I dont think this will go anywhere. HE wants to have it his way where his rights are above everyone elses.
#other_ip_topics
vast stump
inland sphinx
Yeah I knew that an hour ago
inland sphinx
I just like thinking you can talk sense into people
yes
if he was not okay with it, you shouldn't do it
turbid meadow
I wonder what licenses stuff like guns would be released under
inland sphinx
AK-47 is public domain by now
bright goblet
HK!=AK
inland sphinx
Actually think RHS team got permission from H&K
They are really on top of things regarding that
going extra sure even if they wouldn't need to
inland sphinx
RHS also got permission for many things they do, on the strict premise that they don't make money off of it
allowing other people to just take and reuse their content.. could very well violate that
so applying a strict license to their content, makes it much easier for them to get permission to make said content
with a completely open license they probably wouldn't be able to get permission and create that content at all
If you care about scripting, just write your own scripts then
If you are saying not being able to copy-paste other peoples scripts are against modding philosophies.
How is being forced yourself to learn modding, and create your own content, and contribute to the modding community by yourself a bad thing?
i wonder how one can prove the work is a derivate of his own for a 3D model, and not coincidentally very similar?
pretty easy actually. But as you said you don't know much about 3D Modelling. You can see whether one was based of another
very similar vertex placement?
Its like a fingerprint
you cannot just make that go away without remaking it from scratch
at which point.. well you've remade it from scratch on your own
good job
no
But thats not what you asked
no they won't at all
As I said, its like a fingerprint.. or handwriting
it won't match
Have 5000 people write the exact same text on a sheet of paper, do you get two pieces that match? no
dark tulip
It's a bit hard to fully remove copying from others...
eg. all cars need wheels to be able to go forward, but someone could claim that round wheels are protected.
Or fairy tails which start with "once upon a time", is it protected? I don't know, but everyone seems to understand that it can't be put under copyright.
Same applies to code since a lot of stuff are common design patterns which COULD be claimed to be put under copyright.
Like... who doesn't use the mag_x macro's from RHS... I could rename it, but the idea behind it remains the same, and can't be done otherwise.
And this is where the grey zone starts... especially in programming.
That said; if someone creates a full script/program/mod/etc. then it becomes something else, and the complete product is copyrighted.
willow crane
@serene thorn your arguments here are already accounted for in copyright, moral rights and a tonne of legislation. Do some proper research because your analogies aren't making sense.
re: Your AK Argument - its ridiculous. Anyone can make an artistic representation of another object. Legally i comes under "right of artistic expression". And no one can take action against it unless the original creator/IP Owner can either prove that the new Artist is attempting to profit from an implied association with their IP or has taken significant portions of the original work to make an unauthorised derivative work. It comes under fair use laws. https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
But in the case of RHS using the AK designation, again its not really an issue because much like Hoover, AR15, Fridge etc its become a culturally generic term to describe an object of similar appearance. There are hundreds of rifles that look like AK-47's but aren't. But you still call them AKs.
Trade dress is a thing, ie how an object appears can be copyrighted. Highlighitng key features etc. But the infringing item is only infringement if damages the owners brand and competes in a market where the owner already has interests.
And finally on this analogy, RHS arent competing in the same market place as Kalashikov to "market" their product so legally there is no competition and therefore no infringement.
With code especially, you can claim that "your new code" is inspired by someone else's work. But if you start cut and pasting other scripts from no derivative works it fails under "moral rights" laws. But the bottom line is that you are building off the efforts of others. Most coders I know will happily discuss ideas and share functions but taking a model or part of a mod someone has poured hundreds of hours into
Steal a model to change to use in your mod. Thats theft of someone's work, IP etc
The comon argument is that scripts are concepts but 3D art is an actual product. Making derivatives of a script is less substantial than taking the turret from an RHS T80 and stucking it on the BIS Varsuk and calling it a new model.
The core of all of this for me regardless of the laws is ethics and morals.
