#other_ip_topics

1 messages · Page 4 of 1

elfin coral
abstract crest
#

GPL...

pseudo oasis
#

So i've just been informed that my mod Simple persist has been ripped and re-uploaded into other Modpacks by a couple of users.

Aside from submitting a DMCA request on the Workshop, is there anything I can do about that?

south remnant
#

no

#

unfortunately there is no legal way to remotely detonate a computer

pseudo oasis
#

Bohemia game ban them for violating workshop T&C?

frozen jackal
#

You can contact them through an email that's in #ip_rights_violations desc, but to my knowledge workshop-wide bans are given out for repeated violations.

#

No "game ban", not sure what would it even be.

pseudo oasis
#

game developers can issue game bans, which prevent the users from even utilising their game.

as well as the workshop ban

south remnant
#

only for repeat offenders

frozen jackal
#

You mean a VAC ban? Not sure if it revokes the workshop privileges, you still own the game afterall

#

If you have time and you're feeling lucky you can find the uploader's postal address and send them a physical CnD letter madafaka

pseudo oasis
pseudo oasis
oak hare
zealous ore
#

a bit absurd considering the guys views on modding a few years ago…

analog sphinx
oak hare
analog sphinx
#

"its ok to rip as long as you dont profit from it if its in sake of the community" basically

slow sage
#

Then, wouldn't that game be in conflict with those same views?

#

Like, that game's got ripped assets, and they're profiting off it

trim peak
wispy iron
#

There’s so many ways you could screw that one up

oak hare
trim peak
mossy yarrow
pliant valve
#

BD, bluedrake or blatantly distasteful? kekw

#

Who knows, they're synonymous

lyric hollow
#

Apologies if this isn't the right area to bring this up in; does anyone know what the policies are regarding "official promotion" of ripped content on Twitter? How would I go about reporting such occurrences?

vast stump
lyric hollow
#

Got it thanks

night cloak
#

Is it allowed to port and modify Arma 2 models into Arma 3?

#

AFAIK yes, just asking to be sure though 🤔

celest sundial
night cloak
abstract crest
minor cove
abstract crest
#

True, but in our community we at least try to close them down and those who infringe in our community are not so bloody blatant about it.

abstract crest
#

And read the thread, man, the guy just keeps advertising the fact that you can buy his shit! Doesn't care... nothing will happen to him and he'll keep on bringing in the money

#

And, honestly, if he's the future in Enfusion then I am happy to stay on ARMA 3, I am old enough for it to keep me happy

rugged prawn
frozen jackal
#

and he's not even the actual dev, just some random man in the middle 💀

shell scaffold
#

So he bought a model, added it to the game, doesn't even fly yet and he's asking for money 😂 the cheek of some people is unbelievable

zealous ore
#

i wonder who the modder is...

dark tulip
#

Yeah... Let's see how this goes;

Screenshot_20231211_152144_Chrome.jpg
zealous ore
#

smells like a scam…

dark tulip
#

It's even worse;

  • guy buys model (from wherever)
  • asks on Reddit for someone to add it into the game
  • asks for donations to support him
analog sphinx
#

🤣

old jay
zealous ore
old jay
#

RIP E3

plain sedge
inland sphinx
#

Ah so the modder is a guy that is already perm banned on here for content theft, commercial use and "scamming"
Even so far as selling other peoples models on fiverr

zealous ore
pseudo spruce
#

Regarding fiverr, it correct to sell "model 3d to be imported to arma 3, scripts and config" , and doing the importation to arma free...
ill like to offer a service like that, but i dont want to have any troubles like i had in the past

vast stump
#

since you would not do the free service free if you were not paid

#

which makes the stuff you do for free actually paid

#

if you did "free importing" you would basically have to do everyones requests at the order they come in without any prefrential treatment to anyone who pays you to do models. and even then it might be on shaky grounds

pseudo spruce
#

“I’ll do any free importing if you give me the models ready to import”
I know is like twisting the rules, but in the end, putting the stuff in object builder and build the PBO is like the 1% of the Job

#

I guess I’ll limit the service to “ready to import to arma” and that’s it

vast stump
#

that twisting the rules part is the wrong part

south remnant
#

you can just give them a tutorial video, just cant give them anything produced with arma tools

vast stump
#

make the damn video just public then

#

Im very dissappointed to see people I've helped to learn this shit do shady crap with what I've given them

#

you wanna work in arma, make a cdlc

south remnant
#

for the love of god if you think importing is 1% of the job please show us how youre importing

north orchid
vast stump
inland sphinx
inland sphinx
pseudo spruce
#

I’ll do the tutorial then, the idea is not change ppl for importing stuff to arma, is just offering the service for ppl who just don’t want to do it and prefer to pay for it

Once you have the models, textures and configs, it’s not that much to need to with arms tools

vast stump
#

I have sent Bill for my advice on the makers channel from time to time

#

Oopsie blobcatsweats

inland sphinx
visual musk
#

man, that reddit thread.. " right now we won't have rockets due to no mod having working rockets since the helo update but when we get a mod that had rockets we will add then" basically, we can't do it on our own, but once there is a mod that does the feature we want, we'll steal from it and add it to our own stuff.

mossy yarrow
mossy yarrow
meager fractal
#

@plain sedge chill.

old jay
#

...and the thread was deleted from Reddit. The 💡 must have finally turned on.

frozen jackal
#

you mean the AH-1 cobra one?

old jay
#

Yeah

dark tulip
#

prolly got all the money in to pay himself and the person who put it in Arma...

vast stump
#

The problem is, if it ever makes it into the workshop, it's now tainted and probably gets removed.

#

So way to go ruining the modding scene with you money making schemes

zealous ore
vast stump
#

100% probability 🤣

dark tulip
#

BI is proactively banning content from the workshop, I like this new BI 👍

main plover
dark tulip
vast stump
#

its known, itll be handled sooner than later.

old jay
wispy iron
#

Is there any decent methods of getting licenses for lack of a term archived I was just gonna link to a uploaded format will that be the best method?

celest sundial
wispy iron
#

Affirm thanks Arkensor just ironing out rest of licensing details prior to going public

abstract crest
#

Is on topic despite the fact that those mods are for DayZ... but they are taking ARMA 2 stuff and not mentioning it

#

But that space is the wild west and BI don't care...

vapid orchid
# vast stump its known, itll be handled sooner than later.

Sorry if this isnt the right place for this but im not totally clear on what the guy who made the Cobra mod did wrong. Im not associated with the mod/modder in any way just curious about why the mod will get pulled. Is it a ripped asset?

crimson garden
vapid orchid
#

So its just violation of BI TOS? Due to the no payment for use of workbench/tools etc

vast stump
dark tulip
#

It's the same with other game engines, although specific rules are different.

Unreal Engine is free to to and you can publish mods/games made with it, but you have to pay for a license (5-6 digit number) the moment your revenue is above a certain number.

Unity has included a similar limitation to their software.

BI just made it simple: not allowed to do any commercial work (aka getting paid) with their tools/software.

scenic holly
#

Is patreon/KO-fi allowed then?

#

I pretty much know the guy who made it and everything was sort a donation he received from the group who was announcing the mod not an sort of commercial payment to import or anything like that

#

Also had the case of the Strider crowdfunding the M113

vast stump
#

modders can get donations. but donations are not donations if they are to pay for something

#

a modder cant say I'll do this when I get donations

#

donation = nothing is received/expected in return

#

the actual "modding" part as putting stuff in game can not be paid for

#

paying for source models/textures/other material made externally is allowed. but paying for use of the BI provided modding tools to get stuff into the game is not

#

@scenic holly

scenic holly
#

Hopefully bohemia will analyze that with an unpartial and TOS based view and not an pretty partial view with intentions of getting the mod down for no reason like a guy from a big mod

vast stump
#

size of mod does not matter, breach of TOS/EULA is the reason a mod would get taken down in these cases

scenic holly
#

Yeah this discussion was pretty intense in another discord servers and couple guys were well partial in getting the mod down even if the mod breaks or non the eula

zealous ore
scenic holly
#

afaik they just did something other modders do too

#

I might be proven wrong in the future but that's what I believe

zealous ore
scenic holly
#

asking for donations to fund the model -> get the model bought -> making a mod

vast stump
#

well if that ends up being the case then it might be even fine.

#

there are also cases where the makers have no intention of making mods without donations

#

which makes them not donations

#

but payment for doing X

teal turtle
#

Can I potentially have a list of banned people?

vast stump
#

no

teal turtle
#

Can i talk to admins somewhere then?

vast stump
#

depends on the issue I suppose to who we might refer you to

teal turtle
#

To do with my discord “modders lounge” would like to clear issues up

zealous ore
teal turtle
#

Well it’s related to mine and has been flagged . I can update rules but nothing more in particular unless someone could guide me on certain rules

vast stump
#

probably something you can ask through community managers?

#

I think they might be the right first contact point

#

and probably can point you towards right people

teal turtle
#

Ive had one admin in dms but i would love just a general area i could talk to so i can fix the issues

meager fractal
#

#discord_server for this-Discord-server-related things, @thick vigil DMs otherwise

rigid oracle
# scenic holly I might be proven wrong in the future but that's what I believe

What was done for the cobra is nothing like what strider does. Strider has a patreon. His patrons donate whether he makes stuff or not. He puts a list up from time to time of vehicles he plans to work on and asks which one they would like to see first, like he did with the m113, but thats it. No commissions. The Cobra was literally crowdfunded to pay a guy to work on it. Created a reddit thread and all. That reddit thread was seen by bi before the author deleted it. You can't pay someone to make something for you.

trim peak
scenic holly
#

that's the official statement about the cobra afaik

image.png
trim peak
#

So on reddit he said he bought the model for $300 but now he is saying donations bought the model. Mixing up his story isn't going to help him.

#

Going out of your way to ask for donations is just shady business. Never ask, if people want to donate they will contact him first, not him ask for money then use the donation label as a cover.

rigid oracle
#

Also, deleting the post asking for money afterwards doesn't look good either. But like I said above, BI saw it before it was deleted.

vast stump
#

these things are not really handled in public because people doing the shady stuff also lie to the public. These things get handled by any evidence provided and actions are taken accordingly.

#

things may turn out one way or another. For the players enjoying mods, the most imporant thing is to not support any shady business.

teal turtle
#

i have honestly got no clue whats happening lol

#

been issues in threads in my discord lol

#

lots of fun

south remnant
#

"a donation for his time and effort" sounds like someone saying make me this mod and ill donate you money

teal turtle
zealous ore
# trim peak So on reddit he said he bought the model for $300 but now he is saying donations...

this is the model btw - https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/bell-ah-1s-cobra-blank-static-3747e5fe920043cd9885e9d0b67282dd / https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/aircraft/helicopter/bell-ah-1s-cobra-blank-static - 99usd

Sketchfab
pukamakara
Bell AH-1S Cobra Blank Static - Buy Royalty Free 3D model by pukama...

