Is there an easy way to find out who hosts the server that a specific Arma3Sync repo is running on?
I need to file a DMCA, but I don't really know how to get the Server Provider
#other_ip_topics
toxic jolt
dark tulip
if you have an IP address or domain name you can trace it back to the hoster
it will take some effort but is doable
fiery egret
You can try to run a traceroute and check the domains of computers that are one or two hops away from that server. This will hopefully give you the name of the hosting company
abstract crest
There are resources online that will do a whois from an IP address too... Not sure how reliable but worth a go
sweet patio
if it is a machine that is running in a big hosters data center, you most likely get DNS node names from that hoster at the very end when using tracert. at least for hetzner it is like that
toxic jolt
I can't do that with the IP I got from the repo though, can I?
No "whois" service allows me to put an IP in there
dark tulip
use tracert command in Command Prompt
and then the host which comes up before final IP, or the name of the IP address (since they always have a hostname) usually includes the name or domain of the hoster
abstract crest
And search for 'ip whois lookup' and there are sites that will do that
With the caveats mentioned by diwako
But try Grezvany13's first
waxen grotto
Interesting scenario that I'll attempt to tl;dr
Dude made a mod for a group, license was share-alike on github (basically if changes are made then they needed to be re-shared via the original github.) And when he closed everything down, he demanded source files be removed yet told us the mod could still be used but not changed. (All previous development files were removed the day he requested.)
However the actual license file wasn't provided until recently.
Currently (From what I've been told and read via his Social Media) he's attempting to form a DMCA claiming I've both stolen content as well as put it all into my name. Despite the fact that all files still have dates back to mid-last year.
During that time, the group has been using the mod as a 'stand-in' for one that I'm writing from scratch to replace said mod. (Keeping in mind there's no real content, it's purely a faction mod that has been calling from other mods for gear and such.)
So I guess my question is, am I actually in potential legal trouble or can I write this off as some kind of 'measuring contest'?
fervent bluff
who is the biggest ip violator? The opposition team or someone else?
old jay
@waxen grotto Your explanation is a bit convoluted, but I'll give an indirect answer which may help. If he is successful with the DMCA case, will you be able to pay a few thousands of dollars/euros/pounds/whatever?
vast stump
@fervent bluff does it matter?
inland sphinx
who is the biggest ip violator?
the arma life scene
fervent bluff
Nah, but i am interested
old jay
I'm with HorribleGoat on this matter.
waxen grotto
@old jay heck no, that's why I did as I was asked the first time.
I just don't see how it could be a credible case when the accusations are false as no files have been altered. And it's not even the case of 'take my word for it' for it as he has public access to said files and can clearly see his name is still in the author= slot in every location present in the mod.
dark tulip
And when he closed everything down, he demanded source files be removed yet told us the mod could still be used but not changed.
If you have proof of this (email, chatlog, etc.) then you can counter the DMCA with that saying you have permission to use the files and that they are not modified.
(Keeping in mind there's no real content, it's purely a faction mod that has been calling from other mods for gear and such.)
Interesting to put a DMCA on configs, unless it contains assets made by him (textures, models, scripts).
Although, if the old mod contains assets made by him, then he can retract permissions at all times. Even when it would be nicer to first tell you before sending a DMCA...
waxen grotto
I'll keep that in mind, for now I guess I'll just expedite getting the replacement finished.
inland sphinx
then he can retract permissions at all times
not necessarily
some licenses have a clause that you cannot take them back off from old versions that you released in the past
dark tulip
true, but that would result into a license legal fight nobody wants to be in...
especially not for a mod which only contains configs...
waxen grotto
Yeah, hence the replacement mod. Honestly nobody saw this coming as plenty of people still thought highly of the individual.
Now it's more of a scramble to just start over with an overhauled faction because it's not worth the hassle of potential DMCA harassment.
spring rock
Wondering is anyone could answer me this cause I've been looking around and can't find a concrete answer regarding this. Does anyone know the actual policy regarding the usage of the Red Cross symbols? Obviously asking this because of the Red Cross Van that I uploaded on steam workshop, would that be considered misuse of the symbol even if non-commercial and for charity purposes? Im realy confused regarding this atm , cause had no idea until someone told me
old jay
Its literally on their website @spring rock
The red cross and red crescent emblems are protected symbols under international humanitarian law and national laws. Any use that is not expressly authorized by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols constitutes a misuse of the emblem. Use of these emblems by unauthorized persons is strictly forbidden. Please contact the ICRC for more information.```Ah thank you
old jay
A simple "red cross logo usage" search came to that answer. 1st result on Google.
spring rock
Well , thought I just ask anyway
wintry yoke
BI's alternative looks quite good to be honest, though a white outline might've looked better than a white square background
old jay
@spring rock I see this coming back to bite you VERY badly https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1969858682
spring rock
Well , like I said , that's why I asked here
old jay
What I mean is you should remove it immediately!
spring rock
yeah im editing it as we speak
old jay
Thats not the point. Someone has made a lot of money there and there is zero indication that it will actually go to where it says it will.
The number of scams going on surrounding the Australian brushfires is significant
Its sketchy enough for me to feel compelled to report it myself
inland sphinx
I'd say Whiplash can probably be trusted with actually putting it through to the right people 🤔
spring rock
Money doesnt even pass through me
old jay
Where is the money?
Thats over $11,000 USD
A felony already
Raising x amount for a charity with no permission from them or to use their logo and then holding it in escrow in a location with no oversight.
Its like those folks raising money (thousands) for that homeless guy, but instead they kept it and spent it and are now in prison.
The one bit of advice I can give is to immediately take down the mod until its fixed and immediately transmit those funds to the ICRC.
inland sphinx
I'd say streamlabs is a reputable company..
spring rock
Like I said , none of the money passes through me , this is a Streamlabs/Red Cross colaboration
Same for the other campaigns they have , not just Red Cross
inland sphinx
and the arma people having made 11k out of the total 70k raised by streamlabs.. nice
spring rock
My point to discuss here was only regarding the usage of the Red Cross symbol ,which I didn't know (my fault of course) I wasn't allowed to, which I will immediatly change. Not realy discussing the legitimacy of Streamlabs Charity programms
old jay
Having worked with the ICRC, users must be registered with them before donating and they accept donations on their own pages, not typically through a 3rd party, especially not ones that take a cut of the donations.
spring rock
They don't cut the donations
inland sphinx
especially not ones that take a cut of the donations.
well streamlabs doesn't do that. and they are partnering with the red cross.. soo..
old jay
Show me where it says on an ICRC site that Streamlabs is an approved fundraising partner and I'll be quiet.
old jay
Show me where it says on an ICRC site that Streamlabs is an approved fundraising partner and I'll be quiet.
spring rock
“During this holiday season, the American Red Cross is grateful for corporate donors that generously contribute to our Holiday Campaign”, said a spokesperson from the Red Cross. “Thanks to the generosity of these supporters, the Red Cross is able to bring help and hope to people across the country. Special thanks to Streamlabs for helping us enable streamers to raise donations during the holiday season.”.
old jay
Its ok, I've already sent an email to my former ICRC associate.
inland sphinx
Here, quick google.
Is that official enough? https://twitter.com/RedCross/status/1205629844190564352
Twitter
spring rock
No dedmen
its not the Irc website
thats twitter
Removed the Red Cross symbols from the van for the moment
brave knot
wait the Red Cross has copyrights on literally a red X?
lean plover
yes
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/emblem/overview-emblem.htm
https://www.icrc.org/en/copyright-and-terms-use
spring rock
Am I wrong to assume that BI received permission for the usage of the Red Crystal symbol then?
lean plover
the red crystal is the only symbol allowed to be used outside a real world environment.
that's likely the reason why they switched from red cross in arma 2 to crystal in arma 3
spring rock
Ah I see
zealous ore
When you upload your content to Steam to make it available to other users and/or to Valve, you grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, for the purpose of the operation, distribution, incorporation as part of and promotion of the Steam service, Steam games or other Steam offerings, including Subscriptions. This license is granted to Valve as the content is uploaded on Steam for the entire duration of the intellectual property rights.
shell scaffold
Wait so bi broke the red Cross's IP but decided to wait until the next installment to fix it or what?
zealous ore
they didn't break anything
shell scaffold
So they got permission to use the red cross?
zealous ore
@dense pewter ^^
lean plover
when a2 was created there where no restrictions to the symbols as there are now
@shell scaffold
shell scaffold
Ah
zealous ore
also, the commercialization argument would not make sense either, since the assets are already on steam and being shared by the original creators .. .but whatever. legal stuff is strange.
the assets are on steam because their original creators put them on steam
you cannot legally share someone's elses IP rights with a 3rd party
dark tulip
A nice article (and video) about Prison Architect who "broke the Geneva Convention": https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2017/01/17/video-games-red-cross-trouble/
zealous ore
not sure why that is soo complicated for so many people
dense pewter
but if i wanted to only use one asset of an entire mod
it would need to download the whole mod using collections, right?
zealous ore
yes
inland sphinx
yes
dense pewter
oah, thats really annoyoyoyoyoing
zealous ore
again, you cannot upload someone's else content on SW
dense pewter
hm🤔
zealous ore
there is no hmmm about it
dense pewter
can i create an easy to isntall package to send to friends personally?
inland sphinx
I think.. taking a part out of a mod, and repackaging it would count as a derivative? maybe?
spring rock
jesus man... last time i try to make a mod...
zealous ore
you can use any other platform you want as long as that platform doesn't require the IP owner to share his own IP rights with the host
dense pewter
hm, that would make it illegal in my case @inland sphinx
zealous ore
like SW does
shell scaffold
Wait how did bi not break the Geneva convention when using the red cross in Arma 2? As far as I see from 2005 at most onwards it has been illegal
fiery egret
I'm wondering why has no one used a "slightly christian red cross" instead, in that case? Just make one leg slightly longer - wouldn't that work?
dark tulip
But then it becomes religious and not medical (IMHO)
fiery egret
Not if the right side is longer 🤷
dark tulip
A good alternative would be the two snakes on a stick symbol (caduceus)
fiery egret
And even then, if the difference is of a few pixels or, I dunno, 1/10 of the total height, that will definitely not look like a religious symbol
The two snakes would probably require too much detail, whereas an universal red cross just needs 3x3px to be recognizable
So it can easily be used anywhere, even on small GUI elements
dark tulip
Well, since the red Cross is copyrighted it's also not allowed to create or use similar symbols (Substantial similarity).
It's like creating an OS with the name Dinwows, or a search engine called Geeglo.
fiery egret
So you're saying it's like calling your rifle KA-74 instead of AK-74? (looks at DayZ... 😏 )
dark tulip
Yes, except it's copyrighted and tied to international laws 😉
fiery condor
Red Cross is copyrighted because the organization doesn't want it to be deluded. It could be considered literally the only thing that keeps a group of soldiers from picking off field workers helping out wounded soldiers.
turbid meadow
Yeah I think its a good idea not to try to find a work around to be able to use the red cross symbol, as you said lives could depend on that symbol being known as solely the red cross' symbol
abstract crest
Got to say that the Red Crystal is a perfectly adequate replacement too.
fiery condor
If your looking for other alternatives, green crosses have been used, as well as dozens of variants of the * symbol used on privately owned ambulances
inland sphinx
I just saw that I think BWMod or Redd'n'Tank uses red cross on vehicles.
abstract crest
CUP has red crosses... But ARMA 2 had them so...
Interesting question though is, if you are recreating the visual appearance of real world military vehicles that use the red cross or crescent, is that considered fair use? Or is that concept applicable in this situation. I have no idea
fiery condor
I think it falls upon the same laws that Smokey The Bear does.
IE it kind of is above fair use simply because it's codified into law that it's protected. Could be 100% wrong though.
dark tulip
The Red Cross is copyrighted because of the Geneva Convention, nothing more, nothing less.