Don't be a dick and steal things. You'll ruin it for everyone else. Decent people lose motivation as their mods get stolen time and time again. They will stop making content. And the pool of ideas and mods your have to loot from will vanish. You'll have to start making your own scripts and addon then.
Then the other remaining vultures will start picking over your releases...lets see how you feel then
Eventually, no one releases anything and we're all screwed. No body wins.
Sooooo, don't be selfish, just ask permission, talk to creators and if you don't get the answer you want try making your own.
willow crane
@serene thorn Wow you are either being so perverse because you know you are just in the wrong or you really don't get the argument at all do you?
wintry yoke
Is there something you have against putting in your own effort to create things?
willow crane
Copyright isn't just about money. But even if you ignore that, theres still moral rights. But that also defeats your arguments so you won't accept that either. Go do some research.
Start here - https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/ Pay special attention to the links at the bottom. Fair use and the Moral rights sections too.
wintry yoke
If you want to release your stuff under a license that lets other use it for whatever they want, that's cool. Let others decide for their own license as well
inland sphinx
Ah a lifer guy, that explains it
willow crane
oh, I created one fork of the Altis Life in A3 alpha days and it was released under GPLv2
So to support your entire argument, you use the example of porting/adapting someone else's entire framework as justification. Wow... just WOW
wintry yoke
Pretty sure you can create the fork and then do nothing with it though?
Last time I checked it was just the click of a button that created a fork
with something that's licensed to be used and edited by others
not re-write, write your own
otherwise it's still plagiarism
ah in that way
yes, re-write it
don't copy paste bits
willow crane
where does it say that?
wintry yoke
where is any of the reverse and rewrite law?
Pretty sure reverse engineering content isn't allowed by default
dark tulip
not to mention breaking the EULA's...
old jay
Someone is about to lose permissions here....
wintry yoke
you mean access?
willow crane
I can promise you in over 20years of dealing with IP law I have yet to find any law that specifically allows that by default. The only way its permissiable is by clear exceptions in the license
dark tulip
we found another "Fair Use" user here
wintry yoke
okay so personal use...
willow crane
LMAO Fair use does not apply in derivative works
you are reworking someone else's work to make a derivative.
NOT make a new and unqiue piece of work
old jay
!mute @serene thorn 7d
bright brambleBOT
Silence!! ò_ó
...
I keel u, @serene thorn!! Ò_Ó
cursive sedge
reverse engineering might actually be legal in some countries and/or cases
but that probably won't apply to any reversing of p3ds and then stealing that content
old jay
Now @serene thorn , take this time to actually listen to those like @willow crane who actually know what they're talking about, rather than trying to justify what you can do in a "life" community.
willow crane
Simple guide to Fair use - But please look at the links at the bottom of the page: https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
wintry yoke
Publicize a list of life communities with legit content?
vast stump
its pretty short list.
old jay
!purgeban @serene thorn 30d failure to follow moderator's instructions despite multiple warnings! End of Discussion, means End of Discussion!
bright brambleBOT
*fires them railguns at @serene thorn* Ò_Ó
old jay
@strange shadow It was pretty much everything you hate about the "Life" communities.
willow crane
basically "Fair use" lets me do whatever i like.
vast stump
Kinda feel like hes just been here before with the same arguments
old jay
It would not surprise me in the least
strange shadow
lifers gonna life (steal, lie, impersonate, scam and abuse) just another day in arma
meager fractal
I would love to see L*fe discussions banned from here, but it is also unfair for the (rare) ones that respect IP
old jay
I'm sure there are some legit ones out there, but they are so far outnumbered by "bad guys", that "Life" is pretty much a lost cause.
zealous ore
i’m not aware of a single such modded community
inland sphinx
I know one german legit community
wintry yoke
is it the blokes RPing german lawyers? 😛
half panther
@strange shadow It was pretty much everything you hate about the "Life" communities.