The Bell AH-1S Cobra is a single-engined attack helicopter

Basic and Complex Animation versions are available as seperate models (see my profile models)

File formats: 3ds Max 2021, FBX, Unity 2021.3.5f1

Weapon:

    • Launcher M-260 with Hydra 70 missiles
    • Launcher M-261 with Hydra 70 missiles
    • Missile Launcher BGM-71D TOW-2 X2 ...
CGTrader
Bell AH-1S Cobra Blank Static | 3D model

Model available for download in Autodesk FBX format. Visit CGTrader and browse more than 1 million 3D models, including 3D print and real-time assets

trim peak
zealous ore
#

try to push any modder worth its weight, see what happens…what’s the incentive if you don’t mind me asking?

vapid orchid
#

Man i wish this guy had gone about this the right way, i love the AH-1

heavy gate
rigid oracle
zealous ore
late isle
#

Bump, the server closed

willow crane
wild island
frozen jackal
#

Because they want to you to contact them, tell them about the charity idea and make an agreement on this. That's what Games Workshop's modus operandi is and it mostly works

wild island
#

They "want" you to contact them but unless they gonna profit from it they don't care and won't allow it cuz they hate the fanbase.

south remnant
vast stump
#

well their stance on mod stuff is probably become pretty standard

south remnant
#

even trying to contact about non mod stuff

#

it previously used to not even address what your email was about but now theyre using ai to do that

dark tulip
# 
if (message contains "permission") {
    return "nope.avi"
} else {
   forwardMailToRealPerson();
}
#

But not asking at all is also equal to no as an answer, so there's that

south remnant
#

relevance to conversation = 0

#

we arent discussing getting permission from them

#

we're discussing trying to get any communication from them that isn't copypasta

wild island
#

Or from automated ai messages, they literally don't communicate

frozen jackal
#

With proper prompt you probably could make the AI sell you rights to Star Wars IP for a single dollar.

fiery egret
south remnant
#

it just goes into some system which says this is what this email is actually about or something

mossy yarrow
teal turtle
#

So star wars ip issues would it be possible if Disney said no but lets say the people who own the game rights to sell etc to studios etc etc

#

Would that be an issue if i went to them?

#

I think lucas studios or whatever they called own the video game rights

south remnant
#

lucasfilm deal with star wars ip

willow crane
#

They arent going to sell "Star Wars" to anyone now. Its too valuable which is why they so aggressively protect it.

mossy yarrow
#

Ubisoft does Star Wars stuff now

vast stump
#

well they have bought a license to do that

#

they cant share that license forward though

south remnant
#

ubisoft have to get rights for every game they produce, its not like the agreement ea had

#

the game companies own the content in their games but lucasfilm stil owns the IP

teal turtle
#

Agree

zealous ore
south remnant
old jay
#

Step one is understanding that none of what you are proposing is ever going to happen.

pliant valve
mossy yarrow
old jay
#

As the (former) moderator who spoke face to face with the head of IP at Disney, the response was “absolutely not”. I consider that a pretty definitive answer.

pliant valve
south remnant
#

lucasfilm do not distribute fan licenses

#

said project disney got thrashed for was done in the court of public opinion

zealous ore
pliant valve
abstract crest
#

Pretty irrelevent. The contacts are known and until someone actually gets permission to do a Star Wars mod for ARMA then no one can do one, and even if it happened only that mod can

wild island
#

Curiosity but where could I find actual Info about the Star Wars IP about saying we can't make fanmade stuff? Cuz only info I can find about fanmade stuff (including videos, parody's, mods etc.) as long as you don't make a profit or ripped assest's Disney don't care, now if someone knows if there's info that says otherwise about this that's what I wanna see and if it say's it somewhere in a long thing just tell me where at

south remnant
#

find where it says you can

#

ip doesnt work like that

wild island
#

find where it say's I can't

#

like how you gonna tell me to find where it say's I can do it if I just asked where I could find info about it, like what please read the message next time😭

south remnant
#

because its completely irrelevant

#

youc annot find where it says you can so you cannot

#

(lucasfilm terms of use are unfindable)

wild island
#

Neither can you find where it says I cant it seems so

south remnant
#

no, because if you cant find where it says you can then you can't 🤯

#

not sure what's so hard to grasp about that

wild island
#

Seems your comments seem irrelevant now since you cant find where it says I cant

south remnant
#

"where it says I cant" has no bearing on the conversation at hand even slightly as you do not go searching for legal text that forbids you from doing things when it comes to IP rights

wild island
#

So unless you got ACTUAL info please stop giving me "irrelevant" info that doesn't answer my question ty

south remnant
#

you can also email and see the copypasta for yourself 🤷

image.png
#

standard response that everybody gets

plain sedge
#

hmm I feel some deja vu here

wild island
#

Again I said fanmade which as far as the community has seen Disney doesn't care, that email is a "standard" because they have it if you want to make profit out of the Star Wars content more than likely

south remnant
#

oh my god its almost as if i asked about arma 3 mods 🤯

#

"doesnt care" doesnt mean legal

#

just because the police do not care about me handling a salmon suspiciously it doesnt mean its legal

wild island
#

doin somethin suspicious isn't Illegal as well but ppl get in trouble for that alone so

plain sedge
south remnant
# wild island doin somethin suspicious isn't Illegal as well but ppl get in trouble for that a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_Act_1986#:~:text=Among the provisions in the,%2C removed%2C or disposed of.

Salmon Act 1986

The Salmon Act 1986 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament which outlines legislation that covers legal and illegal matter within the salmon farming and fishing industries. Among the provisions in the Act, it makes it illegal to "handle salmon in suspicious circumstances", which is defined in law as when one believes, or could reasonably believe,...

#

oh its the same guy again 😂

wild island
#

oh thats the UK no wonder why it sounded stupid XD

plain sedge
wild island
#

You ppl just cant get actual info and its insane I came here lookin for info and u cant produce any so

south remnant
#

do you have your screen turned off or something

#

ive presented you with an email as well as telling you that an absence of permission means you cannot do it

plain sedge
wild island
#

no i just dont listen to stupid ppl who cant read

south remnant
#

how do you know what you're saying then

wild island
#

i asked about fanmade stuff and u didnt even answer my question dum dum

south remnant
#

and fanmade stuff doesnt matter

#

do you think you get some special treatment under the law because you just like star wars??

wild island
#

bro ppl make fanmade stuff all the time if it was "illegal" wouldnt disney do somethin

south remnant
#

no they wouldnt because it would destroy their reputation 🤯

#

like i said before

#

court of public opinion

#

(it doesnt matter to a judge)

wild island
#

Disney throws lawsuits and cease and desists like its candy so obviously if fanmade stuff was an issue we would see a bunch of them would we not?

south remnant
#

no they dont

south remnant
#

not like its competing with disney's car washes

#

(they dont have any)

#

theyve issued plenty of cease and desists for fanmade content before

wild island
#

did i say that was LOL if theyre making profit so thats the bigger issue with it

south remnant
#

almost as if that doesnt matter becuase theres 0 provision for use either commerically or non commerically 🤯

#

you'd know this if you actually read the tos

wild island
#

i mean yea if they makin the money or if it was ripped assests, lets not forget disney stealin content from ppl

south remnant
#

and now we're onto the unfounded accusations now

hardy bone
south remnant
wild island
#

where was your source for that was it "that i made it the fuck up" or "idk where it is but imma say it just in case its real"

south remnant
#

have you read the tos

#

yes or no

wild island
#

or was it an actual place u found it

#

have u read it? cuz if u have u could probably point me towards the location where it says it like how i ORIGINALLY asked but then again u never did actually read that question so :?

south remnant
#

thats a very strange way of spelling no

#

so my advice to you

#

go read it

#

educate yourself

#

then try argue about things

#

because im not memorising disney's terms of use just to prove somebody i know to be wrong wrong

vast stump
#

ehm

#

answering further may not be wisest thing to do tonight

wild island
#

hollowbrain is this guy a relative of u? cuz it seems so cant answer my question 😭

south remnant
#

ive already lost enough brain cells today goat whats a few more

vast stump
#

judging by how this has gone so far

south remnant
#

anyway youve warned him previously to not do this again

vast stump
#

oh well

wild island
#

i asked a question and he gave me a smart remark like cmon

vast stump
#

there goes that chance then

south remnant
vast stump
#

@wild island he is right, fan made use of the IP is not allowed by disneys IP policy

plain sedge
wild island
#

Where exactly i asked that question and my question wasnt answered thats all until he decided to get smart with his response like it cant be that hard to just say "oh hey yea its here in so and so"

south remnant
#

so now we have a response from both disney and lucasfilm's lawyers as well as the terms of use saying you cannot

#

really no abiguity left for you to argue about

vast stump
#

we can call it a tie in being an ass and leave it at that

#

I dont want to waste my evening on this

wild island
#

fair enough but still can you tell me where it says it so i can read it, i got some buddies who i was talkin to about this and they were curious

vast stump
#

have you read the disney policy?

wild island
#

i skimmed it lookin for the important shit mainly blobdoggoshruggoogly

hardy bone
wild island
#

like im not about to read all of it just so i can find 1 thing im lookin for

vast stump
#

I dont remember the exact line where it is either

wild island
#

so ig the answer is no no one knows where it says it yay

vast stump
#

no we know its there

hardy bone
vast stump
#

just not the exact position

#

which you can find easy enough if you are really interested

wild island
#

i meant like which part

wild island
hardy bone
#

also part 7 of disney TOS

wild island
#

Im still readin the part 7 one but the 2.B.ii is for people with a license

hardy bone
#

remember that those TOS are used for blanket covering, which include any "product" in relation to disney

wild copper
#

Strictly speaking you cannot publicly distribute a mod that contains star wars IP, i.e having "Yoda" and " Lightsaber" would be illegal if it were posted on the workshop. If you change the name and look of these things enough then you're legally okay.

That said, it is very, very unlikely that Disney will issue a DMCA for your mod unless it negatively affects their reputation or public image, or if you make money from it (which would be illegal under BI's TOS anyway).

dark tulip
#

Disney is busy enough to take of small indi-mods, which is why BI helps them by removing the mod from the workshop and when people try to reupload it even get a ban 🤷

In short; without explicit permission from the IP owner it's not allowed. And it's known that Disney won't give it, unless you pay them (a lot...)

wild copper
#

I've got $5 and a Snickers who's with me

wild copper
#

I can't find any recent examples of a Star Wars mod being taken down personally

#

I'd feel pretty confident if I were a modder that an Arma 3 Star Wars mod wouldn't be taken down by Disney

#

But living in fear of something you spent hundreds of hours on potentially being nullified at random isn't something I'd want to deal with

zealous ore
# wild island like im not about to read all of it just so i can find 1 thing im lookin for

you have been warned before about the same sort of behaviour. You can indeed make fanmade stuff if you choose to (under fair use btw), you just cannot distribute that (distribution is not covered by fair use) - which happens to be the case of distributing a mod. BI can also force their own rules in regards to their own products just as well. Steam does in fact asks the users, according to their TOS, to attest to the fact you have the IP/copyrights on mod upload just as well - and with disney owned IPs, you don’t

abstract crest
zealous ore
wild copper
#

So what's the reasoning behind BI taking down IP-infringing content preemptively as opposed to just complying with DMCA's when they come?

wild island
vast stump
#

isnt that enough?

#

do you feel like respecting IP rights should not be a thing?

#

if they want to do the right thing why do you question it

dark tulip
#

Here's some food for though:

The Disney Products may ask for or allow you to communicate, submit, upload or otherwise make available text, chats, images, audio, video, contest entries or other content (“User Generated Content”), which may be accessible and viewable by the public.
So it's allowed to create content based on Disney's IP's

... you may not submit or upload User Generated Content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, bigoted, hateful, violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise offensive or that harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity, whether or not such material is protected by law.
However it's not allowed to harm Disney in any way. In this case 'voilent', which Arma is (as it's a shooter).

... you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights ...
And this is not possible when submitting it to the Steam Workshop (or BI Workshop for Reforger), since it requires that you have full rights of whatever you upload and Valve requires you to grant the same rights (which legally isn't possible).

source: https://disneytermsofuse.com/english/#Submissions-User-Generated-Content-DMCA-Takedown-Notices

abstract crest
dark tulip
#

if someone WITH permission is already limited to make mods for Arma, how would it be for someone WITHOUT permission 😉

abstract crest
#

See the agreement assumes that they know who you are: G. Electronic Notice. You consent to receive notices, including agreements, disclosures, and other communications, electronically from us at the email address you have provided. You agree that these electronic notices satisfy any legal requirements that such communications be in writing.

dark tulip
#

Best part of Disney and why they don't answer e-mails:

Note Regarding Unsolicited Idea Submissions: It is Disney’s policy not to accept unsolicited submissions of creative ideas or materials, including without limitation, product samples and prototypes. For more details regarding this policy, please go to The Walt Disney Company’s “Terms of Use” at http://disneytermsofuse.com/.
So that's why nobody can ask for permission, because they simply ignore it 🤣

If they want you to make something, they will contact you

abstract crest
#

Every movie company has that clause... otherwise if someone sends them an idea and they acknowledge it then they could be sued if they produce something similar...