There's a reason why the army has "combat medics" without a red cross on their arm; the moment you are a medic with cross you are not allowed to fight or even carry weapons!
fiery egret
Could you explain that Smokey The Bear thing? Not everyone is from the US and knows what it is about (I skimmed the wiki article but still don't know what you meant)
strange shadow
therre's a youtube video from a talk at some con or other where ivan buchta explains this
and why these things are as they are in arma
abstract crest
I haven't signed the Geneva Conventions though 😉
Bohemia's partnership with the ICRC probably impacts ARMA more than for other game devs
And LOL... Something not mentioned (or maybe I missed it)... The red crystal is also protected so it seems Bohemia did not use the cross for religious reasons... no to crosses, no to crescents but yes to crystals
Red crystal - "the third Protocol emblem" was adopted as a protected symbol in the Geneva Conventions in 2005
old jay
BI were given permission from the ICRC, though I believe the A2 permission was given retroactively ( I may be wrong ).
https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/19/16330216/international-red-cross-pr-disaster-arma-3-laws-of-war-dlc
As for the " but what about this guy or that guy that did X " It's just like getting pulled over for speeding, YOU were the one that was pulled over.
Alternatively, its similar to the "they can't catch all of us" statement.
Re: the Star of Life (symbol on ambulances) "Prior to the development of the Star of Life, American ambulances most commonly were designated with a safety orange cross on a square background. In 1973, the American Red Cross complained that the orange cross too closely resembled their logo of a red cross on a white background, the usage of which is restricted by the Geneva Conventions." @fiery condor
It too is a protected symbol, but not in the way that the Red Cross is.
jesus man... last time i try to make a mod... Literally, do a bit of research.
Remember, it was the 1st result on Goggle. Contrary to your initial comment:
Wondering is anyone could answer me this cause I've been looking around and can't find a concrete answer regarding this. Does anyone know the actual policy regarding the usage of the Red Cross symbols? Obviously asking this because of the Red Cross Van that I uploaded on steam workshop, would that be considered misuse of the symbol even if non-commercial and for charity purposes? Im realy confused regarding this atm , cause had no idea until someone told me
Steam Subscriber Agreement: https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
non-commercial and for charity purposes Again, see Steam Subscriber Agreement.
Also:
A commercial transaction has take place.
elfin coral
those are payment processing fees by those companies, those fee's aren't charged by streamlabs, only by those companies for using their services.
so the person paying/donating may have to pay those fees as part of using paypal/stripe/other payment processors.
old jay
You are correct, but it will be successfully argued that a commercial transaction has occurred
forest mural
there might be an additional concern, the van replicates the logo of the Australian Red Cross in part or in full, which is governed by a different set of laws, than the Red Cross symbol, and is registered as a protected trademark under Australian Law
brave knot
If the red cross emblem or similar signs are used for other purposes, no matter how beneficial or inconsequential they may seem, the special significance of the emblem will be diminished.
I could understand if you were selling that IP
but this kinda feels like they want to be the only snowflakes doing good
you've created a logo so deeply printed in people mind that it has become the universal symbol of health and medicine
and then you consider any other action than yours a diminishment of said purpose enen when its for a good reason
like seriously 🦆 off
wintry yoke
Have a chat with the Red Cross about it then.
dense field
Yea I find it ridiculous that it's not public domain or whatever it is for things are have been used throughout history and are part of pop culture
elfin coral
it's protected for good reason - the safety of people carrying out work under the flag,.
if anyone could freely use it there would be a lot more casualties in war zones.
dense field
As per this thread even that is protected
wintry yoke
I thought BI came up with it 😅
old jay
BI have partnered with the ICRC.
As a final wrap up on the topic, its PROHIBITED. End of Story.
brave knot
its not like laws are static, they could just stop people from impersonationg the red cross, and letting games do what could technically be considered a cameo
I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise @old jay
we're just venting off how stupid of an idea this is
old jay
Stupid or not, this isn't up for debate.
wintry yoke
Maybe you'll get a lot more out of it pointing your rant towards the ICRC.
Or at least get more context to their reasoning behind it. @brave knot 😉
old jay
Complain to them here: https://www.icrc.org/en
Not HERE.
brave knot
yeah wasnt going to push furthermore anyway
wintry yoke
Wouldn't want some delirious media to use ArmA 3 footage where the red cross is used on an assault vehicle to be presented as real footage 😉
brave knot
that'd be the media fault
dense field
remembers op where we used an ambulance as a VBIED 😏
brave knot
shhhh
we don't talk about that
old jay
@dark tulip As I stated earlier
As a final wrap up on the topic, its PROHIBITED. End of Story.
The red cross and red crescent emblems are protected symbols under international humanitarian law and national laws. Any use that is not expressly authorized by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols constitutes a misuse of the emblem. Use of these emblems by unauthorized persons is strictly forbidden. Please contact the ICRC for more information.```@dark tulip you can always contact them directly and ask for permission
old jay
!issuewarning @dark tulip From the rules, 2) Follow the instructions of the moderators
inland sphinx
@wild folio your life modpack contains illegal reuploads of tons of mods. Take it down immediately.
kka3, jbad, mondkalb, tfar, sfp, hafm and more
You have no right/permission to upload the stuff in your modpack. Its illegal
you cannot just take other peoples stuff and upload it to steam
what?
Yep then do that. But you cannot upload that to steam
also @toxic jolt doesn't permit you to upload his stuff anywhere without permission, so you have to get that afterall.
exactly
toxic jolt
Even worse
toxic jolt
Alitghty
toxic jolt
Thanks, I'll take care of it when I'm home
inland sphinx
!purgeban @wild folio 0 steam reuploads, multiple copyright violations
bright brambleBOT
*fires them railguns at @wild folio* Ò_Ó
inland sphinx
What a suprise... not.
And more from another guy from their server https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1890717907
can't find any stuff from one of our guys in there. Only life car stuff from the other rippers
inland sphinx
@steep fjord again. Both of the modpacks above. Remove them.
strange shadow
it only makes sense
ppls obsessed with cops and robbers gonna steal your stuff dedmen
steep fjord
Like I told him I was given the modpack are removing stuff from the modpack that I don't have permission to use
/reupload
inland sphinx
"Someone gave me this modpack so I just uploaded it to steam" yeah.
Now you know you cannot do that. And I told you to take it down. So please.
fiery egret
Hey, I just need to vent a bit. Because I was reading the Shadow Tactics game Discord and after seeing an opinion that one of the devs wrote, I... just felt sad when I thought about Arma.
[15:51]刀尺丹ム0れムム:well i don´t like to go and change things on a game, i respect your work, i only use mods if the game give to us a menu
[15:52]Mo - Head of Design:oh i think we would find it awesome if someone would change the guards or basicalyl ANYTHING. we would be totally fine with it. but i think its hard to do.
official mod support sadly isnt possible.
[15:53]Mo - Head of Design:the fact that someone would take the time to go through that, or even WANT to do it, shows so much respect for our work in the first place, that we would be filled with love 😄
So I felt sad and you know why? Because you know what I would have heard on THIS discord in the exact same situation?
I would be told that I:
- Will be breaking Steam's TOS (for analyzing the binary or the resulting save game)
- Will be breaking Arma's EULA (for analyzing the binary or the resulting save game)
- I will probably also break someone's copyrights somewhere (in case of a retexture)
- I should stop discussing the topic right now and this is my final warning, and if I continue I will get a ban. :(
Food for thought...
elfin coral
Given they don't support modding and Bohemia do, thats comparing apple to oranges.
elfin coral
1,2, and 3 are a given, nobody should be going around breaking licences and thinking it's ok to do so.
4, is a moderation policy, so more for those in that role to comment.
fiery egret
nobody should be going around breaking licences and thinking it's ok to do so
And yet the devs just said they "would be filled with love" if someone did so. Don't you think it's ironic?
Or maybe it's because they understand that the ones doing that in this case are not doing it to circumvent anything [like cracking the game to play without paying] or to cheat in the game to get an unfair advantage, yada yada yada... i.e. the things that you actually want to prevent by creating these (broad) rules.
Basically they are not soulless machines writing someone a ticket for jaywalking at 4am across an empty road
wintry yoke
Basically they are not soulless machines writing someone a ticket for jaywalking at 4am across an empty road
Are you trying to say that BI people are? Because then Imma say that's probably the worst comparison I've heard so far
And isn't Shadow Tactics a pure Singleplayer game? 🤔
fiery egret
I'm not aiming this at the game developers, actually. I'm aiming this at all the other people writing in this channel
wintry yoke
I'd compare it more to people calling the police because someone is jaywalking during rush hour
vivid musk
What, because they're not flattered people want to steal things they've made?
fiery egret
And I always thought that context was irrelevant? That the letter of the law is a thousand times more important than the spirit of said law, in this discord. Yet now the discussion shifted to discussing context, interestingly
wintry yoke
Can you elaborate that a bit?
fiery egret
Usual opinion on this discord: the TOS/EULA/rules say X. No exceptions!
I point out that I feel sad that I see that even the devs of a game can entice people to actually break those because of the goal (not cheating, hacking, stealing from people) and all of the sudden everyone is "but it's a single player game, it's an exception to the rule!", "they don't have modding implemented, it's an exception to the rule!"
abstract crest
The idea that Bohemia are somehow lesser because of their IP stance is to me ridiculous. They support moddimg, give us tools to do so, give us an ARMA 3 Samples Pack and all the Licensed Data Packs. Well beyond what other studios do
wintry yoke
all of the sudden everyone is "but it's a single player game, it's an exception to the rule!", "they don't have modding implemented, it's an exception to the rule!"
dude what?
1.) I didn't say that because that'd mean it's an exception to the rule. I just wanted to get the comparison to ArmA.
2.) It's just Gnashes and I that commented. Not everyone like you gladly state
abstract crest
They are even talking in the last SITREP about ARMA 3 LDPs.
fiery egret
I'm not aiming this at the game developers, actually
abstract crest
Ah, okay, I misunderstood your point then
vast stump
Its for BI developers/decision makers to say theyd love someone to do that, not the people here. We cant make that kind of promises and it would be irresponsible to encourage breaking rules BI has set.
fiery egret
Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to vent that there's more to it, usually.
And yes, cheating is bad, cracking is bad, stealing is bad.
abstract crest
Given that most of the rips have been done by people looking to make money off the work of people who cannot monetize their work however I do completely understand why the community hold the views that they do. And I share those views tbh
wintry yoke
@zealous ore just a question, is this the RHS MATV? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1972952903&searchtext=
bronze haven
Ya, at least comparing it by eye to what RHS has modeled
https://www.facebook.com/redhammerstudios/photos/a.585221418157522/2782501371762838/?type=3&theater
abstract crest
Hmm... and does not require RHS
sweet patio
wait is making reskins not allowed for the matv?
bronze haven
It's not a reskin if he's uploading the original model and other source assets in his mod, a rip at that point. Has anyone checked to see if it requires the RHS USAF mod to run? Maybe he just forgot to mark it as a requirement.
elfin coral
it's just a re-texture
sweet patio
ye just a retexture
contents of that pbo
https://i.imgur.com/d8HUsJf.png
the config.cpp is just adding a new matv based on the rhs configs, so i do not see the issue right now
elfin coral
anyways best wait for PuFu to reply as the question was aimed at him.
abstract crest
Does not require RHSUSAF though.... so not just a retexture if it is their model
elfin coral
there is no p3d in the pbo.
if they didnt set a dependency that is due to their own lack of understanding 🙂
abstract crest
Yeah... someone should tell him to include the dependency in the workshop (assuming allowed, which I think is tolerated by the RHS team but for them to comment as you said)
zealous ore
yeah, well, it is supposed to be a re texture
i will download and check it myself, but as it is, it is basically a reupload of rhs content
zealous ore
it was someone who didn't know how to make a re-texture, but ignorance is no excuse.