@old jay but life is soooo nnniiiiccccceeeeeeeee
strange shadow
-.-
vast stump
@half panther s DeutchLife is big hit.
half panther
Biggest!
hazy elm
https://twitter.com/nikkehtine/status/1253008470657335296 - uninstall CS:GO/L4D2/Gmod any Source games you have
legit
this looking bad
vast stump
@hazy elm #other_games_chat is where you want to be
chrome plinth
@hazy elm i though they fixed those previously leaked exploits (in theirs own games at Source engine)
and that this one is new and yep, wrong channel
peak iris
Whats the rules on redistributing the arma 3 config file contents? Say if I wanted to upload a full dump to use as a web based config browser, am I allowed to?
peak iris
That doesn't appear to display the config quite how I want it, but it existing does answer the question, so thanks 🙂
lean plover
in any case, better to ask them directly first. write them an email i'd say
just to be safe
inland sphinx
EULA forbids it. But as he said, write an email to legal and ask
peak iris
will do, thanks team 👍
shell scaffold
would sound mods like these be considered legal? says its taken from tarkov but gives credit, dosnt state anywhere he has permission to take it https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2035305606
inland sphinx
No
shell scaffold
Was in the collection of the guy who advertised his Servers collection in #creators_recruiting got taken down it seems
second version here https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2006655036
vast stump
you may need to report them to Battlestate Games as they are the IP holder
Dont know how they feel about such use of their data
shell scaffold
already sent them a headsup with the links
mental spear
ACE3 is released under https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/arma-public-license.
If I use a portion of their code and credit as
/*
* Author: Glowbal
* Loads an unconscious or dead patient in the given or nearest vehicle.
*
* Arguments:
* 0: Medic <OBJECT>
* 1: Patient <OBJECT>
* 2: Vehicle <OBJECT> (default: objNull)
*
* Return Value:
* None
*
* Example:
* [player, cursorObject] call ace_medical_treatment_fnc_loadUnit
*
* Public: No
*/
Does that mean my licence also has to be APL or could it be APL-SA or APL-ND?
inland sphinx
ACE3 is released under
no its not
Its GPL, only some few parts are APL, and that script is not
mental spear
Thats my mistake, I saw APL in one of the modules and assumed all of it was.
So thats the correct license that ACE3 is?
mental spear
I'm just wanting to make sure, if I use that script, its credited properly.
I'm making API calls in a lot of other places, but i've made some changes to that one, and want to credit it correctly
fiery egret
Remember that if you're reusing GPL code then your code has to be released under GPL as well, as per the license requirements
mental spear
So, therefore the rest of my content would also need to be GPL (or otherwise my mod would have to be released under GPL)
@fiery egret yea was checking that
fiery egret
Exactly
mental spear
Additionally to the conditions of the GPL, you are granted the right to
redistribute any combination of the .pbo-files of the finished product
without having to share your source code, as long as you do not modify the
source code of the individual modules.
This particular portion confuses me in this regard.
And using the code found within.
I'm not using the medical_treatment (or any of the other medical modules) but am using all of the other ACE content, re-uploaded in accordance with the snippet above. I want to retain the loadUnit ability for knocked out players in the vanilla revive (i've made many edits so this already does infact function properly)
As far as i'm aware, provided my content is also released under GPL and I credit the author of that script i'm using as I did above, thats correctly done?
fiery egret
without having to share your source code, as long as you do not modify the
source code of the individual modules.
That's interesting. This sounds like they wanted to release as LGPL, instead of GPL, but didn't know that LGPL existed so they added that clause? Or am I missing something here? 🤔
Because that's what differentiates LGPL from GPL (if you ignore the technicalities, like "what does >linking< exactly mean in the context of scripting languages")
zealous ore
@mental spear you can break you mod into multiple pbos
the one using GPL code being GPL
the one without that derivative
being whatever license you please
in any case
dark tulip
Technically each file in a mod can have a separate license, although a bit hard to manage
zealous ore
best course of action would be to ask ACE ppl directly on their slack (or whatever they are using these days)
RHS has 2 types of license
one APL-SA for A2 ported content
dark tulip
Or have ACE as a dependency and call the required files externally 🤔
zealous ore
another for our own bespoke content
mental spear
@zealous ore thank you for the direction there. I have decided to do just that and clearly seperate the small bits of content I'm the author of and keep its license intact.
