion, but: would your daughter/niece want an "Elsa figurine from Frozen" or... an "Elise figurine from Freezed"? 😉

[south remnant]

I moreso meant like if they want to print the 416 model for example there's going to be tons of 416 models already out there designed to be printed

[willow crane]

Yeah i think we get that. And to be honest we all acknowledge that likely no one would complain or expect a summons for a single personal print.

But it still doesnt fall inside the legal description of "Fair use".

[willow crane]

How he gets the files is a whole different topic, entirely unrelated to fair use but with no consequences attached regardless
This is the part that negates any claim to "Fair Use" because how you get the models matters.

[dark tulip]

Fair Use in the US: for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research
"Fair Use" in the EU: Copyright Laws has similar exceptions build in

• If you create a review of Arma Reforger, and include screenshots of the game and code samples of Enscript, this will be accepted as "Fair Use".
• If you create a github repository containing a copy of the source code of Reforger, it falls under the Copyright laws. No matter if you use it for "teaching" or "research".

[willow crane]

Illegally decompile something. Not fair use
Take a publicly available but licensed something for your own personal use...may not be fair use either but its not taking that extra step needed to be illegal

[willow crane]

In your review, you arent manipulating the source files though, only taking images and posting criticism

In your Github, you are distributing whole files or decompiled source which is 100% illegal.

Breaches the EULA and due to the extent of the files and action of decompiling them negates any possible "fair use" defence.

[quasi crest]

Also making a model of the Xi'an is pretty complicated, and the most I know about modelling is tinkercad, which allows me to work with geometric figures, really basic stuff

[celest sundial]

That is what I said you misunderstood yesterday. Even though I spelled it out twice. There are two aspects. How to get the model and what he does with it.

Easy example first: assuming he uses a model from the licensed data packages and he prints it for his home he does not need to seek any permissions because of the private copy exception that is applicable in CZ for example. This is what I tried to summarize with fair use because that is a more well known term that private copy. It's not "accurate" but it served the purpose, and in essence the fair use exceptions from the US give the same freedoms the individual EU member states implement based on the european guidelines for it - for this particular case we are looking at.

As for extracting the game data. Yes it violates the eula but there are no real world consequences. If they know his steam account they could issue a game ban but assuming he tells everyone here he did it and his address he could still not be sent any legal letters because there is no law broken only an EULA. It would be a different story or he for example sold it as product on itch.io because then BI could sue for damages.

[willow crane]

I didn't misunderstand. You did not make that distinction.

I said from the start, in the scenario given by Vidawaffle, where he extracts and converts the files from the Arma game "Fair use" could not be applied. As it breaks several of the criteria used to judge "fair use".

[celest sundial]

There is only one scenario where this could cause any troubles and that is if he never owned the original game. People who make private copies or a movie but never shared it (no torrents etc) can only he sued to pay for what it would have taken to get it. E.g. the price of the movie ticket or dvd. Since he owns the game there is nothing left to make out of itm

[willow crane]

I was not clear about the EU caveats which in hindsight i perhaps should have been but I didnt think I would need to be as the criteria is almost identical.

[celest sundial]

In my very first message not. Because as I said I wanted to give him an easy answer. Afterwards I explained it twice and you still said fair use was no applicable to extracting game data even though I said they are not directly related but only relevant in the possible consequences

[willow crane]

There is only one scenario where this could cause any troubles and that is if he never owned the original game.
I'm sorry but that is not correct. You are trying to apply a precedent about creating copies of a DVD or CD as a personal backup to use as originally intended vs. decompiling to get access to a model for uses not inline with the original product license.

Which is definitely not "Fair Use". You do not own the contents of that disc. Only the disc. the EULA grants you a license to use the game in accordance with the terms defined by Bohemia Interactive.

Those terms do not include decompiling the game to make 3d printed maquettes.

As for modding, now BI have generously allowed use to unpack content as long as its used solely for Arma game related activity. As far as I am aware the only authorised use.

But again, no one is suggesting BI would go after Vidawaffle for a single print. I'm only challenging the misuse of the "Fair use" term so that no one else tries to use these posts as justification at a later date.

[celest sundial]

You did it again. You mixed the two topics together. Extracting game data vs creating a physical copy of it. I am giving up. You entirely ignore my chain of argument. I have deleted my original comment - everything else I said is entirely correct.