@wintry yoke cheers
zealous ore
@inland sphinx do press enter
inland sphinx
And yet the devs just said they "would be filled with love" if someone did so. Don't you think it's ironic?
Arma devs would be filled with love too if people make mods, Oh look! We got official mod support and steam workshop.
I don't see the problem?
Or maybe it's because they understand that the ones doing that in this case are not doing it to circumvent anything
Well I guess you would be surprised that BI understands that too. But there's a difference between doing something good for the game, and openly announcing that you will now break the EULA/TOS/Copyright and hack the game (violating #rules).
Of course the latter will get punished, we have to, talk about that violates the rules, and we cannot permit people potentially legitimizing violating them, that makes them worthless.
Heck I even talked to Joris and BI legal team about my mods. But my brain is still sensible enough that I don't go around and announce that I will now try to hack the game and violate the EULA, and more than sensible enough that I don't just go and steal other peoples stuff.
Because you like my metaphors.
Our #rules about things, versus a employee toilet in a department store.
employee toilet is exclusively for employees, noone else permitted in there.
Friend of employee, sure go ahead and use the toilet.
Woman in need, sure go ahead and use the toilet.
"Can I use the toilet?" "No you can't, that violates our rules, we'll throw you out if you try to"
If you wanna know why people are so uptight about their copyright, just literally look above.
Guy takes stuff from RHS (even if just textures) gives no credit and even says
glad you like it spread it around im tryin be famous
as if he made it himself.
People are uptight about their copyright because the majority of people does pure dog droppings, and missuses your trust the millisecond you say "yes you are allowed to take my things", heck they even do if you say "no you are not allowed to"
strange shadow
FTR personally I've received nothing but love from BI devs
inland sphinx
Same, all I've been told is to be careful, they cannot allow you to make it look like the EULA doesn't matter. If you do make it seem like that, the big hammer comes crushing down hard.
strange shadow
it really isn't that hard to understand.. if you didn't make it.. it isn't yours
inland sphinx
If you tell a customer that sure he can use the employee toilet, and if others see it, the next customer will ask too. And at some point every customer will just go without asking and not care about the rule.
That is why, zero tolerance policy on these kinds of rule violations. Its forbidden, for good reason, so yes you get banned if you try to violate the rule, get over it.
old jay
@fiery egret I'll take the bait and say it was directed at people like me or even me.
Here's my .02:
-The **opinion ** given by that game dev, was just that, an opinion, one that (in that particular text) wasn't supported by their legal department.
-The rules are the rules are the rules. I can't change that and its what I must adhere to.
I'll make an assumption based on your username that you just might know more than the average computer user. As such, I think you might be familiar with a term called:
Responsible Disclosure. For those that don't know what it is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_disclosure
I'm going to use it in a slightly different sense. Lets say you've found found a way to fix some major game breaking bug or security issue. The responsible thing to do would be to contact BI and let them know. I'm sure they would "be filled with love", but on the other hand, they might be filled with a C&D with your name on it as well.
My point is that I have seen very few people (less than the number of fingers on my hand) operate in such an altruistic manner.
The first thing that most do when they find something or alter the game illegally is go public (Youtube, stream, Reddit or Discord posts)
In fact, I do believe a certain someone managed to fix a long standing issue with Arma last month or so when they pointed out to BI "Hey, I can fix that"
inland sphinx
Also Shadow Tactics is not really a good comparison.
You take the statement of a developer, who didn't have the possibility to allow modding, so they probably also didn't look at the legal aspect of it.
Also that doesn't mean that the publisher is fine with it.
Also they generally are more open with their game, they even have a DRM free version on GOG.
Its about 10x smaller than Arma based on player count.
Their company has a full 19!!!! employees, thats a completely different mentality. BI needs to take care of 400+ people, that simply doesn't work with "do what you want" rules.
BI on the other hand has been doing modding for... 15+ years now, they know the ups and downs, the legalities.
They have a big playerbase and brand to handle. They already have modding support, where they expose everything they want to expose.
They also have a trademark and know how/why they have to protect it.
There are many people at BI that have the same opinion as these devs, but they also know the limitations and that their opinion on that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
And as you're complaining about specifically the moderators here handle that situation, we get the rules from above, BI spokespeople and legal team dictate what is allowed and whats not, and our job is to honor their decisions even if we don't like them.
In fact, I do believe a certain someone managed to fix a long standing issue with Arma last month or so when they pointed out to BI "Hey, I can fix that"
multiple in fact, by multiple people, but some of these had to be told "no, BI is not how you think, they do care, and yes they do appreciate your effort" a day later the issue was brought forward in the correct way, and fixed two days after that.
But.. If that specific guy there, talked about his issue here on the discord, he would've been instantly banned, because it very clearly violates the rules, and cannot be permitted to be talked about here. Same on BIF or any other BI platform.
zealous ore
💯
he is also beaching about mod creators, not just moderators btw
inland sphinx
Well is it the mod creators fault when he gets fed up with people constantly taking his stuff and taking credit for it.
Other people getting fame for the stuff you made, only stuff you get are bug reports because people use their outdated version, or even getting attacked for copying the other guys stuff, because he said he made it means you cannot have made it too right?
At some point you just feel like a unpaid artist sitting in some dark backroom in a art store, where the guy at the storefront just says he made it, and gets all the money for it.
Slave life perfect life! Such stuff certainly makes you so happy that you will try to create ever better art in the future and again get nothing for it.
And if you in turn try to forbid it, to be able to keep your sanity and keep doing what you like and also feel good about it, you instead get attacked for "why you not let people take ur stuff?" and then people take it anyway because you not wanting them to is selfish and you should feel bad for that.
shell scaffold
I actually love how the people of #other_ip_topics helped me in regards to a guy that was using my content without permission. While that statement might not be in the nature of what I'm supposed to write in this channel, there it is regardless.
winter perch
mans been porting lots of stuff to arma, models he hasn't made
not sure if it's bad or not so just 🤔
vast stump
its like a trend that most of these guys have a vac ban from 200-300 days ago.
elfin coral
I reported that guy for porting Dayz stuff into Arma 3. You should let the Tarkov people know he is ripping their content.
obsidian verge
I've contacted a mod in the eft discord, he will redirect it to the devs
winter perch
good stuff, i appreciate it
shell scaffold
What's the legality of decrypting a PBO that has stolen content even if you own the stolen content?
obsidian cypress
PBOs are not encrypted. EBOs are but then Bohemia will take care of that. Maybe you're talking about Obfuscated PBO
inland sphinx
you can unpack pbo's all you want, never seen a license that forbids that
you often cannot share/edit whats inside though
shell scaffold
Ah
obsidian cypress
And if it's an ebo, you should still be able to see the content from the function/config viewer
inland sphinx
Yeah you cannot unpack ebo's, and should you try to its a EULA violation
But ingame functions viewer is not limited, though again, sharing/editing different story than unpacking/looking at
shell scaffold
What would happen if you make a mod and convert it to an EBO?
inland sphinx
You can't
shell scaffold
As in it's not possible or it's against something?
obsidian cypress
And against something if you ever do
inland sphinx
And yes... its a BI proprietary format that you're not allowed to use
shell scaffold
Didn't there used to be tools to decrypt Bi's VBS 1-2 PBOs or something like that though?
shell scaffold
vast stump
VBS is not Bohemia Interactives product. Its made by Bohemia Interactive Simulations.
old jay
The answer you seek is a combination of:
No!
No you can't!
No you can't because its illegal !
No you can't because its illegal and you will find yourself banned for doing so!
shell scaffold
Horriblegoat they (used to at least) use the same file formats which is what I was talking about
dense field
Think your still missing the phrasing .pbo (packaged/processed?? bohemia object) & .ebo (encrypted bohemia object), the former of which doesn't need to be "decrypted" to be opened.
If someone has stolen your work and hidden it inside an .ebo then contact BI legal and they will bring the legal 🔨 ⬇️
@shell scaffold
shell scaffold
I am asking theoretically that hasn't happened
dense field
Well my second paragraph is your answer, afaik using tools that might be out there to look at said content to check if your own work is in there would still be illigal/breach of TOS, and the fact that a person is using an .ebo to package their content means you should just report to BI anyway as they will be able to do way more damage than your DMCA if you found your content in there.
If its an obfuscated .pbo then its a different story and BI wont get involved its up to you, to work out how to check if your contents in there.
strange shadow
BI just says stop using ebo
they don't give two cares if someone stole your stuff
dense field
If they don't take it down, they will take legal measures though, either way your stuff gets taken down, obviously they might just put it up again in pbo form
chrome plinth
first, EBO isn't stopping anyone from stealing your stuff, it just add one more step the offender needs to go around
second, using custom EBO leads to problems, it may cease to work when we update stuff
third, it's used by IP thieves to actually hide the real stolen stuff
generally if i come across workshop item with EBO, it's either instant ban or incompatible flag
gray raven
EBOs are 100% not secure in any way
lyric crow
this is from RHS rite? I think the person who upload is not owner of it can anyone confirm ? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1979216367
obsidian verge
That's a scenario for rhspkl not the map @lyric crow
lyric crow
ah okay sry did not kno
half panther
You can download the Source Models from BI and edit them.
fervent bluff
ok that was what i was asking
wet gate
Is there something wrong with the workshop crawler?
willow crane
Must be - im not getting anything on either the API or SQI links
patent copper
I'm currently packing up the data to move it to a new server, so the database is disabled right now
I'll notify you once it's running again
willow crane
Thanks
patent copper
it's back up, but expect 1-3 hours for recent stuff to show up
dark tulip
Must love the "law abiding citizens" on Steam Workshop:
BTF MODPACK - I DO NOT OWN ANY OF THESE MODS
DISCLAIMER:
this mod pack is unmonetized, we are not making any money of of this.
we do not own any of the mods that come with this neither are we using it to gain out of it, this is purely private use.
as stated in the law article 17, section 107 we are completely allowed to use these mods for own, private use.
we will not be afraid to use legal force if necessary.
thank you, and have a nice day
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1981207432
Although they forgot Copyright laws and EULA's...
turbid meadow
obsidian cypress
article 17, section 107
Ahh yes, the good old fair use...
turbid meadow
Tbh I was hoping for the articles of confederation
dark tulip
... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright
I doubt they use it for teaching or research 🤔
obsidian cypress
Also
we are completely allowed to use these mods for own, private use.
Proceeds to post ont the workshop and list it publicly
dark tulip
we will not be afraid to use legal force if necessary.
I almost want them to try to take my content 😈
But I'm sure that Dedmen wants to try it out, since TFAR is included in one of his mods 😉
turbid meadow
Legal force sounds like they're gonna send everyone they get a dmca from a bomb packaged inside a physical copyright law book @dark tulip
willow crane
Love the fact that people have literally no clue what fair use actually means
Not finished yet but - have a read and let me know if you want anything clarified
strange shadow
fair use means whatever you make is fair for me to do whatever with.. incl sell !
specially what rock makes.. i own it
:)
how else can i make money on my life server?
willow crane
LMAO - Be careful @strange shadow Sarcasm doesnt translate well 😛
one day someone will take you seriously 😉
willow crane
"Fair-Use" in this case is BS. Not to mention that the re-uploader commits Perjury/Fraud (Illegally making a false claim in a legal contract), Is in breach of the Steam agreement and is committing IP Infringement all by uploading content they dont actually have rights to.
strange shadow
just like lifers... take first ask no questions and then threaten to dox you if dmca
oh i thought i made this
then why tag it blud?
uh blud sold it to us
no i didnt
so done with making mods
dark tulip
sends legal team to bludclot to force him/her/it to continue making content for the Arma series
dark tulip
never presume gender on the internet 😉
strange shadow
the blud doesn't care about such things
willow crane
@strange shadow is a omnipotent pan dimensional super being and not interested in the affairs of mere mankind (I'm assuming species not gender) unless of course they infringe or steal his sh@t.
wintry yoke
@willow crane that blogspot post got Fair-Use right or not?
wintry yoke
rgr rgr, might want to post it on that steam workshop item then 😛
willow crane
im waiting to see what his reply is. I want to use it as an example on the blog
wintry yoke
hm, mind if I do it on his other items?
inland sphinx
Crawler doesn't have either of his uploads.