@dark tulip
I am using ACE as a dependency and making calls to functions as necesarry. The mod i'm designing however is basically some feature additions to the vanilla medical and making it a bit more interactible. I'm therefore not using any ace medical modules. The load in/load out of patients is in the ace_medical_interaction module however so i've had to grab that function to repack keeping the credit intact as i've otherwise only changed names to make it work outside of the original module.
gleaming cedar
Following on that ginormous IP convo with old mate who got banned, here’s a hypothetical for ya. Group uses a3sync to redistribute mods. Many are unaltered, any bug fixes or alterations that can be performed without modifying the mod are done via external config overwrite. There are some mods who are opened, errors fixed and rebuilt (in exceptional cases). All authorship is retained, mod content is retained.
This has been the case for just about every community I’ve seen which does not use steam mods. I can’t say I disagree with this way of doing things, even if it may not perfectly align with the word of the law. I know it is not technically personal use if it is part of a repository distributed to others in the private community, but I believe it being on a private repo is preferable to the workshop.
Open to all sides, I’m pretty centrist.
lean plover
we (CUP) allow private repos like A3s or swifty. it is important to know that such repos are privately hosted. on their own hardware.
but steam is not a private service. it has an EULA that prohibits most of what you said (sec 6D)
gleaming cedar
Yeah I’m aware of CUP’s stance as well as the steam EULA
I suppose this is more of a moral question, because legally a private repo could do anything they wanted on their own hardware
shell scaffold
Personal morals are not shared society morals, where a law has been set this is societies moral choice at the moment you don't get to override it with your own moral system. Laws are our shared moral obligation. Whether you can open and do repairs or changes to a mod depends on its license permitting you, regardless of distribution (which in itself might be further breaches depending on where and how). You can not modify other peoples software without permission to do so.
dark tulip
I don't think that any mod maker will have an issue when a community has a (private) repo to share mods within their community, as long as they follow the laws of copyright.
However I do think it's fair to say to support can't be given on those versions, since only the latest version on the Workshop is supported. Which is the main reason why repacks/modifications/alternate versions are so hated by mod creators.
gleaming cedar
I agree @dark tulip, fair to say outdated and modified versions should be unsupported. Our community at least endeavours to update every mod within the week, the pbos are not packed into one folder all the file structure is retained. It does however allow us to circumvent circumstances such as ACE medical updating and breaking all other medical mods. As we maintained our own repository, we were able to bide our time and wait for creators to sort themselves out and then update our versions when it's all stable.
@shell scaffold I agree to an extent, however I believe it is hard or impossible to enforce especially regarding private repositories. Steam has a clear cut rule; Do not upload other's content. Easy to understand and follow, for those that do not follow it is also easy to point to and say "See, that's the rule". Regarding repositories I believe it is difficult. They are complying with the well understood rule of "Don't upload to steam", the modifications are typically only for convenience or performance. To anyone not an arma-lawyer, a repository is private use as they're not distributing the files wildly. To many people, if I want to use old mate's mod but there's one error in there which is an easy fix, why not just fix it so long as it's not going on the workshop? You can see how the line is blurred. No one's taking artistic authorship of anything, to many the fix will go unnoticed. Tricky situation for anyone not an arma-lawyer
shell scaffold
Not your choice to make, its the original authors and the terms under which it was provided. Distribution is different, you aren't breaking Steams EULA so unless restrictions on distribution have been placed the private distribution is a different topic. Two different areas of concern and I am raising the key point you don't get to override the law and the terms under which the software was provided. Not if you want to stay on BI's platforms anyway because its against the rules here to suggest you would do otherwise. If you don't have modification terms agreed you don't have them, distribution is irrelevant to that.