#

Even authors ignore ideas people send

wild copper
dark tulip
#

Because BI doesn't want to be in the news because some modder got into a legal fight against Disney (or any company for that matter)... it's bad for BI as well

abstract crest
#

BI are the enforcers of that clause

vast stump
#

if you dont like it you dont have to be here

#

and you dont have to play Arma ever again

wild copper
#

I never said I disagreed with the premise, Im not against it, I just find it hard to believe a business cares about doing the right thing you know

#

Like the cost vs the gain type stuff

wild copper
vast stump
#

business is made out of people

#

and those people wanted it to be like this

wild copper
#

I think I'm just cynical

abstract crest
#

And we here have long memories 😉

wild copper
#

Makes sense I spose

#

Yeah I've defo heard bad things about DayZ in comparison, which is why I was confused as to why it seems lopsided

abstract crest
#

Server monetization rules did not exist until that time either. They were introduced because ARMA was about to lose its modding community. Many of us believe that server monetization should be banned even now

wild copper
#

I'd agree with that sentiment, but from my understanding A3 Life servers bring in a heap of players for the game

#

Despite being some of the worst offenders for breaking the ToS

abstract crest
wild copper
#

I wasn't aware they were renewed each year

abstract crest
#

But yeah, the "Life Crisis" changed a lot of things...

abstract crest
#

Current one expires on Jan 31st

wild copper
#

Yeah just saw that lol

old jay
lyric light
#

Im sure this has been asked before, but it seems not too recently.

When someone open sources their code for a mod with no license, what is the implied copyright? Everything I know says that its the msot restrictive.

Then, the owner of the code says in thier github issues that it is open sourced to be used, edited, and redistributed freely. Does that change the implication?

The specific example im talking about is here:
https://github.com/Dankan37/Guided-AT-missile/issues/1

celest sundial
south remnant
#

i only upload my projects to github to serve as a portfolio

celest sundial
#

If the author intended for "my work is meant to be available for everyone to use and modify, you may fork, edit and redistribute all of this freely" he should have put it under a license like MIT

south remnant
#

no license always means no permission unless you are told otherwise by author

#

no exceptions

lyric light
abstract crest
#

Screenshot the author's response in that issue. They explicitely give permission...

#

Can't really get more explicit 😉 Yes, of course, I don't use a license as my work is meant to be available for everyone to use and modify, you may fork, edit and redistribute all of this freely.

fiery egret
#

IMO in this case you can use that, as he has given explicit permission in that link you posted.
It's just that because his lack of knowledge, he thinks that licenses only serve to restrict access to the code.

However, I would suggest commenting in that issue as well and suggesting that adding a permissive license MIT/CC0/Public Domain would be better (more explicit)

lyric light
#

thanks yall!

abstract crest
#

And don't forget to thank them...

small hamlet
#

Brain fart, but shouldn't you be emailing Lucasfilm Games now anyway? As they handle the licensing side for games and game-related content for Disney-owned IPs.

meager fractal
#

who should?

pale sphinx
#

Hey, what license does the TerrainBuilder/Armatools icons fall under
can I use them in a mod for A3?

dark tulip
#

As can be found in the EULA (which can be found by reading the readme.txt in the Arma 3 Tools directory):

This computer software program, any printed materials, any on-line or electronic documentation, and any and all copies and derivative works of such software program and materials (the “Program”) are the copyrighted work.
...
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and addons incorporated into the Program) are owned by Bohemia Interactive a.s. (the Licensor) or its licensors. The Program is protected by the Czech copyright laws, international copyright treaties and conventions and any other applicable laws. All rights are reserved.

So in short; not allowed to do anything with it, other than using the software for their designed purposes.

abstract crest
pale sphinx
#

cheers

north orchid
#

Lately I'm playing on a DayZ Server and they are using a huge amount of paid stuff, especially models and other things. Some of the prices of these items are very high. In Arma 3, this would be a break against TOS. But how does it look like in DayZ?

abstract crest
#

The DayZ community is the wild west. Many of the best modders are fine, moral and do the right thing. Then there are a large number of sites that sell mods and so much ripping that seems unbelievable looking at it from the ARMA community. I've been quite involved in the fight to make things better but unfortunately it really seems like BI doesn't care - very little support is given - maybe it would hurt the cash cow that is DayZ?

#

In addition, a large portion of the DayZ modding community actually wants mod monetization in the future of Enfusion, including ARMA 4

#

The funniest thing is people selling mods complaining publicly and reporting people for stealing and reselling their paid mods 🤣 That is how bad it is...

abstract crest
#

I would also note that Dwarden does a great job fighting this when he can, and works well with the modders who try to improve things, but otherwise BI (especially Legal) basically don't care as long as the player count keeps growing

north orchid
#

I mean, I also bought scripts (sqf, config) for Arma in the past. But for a, in my opinion, small price. But there are websites out there who sells group/map marker systems for DZ for 150 Euro. Thats some heavy stuff.

abstract crest
#

But that's not what people are mainly selling in the DayZ space

north orchid
abstract crest
#

Because they think that they will make more money with those mods on their servers, often they do, often without monetization permission. Funny thing is that the paid mods are almost always crap compared to the free vehicle mods 🤣

#

As I said at the beginning, DayZ is the wild west of monetization right now

#

You even have one group who claim that they have their own data centre for DayZ server hosting that is actually just getting OVH and other servers and selling slices (probably just running multiple instances of DayZ rather than true server slices knowing their technical illiteracy) of them... profit 🤷

rich fable
#

(that they pay $400usd+ for)

north orchid
# abstract crest You even have one group who claim that they have their own data centre for DayZ ...

I mean, nothing against using bare metal servers instead of housing. We do it too. We have one dedicated server and hosting 3 Exile servers. But I see people using cheap things like Nitrado and wondering why their servers lag with 20+ players. Also using a huge amount (40+ mods) on it. If I give my (sometimes not nice) opinion about it, I get shut down and sometimes banned. Sure, Arma 3 is a bit more harder compared to DayZ, but still...

rich fable
north orchid
rich fable
#

Expensive yes, fancy, no.
If you look at the code most of the time, you wouldn't pay for it.

abstract crest
north orchid
rich fable
abstract crest
rich fable
#

As well as SchanaModParty and it's variants.

north orchid
#

I mean, I can DM you both the website I mean, if you are interested.

rich fable
#

We already know what one you mean. 🙂

north orchid
#

Then you can see what I mean with "expensive" prices.

#

I guessed that 😅

abstract crest
#

And many others... 😭

rich fable
#

All in all, it just feels the dayz side is understaffed as far as the legal side is concerned. Individuals might do their best, but it feels like there's a lot on their plate and they can only do so much.

abstract crest
#

So now there really is no place to report rippers or illegal monetizers because we all know that the BI Legal email is a black hole when it comes to DayZ

undone cloak
#

So there is a mod author that edited an arma 2 APL-SA model and refuses to give out the source files. From my understanding derivative works from APL-SA content is also covered as APL-SA correct?

#

If so, that would be breaking the license

#

I don't want to name and shame just yet, but what could be done about it?

#

Also got screenshots of the DMs

#

if it helps

inland sphinx
#

You could email infringements, see channel description in #ip_rights_violations
As its a A2 model, it would be BI's concern (their license being violated)

undone cloak
#

will do thanks

zealous ore
undone cloak
#

You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply.

Wouldnt not providing an unbinarized copy count as Effective Technological Measures?

#

Also, we recommend respecting the original data under APL-SA you modify: if somebody released his addon in MLOD format as well, it would be a matter of courtesy to release it likewise.

#

I guess it was just a reccomendation

rugged prawn
#

100% that SA means the license of the derivative cannot be changed, i.e. also has to be APL-SA. Does not require the author to provide sources

#

APL means that whatever you release can be modified and released to the public without the need to ask original author. SA ensures that downstream addons can furhter be modified and on and on, without anyone being able to switch it to CC-ND or something

delicate yacht
#

Is scp allowed for reforger

frozen jackal
delicate yacht
#

Alright thanks

hollow cave
#

Did something happen recently regarding IP vio in a mod called Sierra Golf? There's a (quite funny) Reddit post whining about a ban after asking about it.

#

NVM found it

mossy yarrow
#

Under what Liscence can i publish my Mod that have models that were made exclusive for me and i have full rights off them ?

south remnant
#

no license

#

then its always exclusive for you

inland sphinx
#

You can also say
Everything in my mod EXCEPT the 3D models, is licensed as X
the models have no license, thus noone has the rights to do anything with them

mossy yarrow
#

So basically i can say Everything in my Mod is APL SA ecept the 3D Models ?

inland sphinx
#

yea

icy linden
#

is it a breach of any reforger license to organize a small modding competition with a monetary reward?

rugged prawn
#

Unless organized by BI or course

icy linden
#

but

rugged prawn
#

You were going to organize?

icy linden
#

no but I might provide funds for someone that would

#

if it could be a thing that is

fiery egret
#

You should probably also state what's going to happen with the work being evaluated, at the end of the competition.
Is it a competition for fun and everyone gets to keep what they've done, or is the organizer basically buying that mod for himself, providing compensation in the form of the reward?

icy linden
#

that's fair, this is not a commission and monies are just the award

#

no rights transfer

inland sphinx
#

Which is an option. Best ask MarioE about it. I wouldn't expect there to be a problem if there is special permission from BI for this one time thing

vast stump
fiery egret
#

Get BI to compete 😏

dark tulip
#

BI had competitions themselves several times with A3, so I guess asking for permission might even include some support (and additional prices) officially.

pliant oracle
#

and a chance of working for BI in the future

mossy yarrow
winter perch
#

I just found these mods on the workshop. hilariously petty to be so fed up with identity politics that you remove funny colors from a mod eggdee

dark tulip
#

Not really IP related, but funny (and childish) indeed

lavish basalt
#

I suspect if this violates Workshop TOS anyhow

dark tulip
#

Tbf... These mods are not harmful in any way (even when you don't agree with it), and the original mod is still a dependency (as it should).

I've seen weirder things on the workshop (also other games) which seemed to be "ok"

#

The comments on those mods are questionable though

jolly jewel
#

Can anyone lead me in the direction of the person that created the UH-80 stealth hawk? For the armed assault update on 3?

#

Or was it BI in general?

lavish basalt
#

armed assault update on 3
What's that term

Why you want to reach to the artist directly?

jolly jewel
#

I have questions for him! And I’ll rephrase. I’m looking to ask questions to the artist that created the UH-80 stealth hawk that came out in arma 3 I believe it was in the armed assault update!

lavish basalt
#

Probably you can just ask. I really doubt we anyhow know who is the artist, or even still in BI, or not even sure outsourced like at all. It is BI's property after all.

the armed assault update
And still not quite sure what does this mean

jolly jewel
#

Just going on what the wiki says it’s in again I’m not certain exactly if it was an update or an older BI title

IMG_6597.png
#

And I’m curious I suppose first and foremost since assets from older arma titles are becoming allowed for use in this game for modders is there any way we could use the UH-80 stealth hawk for reforger? If it’s property of BI I would like to ask permission if we could use it then! I was unsure if it was made by an independent artist or by BI

lavish basalt
#

Ghost Hawk is introduced in Arma 3 Beta 0.70. Also who made this is not a concern. It is a BI's property now

jolly jewel
#

Ah okay I understand!

lavish basalt
#

And no, we have no way to port Arma 3 assets anywhere for now until Arma 3 Samples drop more unbinarized P3Ds

jolly jewel
#

Ah okay I’ll have to have one 3-d modeled then but thank you!

hushed mica
#

hello so in regards to enfusion and reforger, i was using a mod that had one of its dependencies banned. this mod did multiple different things and not everything was in relation to the banned mod. to complicate matters further, the creator of the mod i was using has deleted their discord account. so i assume im not allowed to take the non-banned material out of the mod and reupload it but i figured i would ask anyways, cause though i could do it myself i really dont want to.

south remnant
abstract crest
hushed mica
abstract crest
#

I'd contact and work with the modder whose mod had the dependency banned to get that dependency removed. Best way forward

hushed mica
#

so fun stuff

vast stump
#

That is the nature of mods, sometimes they are lost forever.

old jay
#

In the simplest of terms, it is dead, there is nothing you can do.

pliant oracle
#

flashback to armaholic fiasco

inland sphinx
icy linden
#

if I take something licensed APL into my mod and release it as APL-ND is that a breach of the APL license?