But.. I'd say the "Terrains" and "ww2" packs also deserve a look
wintry yoke
I think IFA devs would be interested in his WW2 pack
inland sphinx
If it contains IFA..
Crawler doesn't have it, I'm blind
wintry yoke
kill me, the three packs are 17GB together
inland sphinx
kills
wintry yoke
thanks ❤️
strange shadow
let it be known, dont need to ask dedmen twice when it comes to having someone killed
wintry yoke
is the uploader on this discord by any chance?
silver juniper
WW2 contains IFA, 7y and IFALIB.
patent copper
@inland sphinx it will have them soon if they are still up, currently copying the folder
inland sphinx
@dull spear i guess? IFA?
WW2 contains IFA, 7y and IFALIB.
silver juniper
I ran it on the crawler earlier, and it came up with them. Now it doesnt register on the crawler for me 🤔
inland sphinx
Iran did it!
silver juniper
Haha
dark tulip
I had the Utility version downloaded and it noticed it contained CBA, ACE and TFAR 0.9 (and several other mods), so I doubt it contains anything "legal"
wintry yoke
look at that, utility has TFAR
@inland sphinx
@zealous ore The Terrains one contains that new RHS terrain.
@lean plover CUP Terrains in the same mod.
here's the full file list
WW2 (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1981323877): https://pastebin.com/pHLXadTw
Utility (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1981207432): https://pastebin.com/VpAWjAA7
Terrains (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1981245846): https://pastebin.com/SUVuJzq2
you'll probably see a 1files.bat and FilesDirectoryList.txt in there, but that's just how I exported all file names 😄
dir /b /s >>FilesDirectoryList.txt```actually @strange shadow isn't that also your terrain? 🤔 (RHS PKL)
cursive sedge
sha hashes are part of the item manifest
wintry yoke
the workshop one? I already deleted the mods :/
cursive sedge
the manifests can be fetched from steam cdn
inland sphinx
I'll just wait for crawly boi
strange shadow
dronestrikes... we need the capability
velvet obsidian
for suspect in suspect_list:
if mod in crawly_boi is Stolen:
dronestrike(suspect)
else:
suspect = None
alpha script of dronestrike, plz no steal license
brave knot
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1982422683
hey there are no signs that say "dont steal" so it must be ok right?
[the guy removed it and apologized after a discussion]
wintry yoke
was the DMCA on BTF Utility revoked? 🤔
zealous ore
@wintry yoke cheers, but please use #ip_rights_violations, not this channel, which is for any other IP related discussion but Arma's
:))
wintry yoke
oh right, I thought it was still only BI's IP violation there
it used to be in the channel description D:
zealous ore
i did asked dwarden about it
wintry yoke
alright, marvelous
elfin coral
they all gone now
terse tiger
I must say I think the stuff in the #ip_rights_violations channel is quite interesting, read it every morning on my commute 😛
shell scaffold
I stumbled across this gem
old jay
Not appropriate, removed.
shell scaffold
That mod changes UI, lighting, and I'm pretty sure its a modpack with a bunch of different mods in it (because it has "pack" in the name, didn't download and inspect it though)
wintry glade
So I have a question regarding IP rights and modding. I've been looking into 3CB BAF Javelin and by extension base game Titan AT launcher being ineffective against RHS tanks.
In my attempts to fix the issue so far the best solution was to replace the penetrators with RHS's own penetrator via small patch, let's say a "compat" mod.
The missiles now work as expected.
My questions:
- Can I publish a patch mod with line
submunitionAmmo = "[RHS CLASS NAME]";? - Can I publish a patch mod where I override 3CB's Javelin class with same content as above?
I did not copy the RHS class into my "own", I just made name reference to it, therefore the mod would require RHS USAF and AFRF to be loaded. Same for 3CB Javelin, the mod would require the 3CB Weapons mod to be loaded.
turbid meadow
I recommend taking a look at the licenses of both those mods @wintry glade
wintry glade
That's the thing, rhs says no derivatives, but I'm not sure if this is derivative work.
strange shadow
as long as you don't take anything from the mods it is ok
it's not
there are lots of mods that do similar things
wintry glade
So just referencing a class name should be ok. Ripping that class would be obviously not ok.
strange shadow
yes
wintry glade
Ok, thanks.
strange shadow
derivative would be taking something from it and modifying, as in creating your own version of the mod or anything in it
wintry glade
Yeah, I had a feeling it should be fine, but at the same time thought I might as well rather ask first.
strange shadow
that's the best practice 🙂
old jay
Always best to go direct to the source and clarify with RHS, not "arma peeps" in general
wintry glade
Was kinda hoping that someone affiliated with RHS would respond here, not sure if there are better private channels for this.
vast stump
some RHS peeps frequent here too. Might just be a middle of the night for them right now.
strange shadow
afaik we never got mad at anyone doing this before 😉
zealous ore
@wintry glade
yes, that is ok
bronze haven
Anyone else take issue with Armaholic seemingly automatically mirroring the Steam workshop's Arma content?
It seems after some threshold of subscribers/views/upvotes they put up a page that copies the images and text from the workshop page. It wouldn't bother me all that much except they're also hosting the mod files for download, not just linking back to the workshop page. That and they have a subscriber system, so they're making some amount off this.
I recently found that all the mods I've released that have made it to the front page are on the Armaholic site. I didn't even have an Armaholic account until the other day when I made one just to contact the site owner, Foxhound, through their PM system. I sent a short message to Foxhound about the situation and never got any reply. It does seem though that they removed the download option off of their site pages I linked him for my content that they were host without my consent.
obsidian cypress
Yeah, Armaholic just reuploads everything, or not the first one to excperience that 😕
strange shadow
you can tell them to take it down
and then they will only link to it
expect the guy to act like an entitled #¤%#¤ about it though
i'm also annoyed they make it look like you "submitted" it
ahohlic is for people who pirated the game
i keep getting ppls messaging me: please put on aholic, u gonna put on aholic? need on aholic
then i ask why can't you use steam and they don't answer
bronze haven
Currently that's what they've done after I messaged them, just leave the page with the workshop link and no download link. They still have my text and images though. Do they have a server provider, or do they running their own servers?
obsidian cypress
And once they have your mod on their site, they won't bother updating it; mine has still the old licence and description
obsidian cypress
They have a host provider iirc but I a country where it is quite hard to take down (like Switzerland for exapmle)
strange shadow
his forum sign says : use aholic cause steam is full of stolen shhit
aholic is full of stuff ripped form other games and mods with stolen stuff in
obsidian cypress
How ironic xD
bronze haven
Scummy, especially since they're making money off of all of it. Has no one ever move to take legal action?
strange shadow
that costs money
bronze haven
It's true. I would think though with them ripping so many peoples' stuff someone would start a class action, or BI would take action on their communities behalf.
strange shadow
bi doesn't care
abstract crest
Don't disagree with much above... but some mods are only available on Armaholic cause some mod devs won't release on Steam
That said, the only mods on there should be ones that have been uploaded or are APL-SA or ADPL-SA or equivalents
fiery condor
I remember when Steam workshop first opened, and it was a massive talk on the forums about how valve is taking away rights and such.
winter perch
oh goody we're talking about Armaholic, I can finally complain about them to the greater arma community
like it was just a straight reupload without anyone asking permission or anything, it was literally as if it were mirrored onto Armaholic, which was basically the intent
but the way I see it? Armaholic is a vastly inferior way of content/mod delivery
if you download a 1gb mod from Armaholic, and it gets updated with new features... you basically have to redownload that entire 1gb mod. lots of web browsers (namely chrome in my experience) sometimes won't even use your full download speed, and if you're out in the woods like I am, it can take a while for even something like 5gb to download
strange shadow
oh but aholic is vital if you pirated the game
winter perch
that was my main reasoning for why I didn't want my mods on Armaholic, but Foxhound in a string of emails told me "nah, we get our mods from PWS. If you have an issue with us mirroring from PWS, talk to them"
strange shadow
pws?
winter perch
so it deflected the entire issue onto someone else, which kind of figured itself out because PWS shut down, but the matter remained of someone reuploading my content, so I gave in and said "okay so let me just upload my own content here instead of it being mirrored" and he's like "sure okay! :D" and I just never went to Armaholic again lmao
Play With Six, it used to be a fairly popular alternative to the workshop I think? I never personally used it but it did also reupload from Workshop from what I infer
strange shadow
o hplaywith sixyearold UIdesigners and ui that displays ads better than anything else
rrighth
abstract crest
So who will step up and host non-Steam legitimate mods then... modDB is just as bad if not worse
strange shadow
for me it is simple. I'm not allowed to make money from my mods
it's not cool that anyone else does
winter perch
personally for me, I have no idea why anyone would go out of their way to reupload my mods to something that's just... by nature, inferior to the existing method of getting those mods
abstract crest
Neither did Robert Hammer. But where else can you download his pistols from?
winter perch
I can't see any benefit whatsoever of using Armaholic, but I recognize that way back in the Arma 2/Arma 1 days, it was basically the big source of mods
abstract crest
Or all the other legit mods from modders who won't upload to Steam?
winter perch
why wouldn't you though, lmao
strange shadow
there's a huge benefit to armaholic, if you rip content and get it taken down from steam or pirated the game so you can't get teh mods frrom steam
abstract crest
Ask the modders? Another example (hopefully will be on Steam soon) ... PSZ Mod
fiery condor
Steam made getting mods a very streamlined and easy process at the cost of security.
fiery condor
Back when Armaholic wasn't just a toxic drama fest. It was a lot easier to police that.
IE if some one wanted to upload your mod again, some flag would come up like....we already have this mod up?
abstract crest
The original reason for people not uploading to Steam was the signing away of your rights
strange shadow
whhich you aern't doing
you just give thhem the rgith to distr it on their platfom
winter perch
^
fiery condor
Yep, but a ton of modders didn't see it that way.
abstract crest
Yes but that was misunderstood
winter perch
also yeah, I can see the appeal of that system, where it flags reuploads
winter perch
it's a constant plague with the workshop where John Life Modder will just toss your mods into a huge compilation without concern
strange shadow
i hope bi makes their own mod distribution system for the next arma. outside steam, with moderation and duplicate control
and keys tied to that
abstract crest
Won't happen
winter perch
I feel like that'd be a step backward tbh
fiery condor
Too me, I look at other modding communities, and to be frank. BI has done more legal work for us then most other devs.
winter perch
Workshop is integrated into the same method of delivery for Arma itself, any updates for Arma are automatically delivered to the game because of Steam, and Steam is the biggest source of revenue for Arma, you'd essentially be remaking an entire system when there's one existing already
fiery condor
Ylands started on PC
winter perch
precisely
strange shadow
and credit where it is due.. it is a pleasure to submit mods via bi publisher app
abstract crest
Well. If BI do that then they better add versioning. I'd by into that
winter perch
it'd be like how Bethesda created the in game mods menu for Fallout 4 and Skyrim Remastered, it's easy integration into the game, and it's policed a ton but it's very strict on what you can upload (case in point, PS4 mods that don't allow scripts or things like that)
that's what I feel like a BI made mod publishing framework could be akin to, not necessarily the same or anything of course
strange shadow
bethesda is dead to me.. installing mods on my pc that i have to pay to use.. amongst other rthings
winter perch
god yeah
abstract crest
👆
strange shadow
what's wrong with cdlc?
winter perch
oh if you read that reddit link I sent earlier, there's a big stint in it about how Armaholic was trying to adapt to NexusMods and how they failed
strange shadow
you too cheap to give makers what they deserve forr their thousands of hours of work?
fiery condor
Noooo, more like as a example of bethesda paid mods.
winter perch
now I'll play devils advocate and say, that was the idea behind paid mods on the workshop
abstract crest
Well. The one we got was gonna be a free mod on Steam six months before we had to pay for it...
fiery condor
The idea of paid mods will always be a gray huge debate.
strange shadow
so what?
winter perch
yeah, I agree
strange shadow
you're not entitled to anything
and them doing it as dlc gives them resources to make it much better than it would have been
winter perch
yup
abstract crest
So why can't mod makers charge for their mods then?
strange shadow
that's another issue
winter perch
didn't the YueMod guy do that or whatever
strange shadow
wish we could
strange shadow
if i sold my maps in steam for 50c per download, i could afford software licenses
abstract crest
Why can't CUP and RHS have subscriptions? Same issue
fiery condor
When I look at GM, I honestly regret buying it first release. The campaign was almost unplayable, there was tons of issues. It was not a pretty first launch of CDLC platform.
strange shadow
and not be at loss by default for modding
fiery condor
Now that it got improved, it's much more worth the money.