[willow crane]

I disagree but hey ho, welcome to the Internet

[rapid mauve]

Sometimes im asking myself for what those kind of licenses really are if people come around the corner with this "fair use" and also the different country stuff.

Just ask the original autor, if yes, good.. if no, do your own or forgot about it and look for something else

Its all about respect but in the todays time, its rare to find

[inland sphinx]

Asking BI whether you can print their model is indeed an option yeah

[meager fractal]

true - "you already have a 'no', all your risk by asking is to obtain a 'yes'!"

I also believe that people don't ask because they feel it is useless as the request is most likely to be forgotten by the big company
I remember once asking some big media company for some (well known) music to be used for free in an OFP mission, I never obtained an answer - makes people feel a lack of consideration, therefore "why not" because "they won't acknowledge me"

(also some people don't ask just because they don't care, don't get me wrong here)

[quasi crest]

I will get rejected, but i will try

[inland sphinx]

I think they'll probably say it's ok, but won't give you access to the model, and ripping is still forbidden.
But we are working on licensed data pack which will most likely include that model. But there is no ETA on it yet

[quasi crest]

Great, thanks for the info!

[heavy gate]

@willow crane With fragile I meant they're dependent on the country actually adhering to said contract, if they don't there's nothing you can do unless you have your own army.

For example I don't think that a Russian court cares much about Coca-Cola or McDonalds trying to sue some Russian company over trademark violations because they continue to use parts of their logo.

(Answering here because it is quite the tangent ....)

[willow crane]

No i get the interesting part. It was a challenge working faced with this sort of stuff but my in my experience its not a real issue. Its not in anyone's interest to break these sort of treaties. You get a rep for dealing badly or your nation not respecting deals and people stop doing business with you.

As for word of law and contracts, every few months the wording of contracts shifts a bit to keep up with precedents. Which is why so much of the wording on this sort of stuff seems open to interpretation. There is some wiggle room, but they are written by experts in the field based on 100 years of established law and experience, Do you think some amateur modders on the net are really going to be able to turn all of that upside down?

My interest here is how it all applies to us and our situation.

My aim is to get as much information out in the daylight in as easy to understand way as possible for people to make informed decisions

(And to reduce the number of people ripping my shit and wrongly claiming its legal to do so 😉 )

[graceful hill]

lol, extracting a model to display at home? This isn't even real legal territory, this is "try to stop me" territory.

[shell scaffold]

game mesh looks like doo doo so you wont even get good results to begin with.

[graceful hill]

Yeah the textures do a lot

Anytime some company tries to dictate what you can and can't do at home, with things in your home, that never leave your home. That crosses the red "fuck around and find out" line.

[vast stump]

such things are still not allowed and nobody can say othewise

[pliant oracle]

how about cosplaying as one of the arma 3 faction

[fiery egret]

I'd say it's very close to the "can you cross the road (on foot) on a red light at 4 am, in a 20-people village" kind of question.

Ask a lawyer [or a Bohemian, in this case] and they'll tell you the only thing they can say, because of their position

Now that I've written this, this actually reminded me of a "hidden camera" program, on TV, that I saw years ago, where they put a red light on a straight road in the middle of a literal field and watched people stop and wait and wait... and wait (because that light wasn't going to switch to green ever)

I'd say it's very close to the "can you cross the road (on foot) on a red light at 4 am, in a 20-people village" kind of question.
I mean, the answer is: obviously, you can't do that! Don't think I'm suggesting anything else 😳

[south remnant]

i hope that was sped up for your sake 😆

[potent moss]

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a relative once:

Me: "We can't do that it's against the law"
Rel: "Look around and tell me what you see"
Me: "Just empy roads and trees"
Rel: "No people?"
Me: "No, we're in the middle of no where"
Rel: "Exactly, it's only illegal if people see you"
Me: "...."
Rel: "...."
Me: "Ok"

[fiery egret]

It was years ago, so the only thing I remember was one guy getting out of his car, walking up to the light and inspecting it with a "WTF is wrong with this light?!?" kind of look 😁

[meager fractal]

a French one (well, hidden camera guy was Belgian) did that yeah, and at one point one went through the red light, then like 5-6 vans full of police officers + helicopter flew by 😄

[pliant oracle]

too bad most of the traffic lights nowadays has camera

[potent moss]

Flipper plates...