#

APL has a No downstream restrictions clause

#

also, can a mod change license from APL to APL-ND at some time in the future? and do APL-ND restrictions then apply to all usage prior to the change?

inland sphinx
#

You could make your additions be ND. But the original stuff you took, would still be APL.
As they might aswell take it from the original source, where you also got it from and then have it as APL

frozen jackal
icy linden
#

yea you're right, I might re-release

slate turtle
#

Hi

#

I was wondering if tips are allowed in non coromercial use?

vast stump
#

Do you get something in return

slate turtle
# vast stump Tips in what sense

Like someone offered me to teach me completely free and voluntarily. And I want to reward him. Can I tip him or that’s agains rules?

vast stump
#

I think in that case it would be equivalent of being paid for a service.

slate turtle
inland sphinx
#

If you do it after the fact. And no payment was discussed (or expected) beforehand. It could be a donation which would be fine.

#

If they didn't expect to get money, and go "oh wow, thank you" then its clearly not a payment for a service

#

If you don't give them money and they go "hey, where is my money" then it clearly is a payment.

jolly jewel
inland sphinx
hardy bone
inland sphinx
#

Donating to people is perfectly fine.
Whats not fine is so many people calling things "donation" that simply aren't

placid swift
#

If there is a 3d model with a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed license. (Aka the NonCommercial-NoDeriatives), is allowed under the license to port it into for example Arma 3?

Cause i'm still a bit confused by the NoDeriatives part, does it mean that i just cant edit the model itself/Modify it into something else?

inland sphinx
#

NoDerivatives would make me think no 🤔

placid swift
#

Yeah that i was thinking about as well

south remnant
#

i would suggest you ask the author of their intent regardless

dense bear
#

^

#

But yeah, derivative would make me think "I can't modify any parts of the model (and maybe texture?) and publish it"

#

Or using parts of the model to "lego" it into something else (e.g. reusing an unarmed humvee model to make your own armed humvee)

placid swift
#

Well there was a license file withing that has text on it from the author where he says it can be used. Will try to track him down and contact anyway.

Id propably guess it for model? The model anyways has only UVMaps so dont think i can modify texture in a deriative way lol

mighty plaza
#

What's the stance on AI generated textures ?

celest sundial
# mighty plaza What's the stance on AI generated textures ?

Well that topic is debate both ethically and legally in many countries. What concerns us is that the workshop terms of use you ensure that you are the holder of rights to anything you upload. In my personal experience I have seen enough AI's "copy paste" pre existing work if the descriptions matched it so you might commit IP infringements by using it even if you were not aware. Also I am unsure how useful AI is given that you need to fit existing UV mappings etc. In the end you are responsible for anything you share on the workshop so it is up to you how your workflow is done

mighty plaza
#

Thanks. I don't think AI is there yet, but it's advancing rapidly

south remnant
#

the significant majority of ai companies also own the IP to anything their ai produce

vast stump
#

which can be questionable since they might not own the IP to the material their AI uses

south remnant
#

What concerns us is that the workshop terms of use you ensure that you are the holder of rights to anything you upload
makes it more clear cut though if the AI company owns the IP anyways

hardy bone
south remnant
#

copying someone elses art is still a derivative work and is often not permitted hmmyes

vast stump
hardy bone
south remnant
#

its not a "problem", its very clear cut in ip law if you do not have permission for derivative works you cannot do them

#

the only vagueness that AI brings into it is whether or not the ai is using them for inspiration or just directly copying -- at the moment it is the latter

hardy bone
#

The only way you would be certain to not breach any copyright using AI is:
first you're the maker of the AI, then you trained said AI with your own work to do more of the same kind

vast stump
#

is it creating something new it invents or is it just a fancy tool to copy paste stuff

#

if it created something new the IP would belong to it

#

those are the questions around the AI generation

meager fractal
#

afaik there were some rulings that "an IP can only be held by a person (real or virtual), but as the AI (that may be owned by someone) generated something from the user's instruction, the IP is going to the user"
but ofc, fresh topic, many countries, many rulings, so let's wait and see 😬

south remnant
#

at the moment all AI is doing is just predicting the next data point given data shoved into a fancy algorithm -- if you can ensure the licensing is compliant for every single one of those given data points and you have the full ownership of anything that ai produces then yes you can use ai, else no you cannot

south remnant
#

which is completely unfeasible

chilly bloom
#

Only the Owner can DMCA right? So if the owner isn't active anymore then it can't get taken down unless Bohemia steps in?

meager fractal
#

BI or perhaps Steam after reports are made

vast stump
#

no one can dmca it but also uploading it violates steam mworkshop rules

#

so it can be taken out

old jay
#

Steam Subscriber Agreement #6

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).

You furthermore represent and warrant that the User Generated Content, your submission of that Content, and your granting of rights in that Content does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

#

If your follow on question were to be "What if its not on Steam", you will find that most if not all of the points listed above are the same across the vast majority of platforms and 3D sites.

analog sphinx
#

speaking of, creating a mod based out of another one and without modifying the original but only writing on top of it (basically like a patch) its considered derivative?

#

do the same rules apply in licensing for that situation?

Let say, someone doesnt allow derivatives from their work and is no longer able to provided user-based-permissions for exceptions. Is creating a patch for the original mod a legit way to expand upon or does this violates tos?

spiral bay
#

You would add the mod as a dependency and create a mod that does what you need to change the things within the mod. Iirc you cant name your patch as if you are the owner of the other mod

frozen jackal
#

but in a most basic form of patch the only parts that actually come from the original mod are classnames, so... I am not sure if that would be enough to consider it a derivative being and breaking the agreement. Maybe if you were to rewrite full functions and stuff.

analog sphinx
willow crane
#

Technically anything you use to base you mod on - even by just patching on top - is a derivative. But in most situations most authors won't mind as long as you leave the original pbos/work unmolested.

#

The caveat here assumes that you don't have to hack the original apart to make you're own mod eg reverse engineer a model to get the UV etc - in the first place. But even then it's simply just good manners to ask the author anyway.

#

You never know he might actually give you the UV you need or a template.

chilly bloom
vast stump
#

yes

#

unless original author gave permission

spiral bay
#

Oh wow i thought making a small config mod that just changed values for instance as long as the mod is a dependency it was fine. Good to know

vast stump
#

but depends a bit on the license

pliant valve
#

A no derivative license cannot stop people from altering things that do not have copyright protection, if that was the case then literally nothing in this world of tech would work

south remnant
#

if you have to extract the mod and include something from it then its probably a derivative work (retextures etc) else it most likely is not

pliant valve
# south remnant if you have to extract the mod and include something from it then its probably a...

Not if what you're including isn't copyright protectable in the first place, if you grab textures and put those in your mod, or use the textures to make your own textures then that's probably infringement, and derivative, yeah. But if you just change texture references around to other existing textures in the mod then it's not, since you're just changing factual information. Same goes for adding decals, you're not actually editing the texture and including it in your mod, but just telling the engine to display this image over it, such as putting nation flags or symbols on tanks, I've heard is possible, though never done my self.

south remnant
#

that's not including something from the mod lol

#

thats just referencing something in it

celest sundial
old jay
rigid oracle
#

Just playing devils advocate here as I have no issue with the mod in question, but there was a mod created using two different mods as dependencies in Reforger. One of those dependencies used was RHS. The mod maker was informed in the showroom chat they would need to use the RHS license for their mod. How does this work exactly if the mod in question is using two different mods as dependencies, with two different licenses.

zealous ore
rigid oracle
#

I get the RHS as ND part. But what if my bradley had been APL-SA. How would that have worked if one part of that derivative content required share alike, and one required ND? How does one mods license take precedent over another if both are used by third parties?

dark tulip
#

Dependencies, when not modified in your mod, shouldn't be an issue at all. For example using the RHS factions in your custom scenario by only including the GUID's and config files (as is).

When including modifications based on a dependency, then at least those modifications must comply to the license, which for RHS would be impossible due to the ND part.

It is possible to have multiple licenses, as long as it's clear which parts are under which license (as can be seen in A3 RHS, where some parts are ND while others aren't).

zealous ore
rigid oracle
#

This gets even deeper if we look at the dependencies for one of the dependencies. The bradley has 2 dependencies with their own licenses. So now that's 4 mods with the possibility of 4 different licenses. This is getting to the point of needing legal council to publish.

south remnant
#

very simply dont attach a license

#

-> most restrictive is assumed

zealous ore
south remnant
#

wh

#

what the hell

abstract crest
#

Put a text file in the mod called license.txt that says "No license" 😉

#

Also note that you are not allowed to upload mods that contain "excessive violence" 🤔

woven dagger
#

I hate having to wonder if I can repackage a mod into my units modpack when there's no license and no response from the uploader

south remnant
#

maybe you should buy some more brain cells

#

no permission means no

woven dagger
#

Not really

#

The person could have just not thought about it

#

Hints why you ask at that point

south remnant
#

no, no permission means no

woven dagger
#

If there's no response then don't do it

woven dagger
south remnant
#

theres no "having to wonder" about it

woven dagger
#

Nah

#

Let's just agree to disagree

south remnant
#

no

#

you are wrong and several people will come in to correct you later on

woven dagger
#

Smh

south remnant
#

no

woven dagger
#

Xd

vast stump
#

just use the mod as dependency and dont create repackaging bloat

woven dagger
#

If there's no response then don't do it, I'm Essentially agreeing XD

#

I'm just taking 1 extra step

vast stump
#

sure yeah you can ask

#

author can always make exceptions too if they like

woven dagger
#

Ye but I agree no license means no

vast stump
#

and also yes not everyone even bothers with license adding and still allow whatever

#

but that just cant be assumed

woven dagger
#

Ye

vast stump
#

so asking is the key

woven dagger
#

Mhm

#

Tbh I really care about continuing and improving code/mods so I'm very up front about asking

#

That's why my project will be completely usable by everyone when I'm finished cuz what if I die or smth XD

#

Better someone pick up the torch at that point hopefully do a better job then my team

icy linden
#

isnt it possible to have different content licensed differently?

celest sundial
# icy linden isnt it possible to have different content licensed differently?