But yea, the issues they had? As a mod I would of been like meh.
winter perch
the fact that its paid is a huge bottleneck though unfortunately, I see very little groups that actually use GM
GM personally, even on release, was a very good mod in my opinion, but with anything, it had its faults here and there
the range of customization for vehicles in the editor was just a huge plus, still is of course lmao
but I feel like it's very underrated because of its price, I could see it being about half as popular as RHS or CUP had it been free
but it's basically a black sheep now, but that's not to say nobody uses it, I'm just arguing that because of its price, nobody uses it enough, which sucks because the quality is very high, in some places even on-par with RHS, considering the work was done by a team of three, which later dropped to two
fiery condor
RHS would been a fine example of CDLC but that would of forced them to use vanilla damage systems 😛
fiery condor
But yea, think were getting off track for this channel. Where were we?
winter perch
somethingsomething Armaholic bad
abstract crest
Actually the quality of GM was no where near CUP or RHS... Vic interiors being an example
winter perch
idk, I thought it had really good interiors?
fiery condor
I would check that again, they done comparisons...
fiery condor
But yea, from a company position. BI honestly probably looks at the mod copyright issue, and is like "Is money being lost? nope"
Matter of fact the whole 4monetization thing was due to money getting involved aka life servers.
winter perch
yeah that album has me convinced GM has really high quality stuff tbh
winter perch
even compared to RHS, but you gotta consider that GM's stuff was done from the ground up and not using ports or anything like CUP and in some instances RHS
that M113 interior tho.... 😩
winter perch
yup
GM definitely deserves praise based on that alone, for how much has been put into it
fiery condor
For sure in the #creator_dlc_discussion channel >.<
winter perch
but don't let any of this confuse you, RHS, CUP, GM, there's lots of love put into each of those by those respective teams
strange shadow
and rhs is two decadse of stuff
fiery condor
I think at some point Steam will have to put out better control by devs.
vast stump
theres no money in that
fiery condor
There will be at some point. It's not like making models in the Gmod days. As games get more complex modding takes more time.
You know how fast I can crank out a model for Warcraft 3 vs Arma 3? 😛
Also the IP use by streamers is slowly becoming a bigger topic as well.
abstract crest
We will continue to hope that as we say every couple of months and neither Value nor BIS will do anything
fiery condor
BIS can't do anymore as far as I'm aware. US copyright law is for the owner of the content to enforce.
They can gripe to valve for better controls, flag some mods. But it really does boil down to how much you want to fight for your IP
abstract crest
Yep. And Valve will only do what they are legally required to do. Otherwise the Garrys Mod workshop would be nuked from orbit 🙃
fiery condor
Right?, Although GamesWorkshop did a big sweep of it and cleaned out the 40k stuff.
Been slowly creeping back though.
Anybody remember a certain game that was pretty moddable. But you had to get mods whitelisted by the devs?
Oh wait, it's Killingfloor 2.
To keep people from creating "leveling farms" they created a white list for approved maps to track stats. Maybe something BI could do in the future.
inland sphinx
Anyone else take issue with Armaholic seemingly automatically mirroring the Steam workshop's Arma content?
At first it was withSix who just took stuff and uploaded it, and Armaholic then just copied theirs.
withSix even made up TFAR version 0.9.13, and now Armaholic has it too, even though that version never has, and never will exist.
So far I haven't seen my mods (that have a explicit "uploading to armaholic not permitted) appear on there.
lots of web browsers (namely chrome in my experience) sometimes won't even use your full download speed
Armaholic limits your speed from their side.
but about a year or two ago, it shut down
Yeah.. And uploaded all their mods, without permission, to moddb. GG.
@strange shadow what for you speaks against a one time popup on game start in Arma main menu "Hey, Thanks for using my mod I put alot of my free time into it and have to pay alot for software licenses, it would be cool if you could support me, every tiny bit helps: patreon link"
strange shadow
i can count on my fingers the people who have donated to my projects
and patreon is not an option from my country
inland sphinx
Yes I know you can count.
But maybe if you make them more aware of it... Doesn't have to be patreon (I found paypal moneypool's recently, looks interesting)
winter perch
@inland sphinx Chrome never uses my full download speed for some reason, which is mainly what I meant, but that + Armaholic having a download cap + my already slow internet is a recipe for disaster lmao
midnight moon
Even the russian map ? 😭
willow crane
The original reason for people not uploading to Steam was the signing away of your rights
bludclotToday at 05:06
whhich you aern't doing
you just give thhem the rgith to distr it on their platfom``` Originally the Steam Agreement was worded in a very open way that would allow Valve to do anything they wanted. After some push back they changed the Agreement to make it a bit clearer. I ran it past my lawyer (I ran a 3d content creation business at the time) and he wasn't impressed. Later on Valve changed the licence again to the one we have now. With all the clarifications added. This is the original debate if you are interested - https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/169981-legal-discussion-regarding-steam-workshop/The new changes to the EULA explaining how Valve would use the rights is the only reason I would ever use the Workshop
zealous ore
:))
obsidian cypress
No links without description and probably not thr right channel 😉
plucky moss
obsidian cypress
#other_games_chat I'd guess
winter perch
I know it's got nothing to do with arma but it's still IP related; a few years ago, there was a huge stint over Redbubble (a popular custom merch selling store) basically having the rights to steal your content that you made
like, if you're uninitiated, Redbubble can sell scarves, coffee cups, shirts, etc, with your custom design on it, all that
their EULA or whichever basically stated, in paraphrase; "We have the rights to do whatever we want with your creations, as soon as you upload them here"
and that sounds very threatening, but without that clause, there's literally no way they'd legally be able to redistribute your custom designs on a mug or a shirt or something, because by law, they'd be distributing someone else's work without permission, so in the EULA exists that disclaimer
I'd imagine it was the same thing back when the Workshop argument happened, and besides, what's Valve going to do with your ten minute config edit?
I'll budge and say Valve worded it wrongly, because likely they felt like your average joe wasn't gonna read it, but my guess is, the situation is similar, you're basically signing permission for Valve to redistribute or manipulate your work, but this is so it can be uploaded/downloaded on the Workshop automatically by way of Steam, and to fix that delivery system if anything goes wrong
it's literally an ancient argument though so it don't matter what opinion I have lmao
it's moot bc it's all good now
elfin coral
some printing company that assumes all rights over your IP when you upload it to them rather than having you sign some sort of distribution agreement is worth steering well clear of.
strange shadow
facebok probably still does that with your pics
wintry yoke
People still use Facebok?
strange shadow
wouldn't know :3
abstract crest
What do you mean "still"?
dark tulip
My mod is also on there (without me knowing it), although they don't mirror the download... Just taking away traffic from the real source
shell scaffold
You can request they remove it, they still keep the page up but link to the direct download.
A good reason to do that is due to the additional restrictions they place on the download with their own terms of use, that almost certainly don't match with that of your chosen license.
obsidian cypress
Can't you get ownership of the page and then delete it?
cursive sedge
replace the file with a windows link to the steam workshop website 
obsidian cypress
One could also make a DLL to check if the mod was downloaded from the Workshop (and maybe GitHub) but that seems like doing way too much and higly inneficient 😄
dark tulip
I was actually thinking about something like that; checking if the pbo's are inside a specific folder (workshop ID), and if not place a UI element with "you are playing with stolen content".
This will at least prevent repacking of pbo's.
abstract crest
As long as you don't not block a dedi server with the mod in a non-workshop folder... 🤷
cursive sedge
Mods loaded from Workshop on clients will show the symlink as source when checked with config source calls
dense field
Kinda 💩 y thing to do to people that use a3s or similar for distribution to their communities
dark tulip
IMHO isn't their any reason anymore to use something else than Steam Workshop, unless you want to bypass something...
And yes, I understand the "we want to keep the server and clients all at the same version and update whenever we want", but it simply gives more issues than solutions.
wintry yoke
people that use a3s or similar for distribution to their communities that's not the author's problem though 😛
dense field
It really doesn't, maybe for the people who re-up on the workshop, but 99% of communities using private distro are competent enough to troubleshoot in-house and follow the mods so they know when stuff updates. They just want to not have it update and break stuff on op day.
Using your logic theirs no problem with Win10 auto updates which their obviously is, mod authors release broken updates almost as much as windows does, so they just want the ability to test it before deployment or wait a few days for issues to be found by others.
wintry yoke
Maybe nag Steam about having version control for clients then?
if author says only source may be steam, why do you insist on using repos
cursive sedge
that would be very annoying if you play on servers using different versions
dense field
The argument that no one needs private distro for version control would only be valid if no mod in history or future released with bugs/problems/conflicts. Which obviously won't ever happen
wintry yoke
well yes
but it's the same with repos @cursive sedge
I have 3 or more copies of RHS just because some units refuse to use the workshop for the reasons mentioned
cursive sedge
but now they (would) use the updated workshop version 😉
wintry yoke
so I still have 3 or more copies of the same mod and the same version
dense field
then just delete 2 of them and point your other to repos at the other one
wintry yoke
until one updates and the others don't
dense field
Anyone that's onboard with stopping people from having version control for mods, must also be onboard with Win10 forced auto updates, even when it's during the middle of your work day, and I guarantee their not 😏
wintry yoke
you consider arma work then?
I don't think people are entitled to version control over something they don't own nor paid for
dense field
It's the same principle
old jay
@dense field Even when it's during the middle of your work day, If that's the case your server admins need firing 😂
We dont roll out W10 updates until they've gone through test and qual first.
but I digress
dense field
I never said anything about servers, personal computers.
Personally I've had Win10 do an update during the middle of an exam at uni
old jay
Ahh, you said "work day" so i figured you were "at work" 😉
dense field
I know people that have lost work and clients because of Win10 updates though
My point is taking away version control is dumb no matter the context or situation
cursive sedge
if your work place uses Windows they should also use WSUS / SCCM
and be in control of updates
steam workshop has versions as well
there's just no UI for it
and the public APIs are not easy to use
inland sphinx
I use my own repo because I have mods that cannot go to the workshop.
And combining workshop mods with non-workshop mods would just be way to much effort.
We even have serverside auto updating for rhs/cup, and we use the same foldernames.
So its compatible with the workshop stuff so people don't need to have the mod twice
cursive sedge
^ this
cold harbor
If someone buys a model on turbosquid and you do the work putting it in-game who owns the content?
cold harbor
So the person who purchased the model has no IP right to it?
lean plover
nope
the person who bought the model just bought the rights to use it as what the license allows
let me guess... somebody bought a model and you did the work to get it in game. but something went wrong between you both?