gleaming cedar
Is there not a rule based on you can modify however or whatever you like as long as it's not distributed? Eg; do whatever you want on your computer, it just cannot be released? Or is that just a wives tale?
shell scaffold
Wives tale, not the law
gleaming cedar
My issue is many people see this idea of "Modify but do not release" and assume by keeping it witihin the repository, they are not releasing it
When I know that to be wrong, as even distribution to one person is seen as no longer "private use"
shell scaffold
If you change it that is a primary breach of the terms of the software. Then you distribute it and commit primary infringement and the receive is a secondary infringement. Its not just the person who changed it and that who distributed it but those that received it as well.
gleaming cedar
It's certainly very easy to see why IP is not very well understood by the wider arma community
Side question, what of mods with no defined liscense?
Eg; old mate has uploaded his works to steam, what is the default liscense
dark tulip
no license = no permission at all
shell scaffold
No licence means no passed rights. Definitely can't modify those.
If not sure always seek permission and agreement from the copyright owner.
gleaming cedar
I want to define real quick, my stance is that I want access to the source of as many of the things I use as possible. My solution? I make it myself. Eg; I'm having trouble with the CUP SR-25 right now. My solution is I went out and bought a model, and made my own one in game rather than de-pbo CUP or bother their dev team with silly requests.
This is just an interesting point to pick at
lean plover
no attached license automatically means the strictest of all licenses applies: you are allowed to do jack 💩 with it. no copies, no derivates, no monetization, no nothing.
gleaming cedar
I was particularly curious about that point, as my Commando Weapon pack currently has nothing attached as I simply have not researched or understood licenses enough to know what to do.
Suppose that's the ideal outcome for me lol
As it's developed further I may look into a different license when the time comes
I think I understand all this a little better now, thank you all
old jay
@gleaming cedar The question also has to be asked, "where did you buy the model from?". Far too often we see people buying models that have either been ripped and resold, modifications of someone else's product or are sold with no rights being assigned to you. Paying money for something does not guarantee that you aren't violating something along the way.
gleaming cedar
@old jay Don't worry, I only buy my models from reputable studios, typically ones that have a viewable artstation where you can see the pipeline. I personally know many of the guys too, and I always run the model through the think tank in case anyone spots any shadiness I don't.
I'm well aware of the kind of people who rip and resell. Usually you can spot them from a mile away.
old jay
No Freddo and Stack (Overflo), its not what you think.
fiery egret
@old jay actually I didn't think of anything (that you probably think that I thought 😄 )
I just assumed that it meant "you're allowed to reuse parts of what is inside Arma, as long as you do it legally"
old jay
Unfortunately, too many would take it to mean something else.
shell scaffold
Question about new contest so i noticed alot of stuff about IP especially existing used ones, would using a red cross be considered IP violation? Not sure since universally red cross is used but its also in association with the American company
inland sphinx
would using a red cross be considered IP violation?
The red cross is reserved for offical red cross usages
so you cannot use that. Especially not as that contest is partially supported be the ICRC who takes care of that symbol
shell scaffold
ok Thanks for the info
dark tulip
The red cross and red crescent emblems are protected symbols under international humanitarian law and national laws.
So a good alternative is the Red Crystal (as used in the Laws of War DLC)
gleaming cedar
I thought the idea was just to make some cool assets that didn’t necessarily have to be Red Cross themed.
low basin
I think it's very heavily implied that it should be about IHL, ICRC, War, Arma 3, etc.
Your limited to,
A statue, a sculpture, a prop related to news media, a prop related to military funerals.
A backpack, a facewear item, a headgear item.
A life vest, a parade dress uniform, a formal suit, a doctor's outfit.
Then followed by this in the requirements
Assets created for the Prop, Accessory, and Clothing categories must be modelled on one of the specific subjects given. Likewise, 2D artworks must be on the theme of International Humanitarian Law in future conflict.
There is also the following
For the purpose of creating the Entry, Participants are free to exploit and expand the Arma 3 intellectual property.