Can you elaborate your question please? Do you mean different files inside your mod having difference licenses? Yes that is possible. You can put e.g. put multiple licenses in your license.txt file and tell which directories inside the loaded mod they apply to. But generally doing this will decrease your chances of people following it properly. Most people won't spend more than 10 seconds trying to find out the license, and if it is too complicated ignore them or not use our mod at all.

rugged prawn
#

correct, you can make a different license for every file in your distribution

icy linden
#

ie. stuff that uses rhs - nd, other stuff - apl

rugged prawn
#

correct, this is possible

lyric light
#

I have a mod that uses some modified ace files. Ace is under their license, my stuff is under my license. I dedicate the ace files to their own subfolders to make sure its easy to identify

icy linden
#

also if I use rhs as a dependency but do not actually create anything with it in my mod, how is it infringing on the ND license?

south remnant
#

it is not unless you have anything from rhs in your mods files i.e retextures etc

north orchid
#

I have a question about the APL-SA license. When someone uploads mod in the Workshop and gives this item APL-SA license but states that no reuploads (Workshop) are permitted. Is this then still APL-SA or am I wrong with understanding APL-SA?

celest sundial
north orchid
zealous ore
icy linden
#

what do you mean? one use case is creating one mod to hold dependencies as sort of a collection of mods to add to servers instead of adding the mods individually

frozen jackal
shell scaffold
#

guessing biki broke?

frozen jackal
meager fractal
shell scaffold
#

thx

meager bolt
#

question

#

I am aware Debin of a p3d and reuploading/repacking it into your own mod or redistributing it is bad

#

but is it ok to debin it to make a texture? like for example putting it into substance painter, the model never entering your mod at all

#

and if it is, then how would you even be able to tell

dense bear
#

While I'm not the best at answering these, I would personally just look at the license or straight up ask the creator (they usually dont bite)

meager bolt
#

oh I know they don’t bite but I don’t think licensing has much to do with this, as no assets are being redistributed or taken

dense bear
#

And debinning as far as I know is just an 100% no no. You would need the non-binned P3D or the base model in another format like FBX

meager bolt
#

and I’m curious because I am aware of people who use a mod i work on and might be debin the p3d’s to make textures but there’s really no way to prove it

#

and personally I don’t mind but I was wondering if it was an issue to do so, or is the debinning an issue once you reupload it somewhere else/distribute it

vast stump
south remnant
#

you cannot reverse engineer BI's file formats apparently

#

for some reason people draw the line at p3ds

meager bolt
#

and yeah idk it seems strange that only p3d’s are like a huge no no

inland sphinx
#

We also provide official tools to unpack pbo's and look at and convert/extract textures.

meager bolt
#

so like
using any third party tool is bad?

#

if it’s capabilities exceed tools Bohemia provides?

vast stump
south remnant
#

armatoolbox trembling rn

vast stump
south remnant
#

import p3d

vast stump
#

it does not import binarized p3d

#

less salt, more fact

south remnant
#

still reverse engineering if you need to get the format into a format useable by blender innit

vast stump
#

the binarization is the issue here

south remnant
#

lol

vast stump
#

no lol

unkempt sorrel
#

If the p3d is binarized, a3 toolbox won’t import it

#

Legit copium

south remnant
#

unbinarized p3d is still a BI file format 🤯

unkempt sorrel
#

A p3d you own, yes

vast stump
#

beyond that, there is nothing to discuss here just to kick up drama

south remnant
#

ive sent BI legal plenty of emails about issues in their terms of use and all have been ignored

austere hare
# south remnant for some reason people draw the line at p3ds

Might just be my workflow but when making mods, I'd say that probably 95+% of the time goes into the content of the .p3d so it might be partly related to trying to protect mod makers in the best way?
My favourite part of mod making is baking and texturing but that's often only 20 or so hours on a 1000 hour project with config-ing being perhaps 5 hours.

south remnant
#

theres no license reason for p3d deconstruction vs creation is what im getting at

#

i.e the arma eula sucks

austere hare
#

Actually, what I've said won't be entirely true. 30-50% of the time will be research which also contributes to texturing and config-ing as well. Although again, I'd say the bulk of that research contributes most to what goes into the .p3d.

I'm quite grateful that .p3ds are 'protected'. When you invest thousands of hours into mods only to see your work ripped, it's massively demoralising and I've considered quitting many times. (Not released a great deal new in a year due to lack of motivation caused by content theft...)

You could argue a better worded EULA would be beneficial but rippers are breaking the EULA anyway so would different words have much of an effect?

south remnant
#

only thing the eula does at the moment is add ambiguity to something which shouldnt have it

#

but of course BI legal dont care

meager bolt
#

People can rip anything

#

Even binarized p3d’s

#

Really easily

vast stump
#

sure sure

meager bolt
#

and I’ve given up caring because I make no money off my arma mods lol

vast stump
#

dont need to be encuraged though

#

we still care

south remnant
#

didnt it take like 2 weeks for the cdlcs to get de-ebo'd lmao

vast stump
south remnant
#

it really is when BI legal is this useless

meager bolt
#

so like, is it against EULA to debin P3D’s 100% or is this an assumption based on people’s stances and a lack of information? if there’s something that says debinning a p3d is 100% illegal under the terms then I haven’t been able to find it

vast stump
#

100% against it

meager bolt
#

…what?

south remnant
#

debinning a p3d is indeed against eula but so is most third party softwares

meager bolt
#

can I have a link please to where that is the Eula then

vast stump
#

why?

south remnant
#

reverse engineering of the file formats

meager bolt
#

…because I want to read it?

vast stump
#

id have to google the link

#

so thats probably where its at

south remnant
meager bolt
south remnant
#

very strangely i cannot find the part about file formats any more....

meager bolt
#

and thank u for the link I’ll look at it in a moment

vast stump
south remnant
#

reverse engineering of file formats 😟

#

oh wait its not on the eula any more 😎

meager bolt
#

legal stuff is confusing

vast stump
#

get those shades off man

#

not a good look

south remnant
#

is the game itself

south remnant
vast stump
#

this I believe covers the stuff you are on about

south remnant
#

BI dont own the copyright of my p3d

vast stump
#

what are you on about?

south remnant
#

This computer software program, any printed materials, any online or electronic documentation, and any and all copies and derivative works of such software program and materials (the "Program") are the copyrighted work.

#

there is also not an eula for the arma 3 tools seperately

vast stump
#

I feel like your are here just to fight for some reason

south remnant
#

modder raises point about the eula being really bad
youre just here to fight!!!11!!!11!!!

#

seriously?

#

this eula covers all of my work as well

#

i just want an eula that is coherent and not held together by good will

vast stump
#

no eula ever anywhere covers each individual use case possible.

#

they are written broadly like that

south remnant
#

lmao

vast stump
#

I dont know what point you try to make

#

unless the point is you feel like youve been ignored by BI legal department

south remnant
#

im not even sure there is a BI legal department at this point

vast stump
#

see this here is why I think you are just picking a fight here

south remnant
#

am i not allowed to criticise things any more

vast stump
#

in here, no, not any more

#

later, maybe

south remnant
#

oh no

vast stump
#

but in context of this discussion and it moving forward or being your circlejerk no

south remnant
#

theres nowhere for the discussion to move forward unless someone else can find where it specifies the file formats

vast stump
#

it probably dont specify which file formats you can or cant reverse engineer

#

you may consult a lawyer about the reverese engineering part and if it covers the file format that is part of the program

#

if you find it does not tell you enough

dense bear
#

I'm not sure what his point is as well

#

The EULA is quite clear, at least for most scenarios

austere hare
#

The introduction defines the 'Program' as Arma 3 software program and materials (and also derivative works of these.) The use of the word 'materials' will (legally) include compilers and tools hence bespoke A3 file formats are included as part of the 'Program'.

Section 3A then states you can't reverse engineer (and other things) the 'Program' (as defined in the intro) without prior written consent of the Licensor.
Although I've never seen anything from BI in writing that says we're allowed to de-pbo something (and in fairness, I've not really looked), the fact that there's a tool specifically to do this as part of the Arma 3 tools is more than a suggestion that we have consent from the Licensor to de-pbo something!

However, there are no tools given to de binarise a .p3d and no one that we know of has ever seen any wording from BI suggesting such a thing is allowed.

Given that most law is founded on fairness and proportionality, I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing a judge that what HorribleGoat has said isn't correct.

Could the EULA be more specific? Yes, probably but what every you write, you will always get people trying to exploit it for their own means.
I suspect BI legal do care that this isn't as clear as many would like but simply don't have the resource to do better.
Would it be great if BI spent more on the legal side to make better EULAs? Sure - but that money has to come from somewhere so what do you sacrifice for that? (Keep in mind the $/hour for lawyers will be a lot more than probably any other person that contributes to the Arma series!!!)

dense bear
#

If you want something really specific about X third party software then you need a lawyer as Goat said

#

Great point there

south remnant
austere hare
#

There has been an attempt with Reforger to make a separate EULA for the tools and game but even with the latest clarification, I still think that invites people with ill intensions to exploit what's written for their own preferred interpretation.
(And it's still the reason I'm not starting to port my stuff over to Reforger despite being super excited at the fact it's got PBR lighting!)
So it shows how hard it is to make EULA!

south remnant
#

EULA is a pretty redundant thing given it gets tossed out in most courts if its too long for a reasonable individual to read

austere hare
south remnant
#

yeah but you cannot copyright the file format

#

meaning reverse engineering points are defunct

austere hare
south remnant
austere hare
#

Erm - so point 3 there is exactly what we're arguing about!

south remnant
#

that meets certain requirements

austere hare
#

EXACTLY!

south remnant
#

it needs to be legally distinct enough

#

and i very much doubt a .p3d is so legally distinct from a .fbx that it meets those certain requirements

#

given we have tools to very easily import p3ds then export as fbx in 15 seconds tops

vast stump
#

not binarized p3d

#

those cant be read by anything but the game

south remnant
#

binarized p3d is just a p3d in binary

#

and there is nothing stipulating the file formats either

austere hare
#

p3ds that work in A3 normally have A LOT more info than what's in an fbx
And conversion from geometry from one specification to another is like converting from IGES to STEP.
They are both very different and specific file formats that are legally distinct

south remnant
#

you can export a p3d as an fbx and have it be fine

#

proxies and all

austere hare
#

rvmats?

south remnant
#

just configuration

#

not legally distinct enough

austere hare
#

No!

vast stump
#

fbx does not carry all the p3d specific information

south remnant
#

and p3d does not carry all the fbx specific information

meager fractal
#

if I may intervene: what is the topic and end goal of this conversation?
if it's to keep moaning / ranting / moving goal posts, please do it somewhere else.

south remnant
#

good question who knows

vast stump
#

so far looks to be ranting

south remnant
#

eula is bad
youre just looking for a fight
hmmyes

vast stump
south remnant
#

im really not

vast stump
#

which does put a point on picking a fight column

south remnant
#

whos the one ranting vs trying to raise issues with the eula

vast stump
#

you are

south remnant
#

whatever you say 🫡

#

i will be returning to the realm of knowing that file formats are not protected you are welcome to join at any point

austere hare
#

EULA could be better but so could everything. Like I say, personally, I'm more upset by the Reforger EULA than the A3 one. 🫣
Try writing a set of rules and then open them up to a few million clever people and see how well they stand up!
(F1 is a good example of this where just a few hundred clever people find loop holes in rules that have a huge amount of scrutiny before release.)

And a file format specification that has the contents required to make A3 work - i.e. a .p3d can be copy writed as the section you've pasted above shows!!!!

meager bolt
#

so… is there any conclusion or is it just don’t debin p3d’s because it’s up for debate if it’s against Eula

#

bc I’m still confused after reading all that

vast stump
#

it is forbidden.

#

but you can consult a lawyer if you dont like that

#

they are likley to tell you the same thing

meager bolt
#

I’m just trying to get a 100% answer, what should I link to reference it’s forbidden if the EULA is up for debate on it?

obsidian basalt
#

as I understand, with the current wording in the EULA, debinning p3ds couldn't be illegalized, it would be like copyrighting the process of writing a book or creating an audio/video file

THAT BEING SAID

it should be mentioned that republication of the work in that p3d (or any other file format for that matter, IE .mp4, .mp3, .txt, .paa, or .png) would be plagiarism, and mod authors still have the say on whether or not you're allowed to debin their own mod content

the file format is just a file format; the content in the file is what people are meant to be concerned about

#

I think people are getting hung up on the file format and storage thereof rather than the actual issue of "hey, that's my work, don't pirate my work"

meager fractal
#

basically: Wheaton's Law applies.

obsidian basalt
#

I mean, I guess, but like

#

I wouldn't trust people like that

#

not anymore at any rate

dark tulip
#

You're not allowed to reverse engineer, which is the only way you would be able to read/write a specific file format.