@cold harbor
cold harbor
Yeah haha.
And now they are saying they own the model and I can't use it.
cold harbor
Nope it was all verbal.
I said if they purchased the model I'd put it in-game
Ownership was never discussed
lean plover
too bad...
in this case, nobody can use that stuff in game...
they own the right to use the original purchased model, but you own the right to your necessary modification to have it working in game (additional model work, configs).
this means, they can not use it unless you give permission for your additional work, and you can't use it without permission for the original model
¯_(ツ)_/¯
cold harbor
Yeah I figured as much
But if I purchased the model from turbosquid I would have the right to use it?
lean plover
depends on the license of that particular model, but yes
keep the bill ofc. if it comes to a dispute, you have the bill and the original work (raw data) as proof
vast stump
Assuming the original model was not stolen from somewhere. Also if you got paid to work with ArmaTools you broke the EULA of the tools as they are non commercial.
Slippery slope that one.
cold harbor
@vast stump
Can you sell stolen models on turbosquid?
I didn't get paid to do the work
My plan was to release it on the workshop but the guy who brought the model only wants it for his server
turbid meadow
Can you sell stolen models on turbosquid?
you theoretically can, but its strongly advised not to
willow crane
If the real owner find out about it and reports it TurboSquid will remove it
I've done it on more than a few occasions.
Ooo and i should also point out that the Uploader is also committing Fraud by false representation (criminal offense claiming to be the original author when they are not) and breaking the contract terms with Turbosquid. So they get their account removed too.
shell scaffold
Are modpacks with outdated PBos allowed to be uploaded to steam workshop? (with respective Consent from mod authors)
vast stump
using outdated pbos is already a bad idea
shell scaffold
I wanted to make a modpack that i know is stable
so it wont cause issues with people
not being able to join because the servers on a diffrent version of the mods from players because a mod author pushed out an update
lean plover
never do that
shell scaffold
I wanted to make one for warlords, as people join at different times throughout the day, and restarting the server mid match seems obtuse
lean plover
this causes more trouble on the long run than you want to eliminate
most mod creators give out warnings when an update rolls out so server admins can prepare
never create "modpacks"
you force your playerbase to often download mods twice (legacy and updated versions)
some players even run both at the same time and make their game go boom
shell scaffold
Yeah that does seem bad 🤪
lean plover
people that are not aware that they are running outdated mod versions tend to report bugs taht are fixed a long time ago, wasting time on the devs and also the players in the end
shell scaffold
Fundamentally you can't do this via the workshop. Communities that manage versions themselves (like they have mods of their own that depend on these mods) use Swifty instead. Version control on the Steam workshop is basically impossible without the authors making a new mod for the version with every release, which very few do.
brave knot
why is activision so fed up on the leakers? its not like they can make people forget about it?
also leaks are kinda a part of the industry
fiery egret
its not like they can make people forget about it?
Just like punishing a killer isn't going to bring the victim back to life and yet people get imprisoned for killing others 🙂
brave knot
oh yeah Iget trying to get the leaker but Ive rarely seen a company getting so mad about it
dark tulip
tbh... the amount of time stuff appears because an employee made an mistake (eg. working on powerpoint in an public area) is big enough, but I'm also sure employees/third-parties share info themselves as well.
So depending on the type of info (which in this case was the name?) I can fully understand that a company will do anything to find out who posted and/or leaked it. But for something small like a name or screenshot is IMHO a bit much...
fiery condor
I mean in this day and age, the first presentation is literally the most important.
lyric crow
If someone uses my stuff unapproved but is using a custom game launcher how would i stop that?
vast stump
you can DMCA 👇 the other thingy their server provider
lean plover
nope, but a C&D to the server provider (company)
fervent bluff
C&D works always?
cursive sedge
it works if they care
fervent bluff
So it doesn't
lean plover
it works for me tho
fervent bluff
Like the guy getting the c&d needs to care or you
lean plover
first, i send out a DMCA to the violator via the server hosting company. if the violator ignores that, i contact the server hosting company directly. this can already be seen as a non-formal C&D. if the hosting company also doesn't comply, my lawyer sends out a formal C&D to the hosting company
terse tiger
Are the legal costs in the end covered by the violator?
willow crane
Not unless you get a court ruling ordering the violator to pay.
lyric crow
So real life i work in online retail and deal with paypal alot. I learned that paypal protects the sellers from false chargebacks when i actully fight the case and i put effort into my statement and such. Im not very familuar with c&d but i think it works if you have real case and properly describe the situation. I think mainly the people who say it dont work are those who would write 2-3 sentences and dont describe anything in detail atleast that is my theory
dark tulip
In the US and Europe companies are already required to follow up a DMCA, which can be seen as a low-level C&D without the legal stuff around it.
When a DMCA doesn't work you can try a C&D without getting a lawyer, and use it as a final warning before taking legal actions. In which case a "real" C&D gets issued and can turn into a case in court.
When that happens both parties will need to provide a lot of information, otherwise it's an automatic loss.
Depending on your local legal system the costs can be taken from the defendant, but only if he/she loses.
I'm no lawyer, but have been in situations where lawyers got brought in due to copyright breaches (my company charged a client for stealing our code).
lyric crow
i want to upload stuff to workshop but m,y english is not the best and i have hard time figuring out what license to use from BI website. I need to use the license that lets people use the mod without commerical permission and cant reupload . what is the name of such license ?
bronze haven
@lyric crow CC BY-NC-ND would probably work for what you want
If you want to use one of the licenses Bohemia provides then use APL-ND
lyric crow
Thanks !
wet gate
is there something wrong with the workshop crawler?
lean plover
from @patent copper a couple of days ago:
its dead because steam changed something and now im waiting for the library im using to get fixed :(
so right now its not finding new stuff
not sure what the current state is
wet gate
thanks
lean plover
tips fedora
cursive sedge
Use web api for enumeration but steam cdn to fetch actual metadata
Or steamworks if you have a real session
turbid meadow
!~All voice lines are from Crobar Collective's Black Mesa, we did create these voices nor do we take credit for them.
Sending mixed messages there
old jay
idiocy and illiteracy go hand in hand.
brave knot
putting aside the blatantly extremist author
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2028301464&searchtext=
is simply writing (unofficial) enough to use another mod name?
obsidian cypress
I don't think so, not if it tries to mimicks the said mod I guess
old jay
@zealous ore See Above
inland sphinx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU Video about copyright, would be a good watch for many people here.
dim temple
20 minutes into that now, I've uploaded videos from arma to youtube. I feel like I'm in danger now
inland sphinx
quite sure Arma EULA allows you to upload game footage to youtube.
But mods....
yep. complicated and.. problematic
dim temple
just read the arma 3 eula again, I can't find anything that allows people to upload videos. Even worse 3B seems to imply that you can't if you consider the first sentence of paragraph 1
inland sphinx
Then it was outside of eula, it was written down somewhere
https://www.bohemia.net/community/game-content-usage-rules The first what can i do one maybe
dim temple
I feel even more in danger now because I never put the disclaimer from this page in. And I'm fairly sure most people don't go over all of their videos every year to update it
https://www.bohemia.net/community/game-content-usage-rules/monetization-youtube
Guess I'll be changing some descriptions while listening to the rest of tom's video
inland sphinx
oh... I didn't know that.. oof
lean plover
today you learned 😉
vast stump
So monetized channels on youtube might be liable from actions from mod makers?
well non monetized too Id suppose
lean plover
oh no... please... not another rabbit hole
brave knot
I wouldnt claim anything if I were a modder
good way to never get featured ever again
lean plover
nothing but more head aches
vast stump
😄
half panther
Tl;dr anyone?
vast stump
watch the clippy
lean plover
if it comes to go after monetized YT channels
vast stump
😄
lean plover
going after reups is needed and for now enoucg work
half panther
watch the clippy
@vast stump :angrypepe: that's why i was asking for tl;dr :angrypepe:
lean plover
watch the 🦆 ing video
(imagine all caps 😉 )
half panther
(OT: https://i.gyazo.com/e290b1af67bb95d08d52e20f5ace095b.png Disable Autoplay of gifs there)
lean plover
daschamalam, dong dong
dschamalam, ding ding dong
turbid meadow
Just watched Tom Scott's video aswell and it was really interesting and he does have some good arguments
vast stump
Making money from someone else's work without compensation is always a bit tricky subject
Pretty good video overall
dark tulip
If for example Dedmen would take over all Arma 3 videos which include TFAR, than I'm sure everyone would switch to ACRE in no-time...
Of course this doesn't mean it can't be used to take down those who make money the wrong/illegal way.
Would be interesting to see all videos with illegal content (Star Wars, etc.) by BI or modmakers also included in those videos for abusing their work in combination with illegal content. 🤔
vast stump
well if ACRE did the same then what?
I mean what does Dedmen gain from people using TFAR?
I dont think that kind of arguments are valid when modders get nothing from the users anyway
except headache when people use wrong versions or incompatible mods 😛
Id kinda put this in the same category as the social media influencers offering to pay for services for visibility on their media
dark tulip
my point is; I doubt that modders would go that far to take down YT videos (or taking the monetization), because it would hurt their mod. Same applies to game companies who take down YT videos, who will just receive so much negativity that it can (and will) hurt their business.
Although I do believe it can be used as a legitimate tool for us, the community, to lower the visibility (and money grabs) of illegal content and dodgy servers.
abstract crest
If a mod dev took down a video cause it showed their mod then I would be inclined to check out every reported bug in their mod and do educational videos pointing out all their bugs... And make sure that each one was less than 10mins long
The reason I said that is cause they won't do it... I mean... silly conversation
vast stump
How does it hurt a mod when you get nothing from making the mod?
Might sound like beating a dead horse here but I am not satisfied with vague reasonings like that.
I am not personally 100% on board with some YouTuber making money out of my mod without even asking if I'm not allowed to do so. Its just not fair.
What do I do with the publicity? What if they represent the mod in way I didn't intend it to be? What if they use it wrong or don't understand how something works and actually ruin my reputation? (since that basically is only thing I can get out of making something) Not all tubers are making nice videos. Sensation seeking and bashing other people's work is a thing too.
@abstract crest that's very aggressive stance against creators who do this stuff for free.
I don't see what is silly about this kind of a conversation either.
Game companies can benefit from the publicity streamers and tubers generate and they even pay for it. Modders get nothing.
If a mod is licensed non commercial, how come filming it and using that commercially is legit?
It's totally fine if mod maker allows it. But at least there should be the option not to.
vast stump
theres also this
proud helm
I think there is a missing point in here too:
Why do mods need to be free? Aka: why should mods be free, but Youtubers should get All the money Produced with it without sharing anything with the original author?
chrome plinth
that really depends how the way how modmaker define license for it's mod and based on that then the will to protect it
abstract crest
Aka: why should mods be free, but Youtubers should get All the money You could pretty much apply the same argument to anything that is used in a youtube video then. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion) content creators are a in a class like film makers and authors in that while they might use your product they are applying their creativity and time to produce content that uses the product. I should say that I have no issue with Bohemia allowing modders to monetize too, but that would lead to huge amounts of drama and make the current IP theft issue much more serious than it is already
proud helm
There is a major difference: modders usually have no income from the mod at all
And there thus is no equivalent "product"
Long Story short: people make money on the back of a free product, that usually has some way to donate without sharing money on a regular basis
With other product, like games, usually getting Sold and thus get free publicity at its best Form
abstract crest
So mod owners who care should change their licenses to prevent it. Problem solved... Whether the decision to do so will be positive or negative will only be shown if that is done by a major mod team. Be interesting to see
One complication would be that servers who run those mods and have video or streaming content creators on their servers would have to follow the decision too...
proud helm
The solution would be a different Kind: the General opinion, that mods should always be free, has to change
And people, especially those making money on the back of modders, should start to consider donating to those modders working for free
Plus... Nobody would care about changed licenses for mods
abstract crest
They would if PuFu sent his legal team after SovietWomble's legal team 😉
proud helm
And getting a lawyer for a product, generating near Zero money makes no sense
chrome plinth
and then another streamer, IP laywer, would make Twitch/YT serie about the legal war describing each battle ...
abstract crest
And monetize their channel 😉
chrome plinth
circle is closed
abstract crest
iirc, there was talk a while ago about some game companies going after monetized streamers and content creators for the same reasons. Afaik, that went nowhere?
vast stump
things can always happen behind curtains
and strong NDAs of settlements etc can prevent people from talking
abstract crest
All it takes is one studio in a genre with a decent product to not go that route and all content creators head there and content for the rest disappears... or they go to other genres if they are a variety creator. Has happened in the hardcore gun video market already
turbid meadow
hardcore gun video market
Now I wanna know what hardcore gun videos are
abstract crest
The ones Youtube demonetizes 😉
turbid meadow
Doesnt youtube demonitize most gun videos?
abstract crest
I guess
But then they demonitize channels for people who do more than gun videos... like gamers...
inland sphinx
Taking down channels and streamers of video games is the norm of closed alpha/beta combined with NDAs
abstract crest
If they breach the NDA for sure.
coarse temple
I think this is the right place for this. If it's not, let me know and I appreciate any help.
This mod is a stolen re-upload. For a while the uploader was still using the original author's server key and couldn't figure out why it wasn't working on dedicated servers. Unfortunately, he's learning. . .
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1436512842
This is the original mod author:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=756493852&tscn=1557065764
I reached out to him but he seems reluctant to take action I think because the stolen mod has become substantially more popular and it has pretty much crushed him.
vast stump
@coarse temple If you can, contact the original author. Only he can issue a DMCA on the reupload.
coarse temple
I did but he's afraid that Steam won't take any action or will side with the stolen mod over his because the stolen one has gained so much traction on the workshop. I explained that's not how it works but I think he's just afraid his mod will get officially taken away from him if he speaks up.
vast stump
You can tell him to come here if he wants to discuss how and what happens.
assuming of course that he actually is the original author 😄
and not making some sort of reupload himself too
inland sphinx
I did but he's afraid that Steam won't take any action
They have to. Otherwise they violate law.
or will side with the stolen mod over his
They cannot. Unless he files a counter claim, which would be illegal.
because the stolen one has gained so much traction on the workshop
Copyright doesn't care about that.
coarse temple
I know, it's convincing the mod author that's been the issue. As for the mod being a theft of a theft, it's possible but the only other stand alone dog mod I know of is JBoy's and about the only similarity I see between the two is that they both involve a dog. Sucks that this copy paste re-upload is doing so well.
coarse temple
I appreciate the advice though
old jay
I still have to question the legitimacy of a lot of these type mods to begin with. Typically, a modder/modeller/artist will specialise in one thing. For someone to pop on the radar with just 1 asset or multiple mismatched assets raises warning flags, not gonna lie.
coarse temple
Sure, I get what you're saying but looking through them its mostly little scenarios and mission compositions. Of the mods he's uploaded it looks like he worked with another modder on most of them. It isn't twenty or thirty large game mods covering all sorts of different things.
old jay
It only takes 1 stolen asset to be theft.
coarse temple
Yes, which is what SFG. Daniels has done.
old jay
I'm referencing both when I say "For someone to pop on the radar with just 1 asset or multiple mismatched assets raises warning flags, not gonna lie."
cursive sedge
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/call-duty-wins-first-amendment-victory-use-humvees-1287882
fiery condor
Feel the idea of relating the first amendment to that case is a bit misleading.
At least how I read it, it implies that this became a ruling based on the constitution and not current law.
thin ice
i cant really belive thats legal? they want people to pay monthly fee for for example hosting my own server with arma 3 project life with more than 5 players
also seems like they are charging one time fee of 100 USD for the server files
old jay
Already been forwarded to BI Legal
sly zenith
I take it a3pl is different to regular a3 life?
lean plover
if it comes to use ripped 3rd party game content and models in general, they are all the same
vast stump
the legit life servers probably are the irregularity and not the other way around. unfortunately
arctic socket
Hey so I have a few questions. I've never been deep into ArmA's community, so coming in here I'm really astonished how much time and effort people are spending on IP stuff. In common vernacular, it's some real flippin' cop schnitzel. No other modding (or open source) community I've looked at has ever cared so much about copyright—most people I know tend to be antagonistic towards the very concept.
So what gives? Like, why does this Smith guy even care about that dog mod? Do you actually think copyright is a good thing? Why do you spend your time trawling the workshop for reuploads of work that isn't even your own? Makes no sense.
arctic socket
I'm gonna ignore the part where you try to brush me off and ask, what do you mean by taking? And is a culture that suppresses people's ability to express themselves using the materials they have at hand really caring? Because all I see that doing is creating a homogenized system where a handful of monolithic entities have undue control.
dark tulip
Person A creates content, which takes time, effort and usually no money. And now person B takes that content and takes all the credit for it.
That is what copyright laws protect and for good reason.
And believe me that we're not the only community which is doing that, just the only gaming community with an active modding scene
inland sphinx
and takes all the credit for it.
And in some cases even makes money with it, while Person A is not allowed to
arctic socket
And I'm totally for requiring attribution and non-monetization.
dark tulip
But even then EULA's forbid people from doing it (BI and Valve), unless you have permission. Which 99% of the stuff on the workshop doesn't have...
inland sphinx
If you tolerate anything, people will abuse it to the extreme and then say "but why, you allowed him to do it too"
not only "will" but they already do
Plus with Arma you have the problem that when people repack your mod, YOU get the reports about the old bugs that you thought you've already fixed, and the new completely unexplainable bugs that you spend days on trying to figure out just to notice that someone repacked and edited your mod and thats what broke it
dark tulip
It's a combination of EULA's, licenses and laws. So no, I (and many others) will say the same even when the EULA's would say something else.
And a lot of content creators wouldn't even think about releasing content to the public if it wasn't protected.
inland sphinx
EULA's don't change anything about peoples copyright to their own content
arctic socket
Right, but I'm not concerned with whatever copyright people are given by law. I'm interested in how this community relates to the idea of copyright and IP ownership.
inland sphinx
We have had many modders who literally gave up, because once they made anything, people just took it, put their own name onto it, removed all credits, and then made money with it.
And as Arma basically lives from the modders providing content, loosing modders is the worst thing that could happen
which is why everyone has a interest in stopping that from happening.. or rather everyone who wants to keep playing Arma should. But then ofc there are just the people who are in it for the money and self profit and don't care about the game or the community or the content
dark tulip
This community is against breaking laws... Therefore it's protecting each other and acting hard against those who break the law.
Which is the same as in regular life... If someone is stealing, you also don't expect that nobody is reacting to it...
inland sphinx
unless you are a thief yourself ofcourse
Then your stance is more "wow, good job! keep at it! Ignore all these other idiots who are crying for police to come help that poor old woman you just punched down and is now lying on the street and bleeding"
Which is a stance that is not rare in the IP channels here, but these people usually get themselves banned rather quickly, but not rarely these kinds of people have deeper reaching issues
arctic socket
So how does it look in an ideal world?
@inland sphinx I find it hard to believe many people would advocate violence of that sort.
On the other hand I would totally advocate taking a copy of a painting and modifying it to make your own thing.
Even if it's not substantially different from the original.
With two caveats: that you do not take credit for work that is not your own, and that you do not profit from work that is not your own.
A lot of the zealous copyright enforcement I've seen going on here goes beyond those two principles, so I'm trying to figure out where the disconnect comes from.
dark tulip
There is no disconnect between what is done here and following the law...
That other communities don't care, doesn't mean we should let it happen as well...
arctic socket
So do you think what the law does is right?
dark tulip
Yes
If someone wants to allow reusing his/her creations than he/she can apply a license to it which allows it.
Otherwise you'll be free to use it (in the ways allowed) and nothing else
inland sphinx
If people wanted you to just take their stuff, they could just say so.
So its not like copyright is really inhibiting your creativity or the abilit of modders to let you be creative with their stuff
the authors just don't want it, and we have to respect that
Because as I said, Modders are what Arma lives from, and if we want our literal game of life to stay alive, we have to support what keeps it alive
arctic socket
right, which is why I have been discussing the culture of the armor modding community, and not the letter of the law
because the latter should be irrelevant
I'm not asking how people act, I'm asking how they act that way. And while I've gotten a few indications from this conversation I'm still a little confused about why it is the way it is.
dark tulip
As Dedmen already said; this game is build around modders, and if they leave because nobody takes their hard work serious there won't be anything left.
arctic socket
Okay, maybe that's it. So what do modders expect from putting their work out in the public? Is it just that people are not respecting attribution and non-monetization?
Or is there something more that I can't think of?
dark tulip
Most of us to it for ourselves or to help our own communities. Others do it to get a portfolio useful for finding paid work.
And everyone who releases something expects that they are getting recognized as the author, and some kid who puts his name under it or re-uploaded the content for no good reason
vast stump
If your neighbour builds a car from spare parts he gets from scrapyard, do you go joyriding with it without permission? Even if you occasionally get a ride to school/work/hobbies on it.
vast stump
And assuming you are normal decent law abiding person who does not steal neighbours car, what is the difference between that car your neighbour made himself and the mod someone made?
With your neighbour you are part of a community and you perhaps occasionally get to enjoy his car but only the way he allows it.
With the mod maker you are part of the same gaming community where you occasionally get to enjoy the work of the modder in the way he allows it.
If your neighbour says the keys are on the front wheel, go as you like then you can do whatever you like.
Same goes with mods if the maker says so.
The mod maker pretty much never gets anything from the users and users get everything from the makers. Where in this equation logic says the users can do whatever they want with what they have just because they want to? And why would what the maker wants have no meaning?
vast stump
Perhaps better analogue with the neighbours car would be that you don't go changing his rims to some street racing hot wheels or paint Anime waifus on his hood just because you feel like it.
arctic socket
@vast stump if I had a magic wand and made a duplicate car so I could do my own work on it, yeah, totally. And I have never said that what the maker wants has no meaning.
If my neighbour made his own car, and I magically duplicated it, it would still be wrong to say that I made the car, since none of my labour went into it. It would also be wrong for me to profit from it for the same reason.
But I would think my neighbour was jerk if he was handing out copies of his car and then getting super mad at anyone who changed the rims.
arctic socket
I could not care less about the opinion of a luxury car manufacturer's legal team.
shell scaffold
the way i see its basically if you make something you dont want someone else to take credit for your work. Reupload it to steam workshop, and have 1 million different versions of what you made, that are potentially not working/outdated. Then people think the original authors work is shoddy and/or report bugs that are found on garbage reuploads that can also potentially waste time. Reupload based on original authors permission is fine. Stealing someone elses work is not, making profit by doing a c+p is not either there are certain rules/laws to allow mod creators to protect their work and allow them to be publically used within the bounds of the license they set.
I for one dont want someone to copy and paste things ive done onto steamworkshop and possibly lose credit
arctic socket
- You're making the mistake of anthropomorphising a corporation & 2. I understand that you are describing how many people feel and act, but do you think that is how they ought to act if they want to create a creative and culturally rich community?
Ignoring the fact that Deadmau5 is a pretentious rich jerk himself, do you think he was wrong to modify that car to suit his tastes and expressive desires? Do you think the world is somehow a worse place for it?
old jay
Since you appear to be going around in circles, you might just want to ask your actual question.
Like, why does this Smith guy even care about that dog mod? Don't know, ask him yourself.