So yes, it's 100% legal to forbid it and 100% in BI's right to sue your ass off if you do

inland sphinx
#

There is also the point that some 3D model licenses when you buy models. Forbid you to redistribute the source files, and only allow you to redistribute in a packed/protected format where the original model cannot just be extracted. (Because most people don't want people to get their paid product for free after they sold it to one customer).

The binarized p3d is such a protected format. And legally is important for anyone who purchased/imported such licensed models into Arma. Which are quite a few people.

We can't control what you do in the dark corners of your room at home.
But we can control whether you are able to play our game, contribute on the workshop or participate in our community platforms. And if you violate the EULA, you shouldn't expect to be safe from reactions.

small hamlet
#

On a related note, it's more than a bit of a gamble working with purchased models rather than something you've done yourself; there's a lot of times when it's difficult to verify if the individual listing the model created it themselves or stole it from somewhere else, which is why it's often best to commission something directly and be sent in-progress shots / copies.

There are genuinely reliable modellers out there whose product you can trust - Akinaro, luchadordev, steffe_engdahl, creation-wasteland, etc - however they are vastly outnumbered by less upstanding individuals.

#

Free models generally ought to be looked at with suspicion as well, although again, there are cases where they are entirely legitimate and you can trust them.

obsidian basalt
#

That said, I did see something pop up that alluded to patents; from what I gather, if BI were to have a patent on the .p3d format, they would likely have protection at that point. I don’t know if they have a patent or not, it’s a hypothetical, but without it, P3D file formats are, as I’ve been trying to stress, just a format. You can’t illegalize file management, but you can illegalize content theft.

Debinning a P3D for personal use, say modelling an extra component around it, likely wouldn’t be enforced by a court. Republishing that P3D on the steam workshop however is another thing entirely.

fiery egret
#

if BI were to have a patent on the .p3d format
IANAL, but don't you have to precisely explain something you are patenting, so that would actually force them to publish that format by themselves?
(also, can you patent file formats at all? I thought that patents apply to inventions)

obsidian basalt
# fiery egret > if BI were to have a patent on the .p3d format IANAL, but don't you have to pr...

ditto on that IANAL, but for the sake of conversation, cuz I'm bored

I don't know the specifics on patents, but every patent I've seen for an invention has included a diagram. That being said, I see no reason why a file format couldn't be considered an invention; someone has to come up with it for the first time after all.

As far as being able to patent file formats in the first place, I'd be willing to wager "no" specifically due to the relation between Microsoft Word and Open Office; if there were any tech company on the face of the planet which would want and have the ability to patent a file format, it would be microsoft, and Open Office would be violating that patent every time they reverse engineer the new file format.

Microsoft having (as near as I can figure) no legal recourse against Open Office for reverse engineering word document file formats tells me that there is no legal protection for specific file formats; only the content contained within that file.

#

I find it strange that Bohemia would be able to protect a file format against reverse engineering, but Microsoft is left grinding their teeth at open office

fiery egret
#

I see no reason why a file format couldn't be considered an invention
It would surely have to contain something new and unused earlier, like a new type of compression or sth, probably.

A friend of mine who was in charge of checking patent submissions, years ago, told me that he was rejecting like over 95%(!) of submissions because of the lack of uhh... "substance"? (or also people maliciously trying to patent math or something that would map 1:1 to the digits of Pi in a non-obvious way, etc...)

In practice, he was more like "in charge of rejecting patent submissions" 😉

obsidian basalt
#

that's hilarious lol

#

eh, I could imagine it's not impossible to grant technical specifications for a file format when submitting a patent, but if there is a prerequisite of "what does this do that others don't," the best answer I could come up with is that P3Ds work with arma and FBX files don't, so you might be right

#

one way or the other, I do think a law like that would be unfounded even if it did come to pass; I've alluded to it before, but trying to protect a format like P3Ds would be like trying to protect any other file format, or indeed method of storing information in general; you can't protect MP3s or MP4s, Microsoft can't protect their word doc formats, there's probably an argument to be made along the allegory slope that trying to protect file formats would be like trying to protect books or actual physical files.

The file isn't where the focus should be, it's the content in the file.

south remnant
abstract crest
#

Given that the notes for the Licensed Data Pack samples says Binarized data from the Arma series (from CWC to A2:CO) in PBO files. The purpose of this package is to clearly identify which game data is licensed for public use and modification, and what are the related conditions and requirements. it implies pretty specifically that everything else is covered by the game EULA which says no reverse engineering. Whether that EULA will stand up in court can only really be answered by a lawyer knowledgeable about the law around intellectual property and EULAs

obsidian basalt
#

from my understanding (again, not a lawer), but I have heard that a lot of EULAs brought up in court are thrown out due to high technicality or just straight up being too long.

It's interesting to me, cuz it tells me that lawyers drawing up EULAs have to play a game of making them short and concise, as general as required for the average layman to understand, and cover all legal ground that the company wants.

One EULA in particular I'd like to see in court is the Destiny 2 EULA, simply because while it is in the EULA that content people paid for can be taken away for an indeterminate amount of time, if someone got banned from Destiny 2 after putting like, thousands of dollars into the franchise (assume a Destiny 1 Beta player for example), whether or not the EULA would save Bungie in that case

south remnant
#

doesnt even begin to border implicit thats just wishful thinking lmao

wispy iron
obsidian basalt
#

interesting indeed...

#

Bungie probably opting to not set precident I guess

dark tulip
# obsidian basalt From what I can find (various forums, so take it with a grain of salt I guess) r...

Interesting, but completely useless for P3D, because the whole format (non-binarized) is already public information: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/P3D_File_Format_-_MLOD#File_Format (among basically all other formats used by BI)

So no need to reverse engineer that 😉

Reverse engineering the binarized version is not needed to understand the file format, but only has the single purpose of "stealing" the contents which are protected.

P3D File Format - MLOD
#

But in the end; when you bought and started the game, you agreed on the license (EULA) in where you promised not to do anything of sorts, and otherwise you agree that the license is revoked and therefor you lose access to the game (and/or other services).

Not sure how this can be something "questionable" or "unclear" in any way

obsidian basalt
# dark tulip Interesting, but completely useless for P3D, because the whole format (non-binar...

I mean, no, there is another purpose for debinning

consider:

If I relayed a model to my unit's dev team, and then a few weeks later, we see what looks like the same model in another units mod without a dependency on ours. Well I mean, there are only so many ways to skin a cat, especially when you and someone else are modelling the exact same thing, but I would be suspect with that time frame.

The easiest way for me to compare the two models to ensure piracy didn't take place would be to debin the P3D and compare the two meshes, things like their topology and UV Maps would be clear indications that someone ripped the model if they happened to be identical.

If debinning models itself is disallowed in any capacity, I have 0 way to verify whether or not a model of mine has actually been yoinked, which means I would have to send an email to Bohemia about it and hope that they do their due diligence to verify, which is something I'd rather not trust to someone else.

That, and I'd rather not be that guy that sends BI Legal on wild goose chases just because I couldn't be assed to verify it myself, you know?

#

oh yeah, and that's assuming that's even there jurisdiction in the first place, cuz as near as I'm aware, the onus is on me to DMCA rather than BI

inland sphinx
#

The easiest way for me
So the purpose is lazyness?

I have 0 way to verify whether
Look at their texture, if the UV's are the same you'll see that.
Also diag binary has wireframe drawmode. You can spawn the model ingame to compare the mesh.

obsidian basalt
limber oak
heavy gate
obsidian basalt
heavy gate
obsidian basalt
#

I mean it would be illegal if I then re-released the traced model, cuz it'd effectively be the same work

heavy gate
#

What some EULA says is especially moot if you got the mod of GitHub, you don't have to agree to any BI EULA to download from there.

#

Ah yeah

obsidian basalt
#

I try not to use 3d models for references, but I will buy an STL that can't be imported if I'm stuck for a 2d orthographic, cuz then I just take screencaps and run the contrast up for proportions

#

you could argue that's still tracing, however the orthographics are more for making sure that proportions are consistent than anything else

eager ether
#

I have a question regarding licensing of materials that are included in a distributable product. For example, licensing a code file (e.g. script) for use in one way but allowing for it to be packaged for public distribution but still retaining the limitations of the source code files.

#

So if the scripts were licensed such that author retains ownership and rights to changes (like GPL) but is used in PBO that declares "you can modify and distribute at will without citing or source etc.."

#

I assume as an author, the PBo packager or mod maker would still have to include the script source and license for them? correct? or no?

#

Me being the script author. Just trying to consider different concepts to ensure my scripts are protected to my desired license and not BI or other provided license.

dark tulip
#

Technically you can use/include any license you want. Or no license at all (aka nothing allowed). Or a custom license if you prefer.

#

But when using files from others, you should follow the license of that content, and include it when required

meager bolt
#

this is still confusing catCry2

#

so

#

basically

#

p3d’s that are binarized

#

no one will do anything if someone does it privately and keeps it to themselves but it’s against the rules to redistribute

#

so therefore is then using the debin p3d in substance painter against the law

#

I just want to know if it’s an issue that other people are doing it, as I’m fine with photoshop textures on open PAA’s, but if I don’t release the SPP or share the file publicly, I’d prefer they ask me, and want to know if the debin is genuinely illegal without a doubt so I can properly approach someone if they do it

dense bear
#

not again......

meager bolt
#

and can I please have some sort of concrete thing to link to, so I can say “hey you shouldn’t do that here’s why” without it being word of mouth

meager bolt
#

I can stop asking if it’s an issue but I’d like to figure this out for sure

#

Emailing BI legal might be a nice next step to see what resources they have maybe?

dense bear
#

this convo been going on for like 3 or 4 days

#

they already said no

#

the guys in here (mods) arent a legal team

#

if you want to know about it email their legal team, instead of asking guys who only do game devving or are "just" discord mods

meager bolt
#

I figured someone in here was related to legal stuff since it’s an ip topics channel tbh

#

sry

lavish basalt
#

This is the channel. And what L1nx said. If you want to make sure, write a mail to BI Legal team

meager bolt
#

ok, I will

#

time to find an email

obsidian basalt
inland sphinx
# meager bolt no one will do anything if someone does it privately and keeps it to themselves ...

How would anyone know to do anything if no one knows about it?
But once you announce/talk about that you're doing it. People will know.
And we apply the games EULA on this discord. So I suggest you don't tell people that you're violating it, otherwise you will see yourself not be part of this Discord.

It's not allowed. It's also not allowed to consume many drugs, do people consume them anyway as long as police doesn't know?
The only way to get yourself in trouble is by others getting to know about what you did.
So how about you don't let anyone know?