Do you actually think copyright is a good thing? Absolutely!
Why do you spend your time trawling the workshop for reuploads of work that isn't even your own? Most of us don't, but when we see it (like any other crime), we report it.
Makes no sense Sure it does, you just appear to be looking for an angle to legitimise it.
arctic socket
Yeah, I was just thinking I wasn't making much progress in here.
Just strikes me as wild that there are people with access to the internet that still think copyright could possibly be a good thing.
I guess y'all really are just cops.
Anyways please go back to using this channel for whatever you intended it for.
old jay
Channel Description: Intellectual Property, copyrights, trademarks discussion which doesn't fit into #ip_rights_violations
strange shadow
Hey! I am entitled to anything you make to do what I want with! Even claim I made it! Nothing wrong with that!
-.-
old jay
The above is sarcasm (directed at those who think content theft is ok)
vast stump
@arctic socket the mod is the car, while you may have a local copy of it, it is still same "car" , not a magic duplicate you can change the rims to. When you loan the car from your neighbour that's the same as you download the mod and play it. When you go and change the tires that's the same as when you download the mod and go ruin it with changes. Local copy does not mean you own it, you are just loaning it according to the permission of its maker.
Also do note that there are legit ways of adding changes to mods if mod makers license allows derivates. Meaning you make a mod of a mod where you configure your changes into another mod that is loaded on top of the original mod and nothing of the original mod is uploaded in it.
Just like Arma mods are not each uploaded with full Arma game in them.
Big corporation that has made things has same rights as single modder that has made things. And what creativity are you talking about with this taking other people's work and changing it. That's not creative, that just copying.
I'm not saying big corporations are great as they do a lot of damage in our society, but trying to justify immoral behaviour with that is just as immoral.
You are not making any headway because you are blaming the only creative people who make new things for restricting creativity. There is no logic in what you talk about. There's no respect in what you want to and try to justify doing.
Saying "it's internet" everything is free is just dumb. Your money in the bank is just as virtual and with your logic anyone could say your money isn't real give it to me to have fun with you are using it wrong.
It does sound like you have not really made anything original you can be proud of because you can't relate to the people who have. Maybe that's true, maybe not, but that's the wibe your writing gives out.
If you want to be creative why not invest in learning how to make new things instead of copying things?
willow crane
@arctic socket You are missing something else too. Even if you don't consider the digital content is property, even if you believe that everything on the internet is free. By taking someone's work and modifying it without specific consent or permission you are taking something from that artist. Motivation, their will to make more content for you to rip.
I've been modding for over 20 years now. IP theft drove me out of the flight sim community. Too many people ripped or remixed my content and sold it. I tried again in X-Plane and other platforms later on, same problem. I still find my early stuff popping up even now. I still find my ArmA1 and 2 content being sold or ported into other games. Those experiences killed my motivation. And even now when I see my stuff reappear it takes even more of it away. If nothing else you should be thinking about that.
If no one makes genuine new content then all that left is old remixed crap.
.
You say you are OK with Attribution and Non-commercialisation. Do you think we expect you to follow those rules when you clearly state you don’t believe in copyright laws or EULAs? To expect people to follow one rule but not another is myopic. You have to draw a line somewhere. That’s what Copyright was created for. And even if you don't 'believe' in Copyright Law there is also something called "Moral Rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights This is a law that is not decided by commercial terms. It’s about simple ethics and moral use of content.
The moral right to be recognised as the creator of a piece of work.
The moral right to decide how my work is to be used and when (ie specify a licence).
The moral right to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honour or reputation.
If you want to release your content under an open source EULA then you are free to do that. As long as it is your content. Don't take my models and misuse them without my permission and expect me to sit quietly by and let you. All the real Artist and Creators here know exactly what I mean. And if you invested yourself into a project that was 100% your own you would too.
Bottom line. Its basic ethics. You spend hundreds, if not thousands of hours to create something you are proud of. How would you feel if someone "changed the rims" and put their name on it?
Morality and ethics, not to mention basic manners usually dictate you ask before taking. If you don't almost every culture on earth would describe you as a thief. Regardless what you took.
strange shadow
and there our dude rock explains why I won't be making any new mods for arma
zenith moss
You have to realize the majority of the arma community are super entitled idiots, they dont give a funk about the ripping as long as they can play with the ripped mod. You can explain to them 1,000,000 times how the acceptance of the rippers has driven out modders and will continue to unless they stop supporting them by using their stuff and encouraging them to rip and remix content, and they still will not get it.
Even worse, they will complain about the people who stop making mods for that reason and say who cares what they think they don't even make mods anymore lol...
I will also go on record and say that I will forgive Bohemia for their lack of action and all transgressions against modders IF and only IF we get PBR support for the next Arma title.
lean plover
the majority of the arma community are super entitled idiots, , they dont give a funk about the ripping as long as they can play with the ripped mod
wrong. they are not part of the community. the community is the people on here and the forums. everyone else is just a casual hangout / hangaround who has nothing to do with the actual arma community. the only crossover to the community they have is, when they get slapped with a DMCA
zenith moss
then the community is 10% or less of the playerbase
strange shadow
well you can play the game and not take part in the community
like, i play ksp but haven't been part of the ksp community since it went out of beta
zenith moss
All I am saying is that if you have 5 friends with you pulling a rope and 500 people are on the other side pulling you arent gaining any ground on your end
lean plover
if my ground contains expert legal support, it can be over 9000 on the other side that get thrown in the mud
¯_(ツ)_/¯
zenith moss
ignoring the issue will never result in a solution to the problem
dim temple
Does GNU GPLv2 allow me to take part of te code that's lisenced under it and put it in another project I'm working on? Obviously with propper credits being given. I'm not that good in reading legal English
fiery egret
Your project MUST then become licensed under GPLv2 (or you can also use GPLv3, but only if the part of the code was licensed under "GPLv2 or later")
dim temple
Mmh, that's less than ideal, guess I'll find something else to use
fiery egret
Or you can also contact the author and ask him if he is fine with you using the code with license XYZ. The author is able to relicense the code for you, if you manage to convince him of doing so @dim temple
dim temple
I know, but if I'm able to find what I need without having to do that, that's easier for everyone
dark tulip
In case English isn't your strongest language, most licences have translations available. For example on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html you can find translations at the top menu (german, french, russian, and more)
dim temple
Dutch isn't a very common language on the internet
dark tulip
that's because the Dutch learn English, German and French at school 😉
dim temple
Hey, just because I speak Dutch doesn't mean I'm from the Netherlands
dark tulip
it's the same in Belgium 😛
although a 5 second Google search can give you a lot of information in Dutch: http://users.skynet.be/xterm/gpld.txt
turbid meadow
Like, what if I want to have just a little piece (example: snowstorm effect) on a mission but I don't need anything else besides it, yet the mod that contains it is like 20GB of content I don't need? Why can't I just get that piece, maybe make the snow more intense by changing a value, and specify in the file that it's based on the work of people from mod X?
Ask the mod dev if you can just use that one bit or see if you can get the bit from somewhere else?
What if I need a small, immediate game-breaking fix because mod A that was released 5 years ago and never updated now does not work anymore because it depends on mod B and mod B have changed the function call?
Talk to the mod devs or see if you can make a config edit or overwrite the way that the mod works?
What if I need to modify something so I can use mod A with mod B and they crush into each other as one overwrite the other EventHandler, and I just need to make that EH use for example CBA Stackable EH?
Talk to the mod devs to see if they can fix it themselves?
You would agree that is a dumb, bad practice to not allow derivates.
Depends on what derivative is defined as imo, imo derivative works are also things like a mod that works on top of another mod or adds to another mod (see the Community Factions Project mod which works off of CUP iirc, or all the reskins out there that just change a texture of another mod)
How many people here have started by looking and playing with someone's content (be it a script for example) to learn how things work and got involved in content development? Probably countless, me included back in A2 days.
You can play with stuff without uploading it publicly to the workshop, if you add new content to a mod a good chunk of mod authors would propably be happy to include it in the mod aswell
There is a reason the most successful and used mods are the one that allows you to modify the content,
Are they though? IIRC both CUP and RHS, aswell as TFAR, dont allow reuploads and will strike them down, not sure about CBA but I know that ace allows reuploads. Or do you mean modify the content in a different way than I'm assuming here?
Whew thats one of the few messages I've written that stretches out the 2k character limit 
inland sphinx
There is a reason the most successful and used mods are the one that allows you to modify the content,
Uhm
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse/?appid=107410&browsesort=toprated§ion=readytouseitems
the top 4 don't allow reuploads, not modification, nor derivatives.
If you exclude cba, the top 8 mods don't.
If you go by most subscribed
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse/?appid=107410&browsesort=totaluniquesubscribers§ion=readytouseitems&actualsort=totaluniquesubscribers&p=1
again, excluding cba the top 11 mods don't
sooooo...
For the TOP ones, you have the wrong filter:
uhm.. nope.. thats exactly what I sent
CBA is mainly only top because so many small/medium-popularity mods depend on it, which is why its so often subscribed
Read above
So you cannot really count CBA
its not popular in itself, the tons of mods that use it are popular-ish, adding up to making CBA the most subscribed mod
but thats not really because CBA has such a open license, CBA is by design a open framework mod that everyone should be using.
vast stump
what does that matter?
inland sphinx
which it would also be without the GPL license. so not sure what you're getting at here
were extrapolated and used somewhere else, be it a script in a mission or another mod
Which.. probably in most cases also violates the license
yes
You know the requirement that you also publish your own content as GPL when you use GPL content, like embedding CBA code?
what?
That basically noone is making derivatives of the top ~15 mods without violating their license?
And you arguing that CBA/ACE are only good, because they specifically allow that, even though that doesn't really change anything because they actually don't really allow it as most people are still breaking the license
Yes
which is not a thing in probably the top 30 arma mods.
and doesn't have much influence on a mods popularity at all
and basically is not a thing in the Arma community
you are saying that mods that get their GPL license violated are more popular than mods that get their more restricted license violated
You are just recoloring all your arguments such that they fit you.
The top mods, yeah sure, only if you filter this one specific way, and only if you ignore everything but this one mod there.
vast stump
what is the point of this argument at all?
inland sphinx
I don't know
just someone arguing that people who put restrictive licenses on their hard work are bad people for some reason and should be abolished apparently
vast stump
why
everyone is free to mod as they like. the people who made those mods dont think its agains spriti of modding
inland sphinx
use a different mod then
if that were really a problem, why are most of the most popular mods, also some of the biggest?
If that was such a big problem, wouldn't big mods be unpopular then?
I also don't like that cup puts so many huge things together.
So I just don't use it. Done.
Don't know how not being able to steal other peoples stuff hurts modding
Do you prefer that everyone uses the same crappy fastrope function written sometime in A2 and reused and copy-pasted over and over again since then.
Or that people make new ones, and the best one will win?
I know what I prefer
vast stump
also modding is much more than some small scripts you want to use. The licenses apply to whole mods that contain much more and also protect that
inland sphinx
Most script only mods have relatively open licenses
because.. for scripts it makes sense that you copy, modify, adapt, improve
like you already mentioned CBA and ACE
vast stump
and you can always ask help from the authors of mods instead of just taking what they have done
inland sphinx
but for big Art mods, that makes no sense
vast stump
in the spirit of modding I personally think that is the correct way to do things
vast stump
no
inland sphinx
of course not
inland sphinx
no it wouldn't
vast stump
and they made their ak model
vast stump
because you did not make the model
vast stump
did you draw moustache on the works there?
inland sphinx
Take the Mona Lisa because it comes to mind.
if you paint your own Mona Lisa with bigger breasts that looks similar to the original, would the artist care? probably not.
If you take the real mona lisa, and paint bigger breats onto her, would the artist care? hell yeah, everyone knows he made that and his name is still on it
and you just made it crappy