But that also includes going to this channel and saying "Hey I wanna do it. But if it's not allowed I'll just do it in private"

So how about we agree that you will never do it, because you know it's not allowed. And we close this topic.

meager bolt
#

but yeah sounds good

south remnant
#

easy problem solved

meager bolt
hollow cave
#

Am I correct in understanding that if I make a mod the copyright on that mod belongs to me, not Bohemia?

hollow cave
#

In this case, retextures

celest sundial
celest sundial
# hollow cave In this case, retextures

This depends if there is any significant amount of the original texture left. If all you do is put a little text on one of the doors and everything stays the same it's still copyrighted by us. That being said re-textures used within the game they were taken from are generally accepted. We definitely don't want people porting them to other games/applications however.

hollow cave
#

I swapped the MTP fatigues from vanilla for a custom camo pattern across all variants of the uniform. Custom as in I made the camo and chose the colors for it.

inland sphinx
#

If you replaced the whole texture. And only used the original as orientation of where the parts are. That new texture is yours.
(It (the end resulting mod) is still a derivative though, but in case of BIs content that doesn't matter)

hollow cave
#

I only intend to use it for my units uniforms

mossy yarrow
#

Hello since im going to add a humvee to my mod is it okay to name it "M1151 HMV" ?

frozen jackal
#

if you call it HMV and not HMMWV (because the latter is trademarked, as "Humvee" is too) then you should be safe I guess. Or name it just "M1151" which is the military designation, I think both RHS and CUP went that way and everybody's happy

rugged prawn
mossy yarrow
#

alright thanks guys

pliant valve
#

You can call it a HMMWV if it's indeed a HMMWV, it's not trademark infringement, that's been settled in court already.

rugged prawn
lavish basalt
#

ICYMI: Arma 2 named it HMMVX after a community patch

pliant valve
rugged prawn
#

ok cool, didnt know. Although I still would stick with M1151 tbh

willow crane
#

Afaik the use of a trademarked name without authorisation is still enforceable. Just not likely for something like our arma use case.

abstract crest
#

Gotta say I prefer M1151 (or other variant name) rather than HMMWV given that there are tens of variants

#

At the end of the day HMMWV tells you nothing about the vehicle itself and avoids any doubt on infringement

dark tulip
#

And from a military standpoint, using military names make more sense too 🤔

south remnant
#

everybody will call it a humvee no matter what its called ingame so just save yourself the potential cost of a lawyer

#

because you still need to get a lawyer if youre right or not

young roost
#

IIRC part of the lawsuit was that Activision was selling Call of Duty branded HMMWV toy cars that were explicitly called "Hummer," "HMMWV," & "Humvee"

willow crane
young roost
celest sundial
#

The string "Humvee" is not registered in the EU for any applicable category that would involve software, digital services etc. Only vehicles, childrens toys and clothing. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#basic/1+1+1+1/Humvee. They do have registered design for the exact logo which you can just not use anywhere. Similar case for "HMMWV" (https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/W01271846). That being said they (or anybody else exercising the name) could register additional categories at any time.
If it is worth the hassle to use known trademarks and potentially having to deal with lawyers sending letters is on another piece of paper (they will do it even when they have no legal grounds and try and bluff people into submission). Calling it KA-M instead of AK-M, Or HMMVX instead of HMMWV does not really impact my gameplay but keeps everything clean.

willow crane
abstract crest
#

LOL... I have a mod that turns KA-Ms, etc. back into AKMs, I hate it 😉 Especially since those designations are not contested

#

After all, we're on the ARMA discord and Reforger felt no reason to change those designations. That said, Glocks are a different matter and most games I play change those to Mlocks or Blocks and the ARMAs just don't put them in game anymore...

celest sundial
#

We are playing Amra Refroger

unkempt sorrel
#

We playing Frogger 2

strong dirge
#

But important question is whats the difference with dayz and reforger, for the ak 74 to be ka 74 but on reforger its ak 74? Is it because dayz has parts you can take off or is it some wierd legal stuff

#

Or just a thing thats only for dayz?

abstract crest
#

Someone there made that decision at that time... someone else made another decision at another time. Doesn't make sense for those changes but other things are important. Anyone remember the "Hand-Over Offender" in ARMA 2? 🤣

lavish basalt
#

All I can say is KA-M is weirdest AKA47

celest sundial
#

While not directly being able to answer that @strong dirge , sometimes games simply decide to purchase licenses or already have some to use trademarked names for their game series. Sometimes court rulings change the playing-field in the mean time. Sometimes there is no time to go through a lengthy process to get clearance from legal experts on it. So many factors come into play on if and how branded assets are part of games.

strong dirge
#

i see, unfortunate that legal stuff is hard, thanks for answer.

mossy yarrow
#

@chrome plinth can you do something against that ?

gw_reupload.png
celest sundial
mossy yarrow
abstract crest
#

Saw the Reforger EULA FAQ go up... any news on the same for DZSA?

fervent thunder
#

Hey idk if this is a good place to ask since my question is about RHS EULA, especially about ACU I know you are not permitted to retexture the uniform itself but what about the flag that's on a uniform it's a separate hidden selection (kinda like the identity thing that set up for rank tabs and name patches)

vast stump
fervent thunder
#

yeah I was hoping maybe some of them are here

lavish basalt
#

Yes they are, especially PuFu

ocean tartan
zealous ore
# fervent thunder Hey idk if this is a good place to ask since my question is about RHS EULA, espe... 
RHS ACU - base class name: rhsusf_army_acu_uniform
RHS ABU - base class name: rhsusf_airforce_abu_uniform
RHS BDU - base class name: rhsusf_army_bdu_erdl_uniform
RHS Boonie - base class name: rhs_booniehat_camo & rhssaf_booniehat_camo
RHS 8point - base class name: rhs_8point_camo
RHS Covered M1 - base class name: rhsgref_helmet_M1_mit .
Notes
exceptions include, where available, insignia, identity and rank HiddenSelections```
https://www.rhsmods.org/page/EULA
#

i would say it is pretty clear ^^

open thistle
zealous ore
#

last i checked it was complete.

fervent thunder
# zealous ore ```List of files we do NOT allow 3rd party re-textures: RHS ACU - base class nam...

ok just to be clear and since I'm stupid

       {
           "camo1",
           "camo2",
           "camo3",
           "identity",
           "flag",
           "insignia"
       };```
this of course is the list of HiddenSelections on ACU, well common sense would say suggest that flag is like things included in exceptions (insignia, identity and rank)  since it's in separate texture file and not part of uniform texture but EULA is a legal document so I assume legal reading would be flag is not mentioned in exceptions so you are not allowed to retexture it. The reason I was even asking is well ACU I'm pretty sure is the only uniform that uses "flag" HiddenSelections across all RHS mods, I don't want to imply I know better then you of course you are one of creators of the mod but with this being such extreme edge case I just wanted a clarification. So can the flag the on ACU be changed through the means of retexturing, yes or no ?
zealous ore
fervent thunder
#

Thank you very much

rugged prawn
#

indeed, yes it can be changed. The ban on retexture is only for the uniform texture itself

crimson garden
#

Do CDLC assets follow the same rules as vanilla assets, i.e. textures can be extracted and modified for custom textures. Like retexturing a truck or something?

Had someone ask me and thought it was an interesting question.

south remnant
#

given theyre .ebos i doubt it

#

and those arent rules for vanilla assets either

#

its just tolerated by BI

#

check the discords/channels for cdlc specific things; they probably provide templates if they allow retextures

inland sphinx
#

You can't extract textures because it's encrypted.
You'd have to screenshot it off

#

BI tolerates editing BI owned textures.
For CDLC better ask the specific CDLC team

#

They might even give you the texture directly if you ask nicely

unkempt sorrel
#

You can usually get them if you’re nice and the team is ok with retextures. Though, it’s up to the team

crimson garden
#

Cool, that's basically the answer I was expecting, it's a per-team thing

frigid bay
#

Hello,

I'm currently sifting through a ton of discussions on topics like "Obfuscation" and "Protecting Mods." It's made me wonder about the possibilities of safeguarding the work we do. It seems many in the community, including players, developers, and server owners, are interested in finding ways to protect their creations. However, there's a noticeable division, with some staff members opposing the idea.

The opposition's arguments often don't resonate with me. While I'm a big supporter of open-source projects and sharing work with the wider public, the primary concerns raised, such as the fear of hiding stolen content or not benefiting the community, seem off-base.

I believe many of us looking to protect our work aren't trying to shield it from BI. We're okay with sharing our source code with them. Our issue is with making it accessible to everyone. Platforms like FiveM offer a model where the content is obfuscated when players join a server, which seems like a sensible approach.

This system allows server owners to control their content, preventing players from accessing and copying the code directly, yet still enabling the game to function as intended. Many developers and server owners invest countless hours crafting unique servers, and it's disheartening to see others lift their work without permission. Licensing isn't a practical solution, especially considering the lack of regard for it within certain communities, such as role-play groups.

The goal for many of us isn't financial gain but the satisfaction of building something popular and enjoyable, evidenced by a bustling server.

Could maybe someone from BI give a reasonable response to this?
If there are plans of implementing something in this direction (becuase of high demand amongst owners)?
Or if every server owner has to deal with it on their own (Like Elan)

PS: It's about Enfusion / Arma Reforger / Arma 4.

south remnant
#

BI policy at the moment for enfusion games/stuff uploaded to BI workshop is no obfuscation, expect you won't hear anything until that changes just like the reverse was true when the policy was made up 🤷

rugged prawn
#

What's the demand for server owners? What are they setting up? If they benefit from mods being open why would they not publish openly? If someone is stealing from you you can report

frigid bay
# rugged prawn What's the demand for server owners? What are they setting up? If they benefit f...

I understand the questions and concerns raised. The demand for private mods exists because many server owners and developers wish to offer unique experiences on their servers. By searching for "private mod" on this discord server, you'll find numerous discussions from individuals wanting to ensure their mods remain exclusive to their server.

Sharing creations like code and models is a choice that many in the community happily make. The GTA modding community is a prime example, where modders freely publish mods for everyone's use when they choose to. However, when a modder prefers to keep something exclusive, for instance, a unique feature for their server, they should have straightforward options to protect their work. The goal isn't to obscure stolen work but to safeguard legitimate creations.

Addressing theft through licensing and reporting is not only time-consuming but often impractical. For instance, discovering that a unique car you developed for your server is being used elsewhere is daunting. Considering the openness of source materials, tracking down every unauthorized use becomes nearly impossible, especially if you need to join and play on various servers for hours to spot your content.

The question arises: Why is it so challenging to protect one's work? If openness and sharing are encouraged, why doesn't BI adopt a completely open-source model under a strict license? Likely, the answer involves avoiding the complexities and potential misuse that come with open accessibility.

For those of us investing thousands of hours into creating unique models, scripts, and more for our servers, the desire to retain exclusive use is reasonable. We also aim to prevent security vulnerabilities, which can be easily exploited if the code is publicly accessible, from being discovered and used maliciously.

hardy bone
#

Why is it so challenging to protect one's work?
A thief only needs to break the least protected entrance to your house to get in (whether it's a window, a door or a wall), you need to make sure everything is locked and impenetrable to be certain that no thief can come in.
Same problem apply to protecting your creation, the weakest link will always be used by the people that want your creation.

rugged prawn
#

If this comes, 100% of the legit makers will encode their work against thieves, 100% of thieves against showing that they are thieves. 100% of new people will have nothing to learn from. Plus with unique experiences you get a very incentivized path to monetization

#

At RHS we've had our work stolen for 20 years now. Filed 1000s of DMCA literally. Took down thiving teams and communities. And still I don't I don't really see from your viewpoint other than "let me retain my (paying/donating) customer base" and instead of doing it from innovation standpoint you want to lock it up and monopolize

sacred wagon
#

For us, this has nothing to do with a paying customer base. We just want to keep our work to ourselves. It's not even about simple copy and paste, it's about how we did things and the concepts behind it. The same amount of time goes into the conceptual design as the programming itself and we want to protect that too.

Many people are used to going the easy way and adapting existing systems - which is fine. But the time we put into our development is so enormous that we want to keep this work to ourselves. @frigid bay has summarized that very well.

vast stump
#

Would it be fair if servers who don't share couldn't use public mods?

sacred wagon
#

That would be fine for me.

vast stump
#

Etc

sacred wagon
#

Yes, I am aware of that.
We don't currently use dependencies at all and have used very limited ones in the past

old jay
#

you'll find numerous discussions from individuals wanting to ensure their mods remain exclusive to their server.
That's because a significant amount of "private mods" are either rips or content taken from legitimate creators and have been chopped up or rebundled.

#

i.e. "we only needed that one particular gun from a 4 GB mod"

vast stump
#

That is big part of it yeah.

sacred wagon
#

I can even understand all that. Many people try to obscure stolen content in this way. That is a problem.
But there are also people like us who just want to do their thing and protect their stuff.

old jay
#

The simplest answer is: "If you want something to remain private, don't make it public".

frigid bay
#

Oops, sorry.
wasn't done yet

vast stump
#

might add that from what Ive seen GTA modding to be its pretty much wildland stolen content from other games running rampart. blobdoggoshruggoogly

frigid bay
#

Hey @rugged prawn, @hardy bone, @vast stump, and @old jay,

First off, thanks for sharing your perspectives. However, your responses touch on the very points I highlighted earlier: concerns about hiding stolen content, the importance of sharing for learning, and fears about monetization.

I want to clarify that many server owners, including myself, are not opposed to providing source code to BI. This means BI would have full access to verify the integrity of mods and address any IP concerns without restricting visibility to the broader public. Yes, I could obfuscate my code or employ other means to render my scripts inaccessible to others, but that would exclude even BI from reviewing it, which isn't what we want. It's important to note that this approach mainly applies to scripts, not models, due to different technical constraints.

The main issue isn't about completely locking away content; it's about preventing everyday players from having unrestricted access to everything. This openness not only facilitates content theft but also poses significant security risks.

While it's true that any protection might eventually be circumvented, having some level of security is undeniably better than none. It's more manageable to address a few servers infringing on your work than to combat widespread unauthorized use.

The argument that server monetization is inevitable is not entirely accurate. BI currently prohibits monetization, and players can report servers that violate this policy. This issue is easier to monitor and enforce compared to scrutinizing code for copyright violations on each server. The monetization concern, if taken at face value, should apply universally, not selectively.

Suggesting that servers be kept private or that owners using private mods should not access public mods misses the point. Server owners aim for public servers to enrich the gaming community. The average player's experience isn't diminished by their inability to access the backend. It's the ease with which other server owners might exploit this openness that's troubling.

Mod creators decide whether their work is public, and if they choose to share it, why should that preclude its use on servers that prefer to keep certain elements exclusive? This isn't about hoarding or gatekeeping; it's about preserving the unique aspects of a server without fear of replication or theft. It's one thing to inspire others; it's another to have them copy your work outright.

The support from at least six others on my previous points shows that this is a shared concern within the community. It's not just about keeping things exclusive for the sake of it; it's about fostering a space where creativity is respected and protected, even if only to a degree that makes unauthorized replication more challenging than it currently is.

vast stump
#

your casual normal player does not even think of the backend

#

I do agree that taking someones mods is a problem, but thats not your players who do that, they just play

#

but also what fosters the problem is the privatization

old jay
#

I think you need to understand that its not going to happen. If I can give an analogy.. Its like being in someone else's house. If you don't like their rules, find another (platform).

We work within their (BI's) framework (and rules).

vast stump
#

mainly in Arma context only place Ive seen this issue is the life mods, where there is huge competition between servers

#

which I dont personally understand at all except when it comes down to servers raking in money

old jay
#

Also, we (as a community) hear this story once a month or so (since 2019)

vast stump
#

Im not strictly against content protection like that really but the way BI is going with their own workshop it already does give easier control over theft. Reporting systems and response times could perhaps improve.

#

but in my years of experience it always seems to come down to money.

frigid bay
# vast stump I do agree that taking someones mods is a problem, but thats not your players wh...

I appreciate your perspectives, @vast stump and @old jay, but I feel there’s a bit of misunderstanding about my stance. To clarify, I’ve never suggested that the average player dives into or even thinks about the backend of mods. My argument has consistently been that ordinary players aren’t the ones who pose a threat to unique content; it’s other server owners and developers who might exploit access to replicate successful elements from competing servers.

The competitive nature of roleplay servers, particularly in the Arma and gta community, stems from the extensive time and effort required to develop immersive experiences. It's not merely about setting up a server with a few mods; it involves intricate planning around gameplay mechanics such as time management, farming systems, and player jobs. This depth is what draws players in and why roleplay servers are a significant portion of Arma 3’s and gta's player base.

Every server owner's goal, regardless of the server theme, is to attract and retain a vibrant player community—not for monetary gain but for the satisfaction of knowing their creative efforts are recognized and appreciated. However, this sense of achievement is undermined when there's a risk of others easily copying and deploying your hard work on their servers.

This isn't just about protecting content for the sake of exclusivity; it's about encouraging a diverse and dynamic server landscape where each can offer something unique to the community. If anything, providing secure ways for server owners to protect their content could enrich the overall ecosystem, benefiting BI by sustaining a large, engaged player base.

@old jay, regarding your analogy and BI’s current stance, I understand we're operating within their platform and rules. However, initiating this discussion was aimed at exploring whether BI recognizes the concerns many of us have and if there’s room for adjustments that support both content protection and the community's growth.

vast stump
frigid bay
vast stump
#

players want the servers to compete?

#

and Im asking these questiosn because that culture is something I dont really understand

sacred wagon
frigid bay
# vast stump and Im asking these questiosn because that culture is something I dont really un...

I appreciate the curiosity about the competitive culture within server hosting, which might seem perplexing to some. It's an aspect of the community that evolves naturally from the desire to offer unique and engaging experiences to players. This competition isn't inherently negative; it drives innovation and improvement across servers. However, the challenge arises in balancing competition with the protection of original content.

Regarding the use of licenses for mods and server addons; they theoretically restrict the unauthorized use of code and models. Yet, the reality is that enforcing these licenses is impractical on a large scale. It's exceedingly difficult and time-consuming for creators to monitor every server for potential misuse of their licensed work.

This is where the idea of automatic obfuscation by BI comes into play. By obfuscating mods upon download, a basic level of security is provided, making it significantly harder for one's work to be directly copied. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of theft, but it introduces a barrier that respects the creators' rights while still allowing the mods to function as intended on servers.

The self-obfuscation approach, as seen with Elan, presents its own set of challenges, including the risk of hiding stolen work and making oversight by BI nearly impossible. My suggestion aims to strike a balance where BI retains the ability to review and verify content for IP infringement, which isn't feasible with private obfuscation methods.

I understand the skepticism towards content protection, especially if the dynamics of competitive server hosting aren't clear to everyone. However, this isn't just about understanding the "why" behind it; it's recognizing the "need" that many server owners express. Implementing such measures wouldn't detract from the community; it could actually enhance the overall quality and diversity of server experiences.

Moreover, if developers encounter difficulties and believe a protected mod contains a solution, reaching out directly to the mod's creators or server developers could foster more collaboration within the community. This approach encourages communication and potentially leads to shared solutions, without compromising the protection of original content.

vast stump
#

if it really only serves the "server competition" then I cant get behind it. Id say theres strong need for a change in such culture

teal pecan
#

Think about how you can serve the community, not how you can (directly or indirectly) make the community serve you (like for example getting donations to keep the servers running etc).

meager fractal
#

oh how I like you two 🍻

frigid bay
# vast stump if it really only serves the "server competition" then I cant get behind it. Id ...

@vast stump and @teal pecan

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to hear how you guys focus on the joy of playing and sharing with the community, like with Antistasi.
That's a cool way to see things, and I get where you're coming from.

But, I think we're missing each other's points a bit. My worry isn't about making servers fight each other or hide stolen work. It's about fairness and making sure people's hard work doesn't get stolen.
When I ask what's in it for server owners if their work isn't protected, I'm really asking why should someone else get to use what you've spent so much time and maybe even money on without asking?

It shouldn't be about changing how server owners think because someone doesn't get it.
It should be about respecting everyone's effort. Everyone should not just take what you made because that leads to stealing.

The thing with licenses, thats what BI suggests, is they're good in theory but tough in practice. It's too hard to check every server to see if they're using your stuff without permission.
That's why I was saying it'd be easier if BI helped protect mods right from the start.

And about making everything open so others can learn from it, I get it, but there should be a choice. If someone wants to share, great. If not, that should be okay too. If a developer wants to learn how something works because it's done well on another server, why not just ask the server owner or the modder?

I already talked about the whole money thing before. Just read the older messages.

When Arma Reforger came out, loads of people wanted roleplay servers. Now, many have stopped playing because there is not really something.
This is because server owners and modders are worried their work will just be copied. And if it's easy to steal, why would they bother making something?

rugged prawn
#

I appreciate @frigid bay for formulating his point thoroughly tho. I think it's good discourse. You have to remember also the bad reputation Life servers have around the official arma community places, so our skeptical nature should be clear to you. In GENERAL, Life mods and servers were always known for blatant disregard to ip rights, monetization rules, paying to people for scripts against EULA etc.

meager fractal
#

I believe the mindset difference is exactly what is at hand here:
BI does not want peeps to "fight through mods" but "collaborate to enhance and improve Arma's ecosystem"

rugged prawn
#

So obfuscation almost falls into this pattern " I wanna protect some script I paid for, so that other Life server can't steal it and I don't lose my monetization platform"

#

I mean this what it looks like

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

Scripts are a bad example, because they can be monetized... But the point is valid nonetheless (at least in ARMA pre-AR)

rugged prawn
#

Well u can't obfuscate a texture

frigid bay
frigid bay
rugged prawn
rugged prawn
#

You can report them

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

Any obfuscation would not stop IP theft anyway... How long was it before ebo was broken? Server side addons are what you really want, something that exists in ARMA 3...

meager fractal
#

because available does not mean free

frigid bay
meager fractal
frigid bay
#

If I don't want that someone just uses my models for something like police uniforms.
Then there should be a way that BI protects this work.
Because currently it's very easy to just join a server, download the content and just opening it inside the workbench and just get what you want.

teal pecan
#

Everything obfuscated can eventually be cracked with enough time and knowledge. And if somebody has malicious intent, they will do it.
Sure, if there would be an easy way to have people protect their creations whilst BI still has the option to check and control, that would be nice.
But at least I do not have a clue how that could be facilitated so we are talking about a ton of hypothetical "if's" and "when's".

abstract crest
#

And they have to upload that content to the Workshop at which point a crawler can easily find it.

#

Also no way BI have the resources to manually check every upload and update to their workshop

#

Honestly, I doubt whether they would want that policing role either since they can then be liable if they miss something

#

At the end of the day it's a hypothetical that BI don't at least so far care about, and the community here - primarily ARMA 2, 3 and before modders - probably doesn't either.

teal pecan
edgy rover
#

I would also like to learn more about such tools

teal pecan
frigid bay
#

@teal pecan and @abstract crest

It's true that anything obfuscated can eventually be cracked by someone with enough time and malicious intent.

However, taking a page from FiveM's playbook shows that a middle ground is possible. In FiveM, when players join a server, the content downloaded to their hard drive is obfuscated. This doesn't make it impossible to access or steal the content, but it significantly increases the effort and skill required to do so, compared to simply joining a server and downloading all resources directly.

Years ago, FiveM faced similar issues with content theft among server owners, leading them to implement obfuscation. This move has, to a certain extent, mitigated the problem by adding a layer of difficulty for those intent on stealing content.

I believe a similar approach could be beneficial for the Arma community. If BI provided an option for modders to choose whether their mods should be obfuscated upon upload to the workshop, it could alleviate many concerns without requiring BI to manually check each mod. This would be a tool in the hands of the creators, giving them the choice to protect their work if they wish.

Of course, for those who prefer to share their work openly or under specific licenses, the current system of licenses and reporting would still apply. This isn't about restricting the sharing of content or learning from each other but about giving creators more control over the distribution and protection of their work.

sacred wagon
teal pecan
meager fractal
#

I believe two things are mixing here:

  • protecting sources to prevent them from being stolen
  • protecting in order to have server-exclusive content

I am OK with the first one, not OK with the second one.