Artwork should draw on imagery from the Arma 3 PC game and related content.
Artwork must be on the theme of International Humanitarian Law in future conflict.
It is also called Art of War so...
zealous ore
i dont see red cross as a necessity whatsoever
low basin
For those of you working on their Art Of War submissions here is a summery of info from Scott Alsworth, Project Lead (Art of War) regarding the usage of protected (ICRC/Red Cross) logos.
Just to summarise:
- The Red Crescent, Red Cross, and Red Crystal / Diamond are all protected logos.
- Bohemia Interactive have permission to use the Red Crystal / Diamond logo, and entries including these will be appropriate for Arma 3 content, in the specific instance of this contest.
- The Red Crescent and Red Cross logo cannot be used in Arma 3 and any entries containing them will most likely not be selected by the ICRC jury.
- The Red Crystal / Diamond should not feature on any weapons or vehicles bearing weapons.
- For civilian vehicles and objects, the Red Crystal / Diamond logo should really be changed for the Star of Life symbol. An example of this can be found on the civilian version of the in-game ambulance.
(Of course, if anyone has any questions, they can e-mail us directly at artofwar@bistudio.net).
If you have any questions use the email above.
dark tulip
@digital comet let's continue the "discussion" here instead of posting in the wrong channels...
Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
digital comet
those are examples, not literally the only possible cases
dark tulip
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html all the info you need
digital comet
the things that determine it are ultimately whether it's commercial or not, whether the original work is a creative thing or technical one, amount used (which would almost certainly be "zero" for an arma mod beyond image), and effects upon the original work
an arma mod isn't commercial and therefore is good there, star wars is a creative work and therefore less protected, next to nothing from any actual star wars IP should be used unless the modders are just stealing models from battlefront, and an arma mod is not going to hurt disney's profits
dark tulip
except that people now can download a free mod instead of buying Disney games...
digital comet
except that this free mod isn't the disney games
dark tulip
so yes, it does hurt their profits, not to mention it doesn't has the quality Disney required
digital comet
or free considering you still need to buy a $30 game that is essentially a different genre than said disney games
dark tulip
which means $30 not for Disney
digital comet
once again i highly doubt said arma mod was planning to completely rebuild battlefront
dark tulip
which isn't the point...
digital comet
except it is
dark tulip
the point is; those mods use an IP which is protected, and is therefor not allowed to be used
digital comet
there is zero chance that some arma mod is going to magically replace battlefront or even noticeably dent its popularity
dark tulip
and Fair Use does not apply here
digital comet
fair use absolutely applies
three of the four main parts of fair use undeniably apply and the chance of an arma mod somehow doing anything more than a negligible amount of damage to the profits of disney is almost zero
i'm sure disney sent them a scary letter promising to sue but a fair court would absolutely rule this as under fair use
dark tulip
breaking IP and trademarks is not covered by Fair Use
digital comet
that's an entirely different set of laws
dark tulip
so still not allowed
digital comet
im pretty sure it still is there as well
dark tulip
I think this is a great quote:
Fair Use or ‘Fair dealing’ (in the UK) is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. It is not a legal right. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing under EU, UK or US law - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. Nor is it judged in isolation. The context of use plays a factor, as does how you come by the material you are claim "fair use" for.
digital comet
yea and what court exactly is going to support disney's right to shut down a fan-creation mod for what is ultimately a fairly niche game
dark tulip
I'm sure Disney has more lawyers than some attic mod makers 😉
digital comet
but it's pretty clear here that disney's IP does not apply to this
dark tulip
in the end; the Arma community (including BI) says it's illegal, and therefor not allowed on this Discord. Unless Disney says otherwise
digital comet
so why is it somehow forbidden to ever mention using it
also i've yet to see any "Arma Community and Bohemia Interactive consensus" on this being illegal
zenith moss
@digital comet game genre is not going to be taken into account
purely the fact that it is a game is what matters
zenith moss
"yea and what court exactly is going to support disney's right to shut down a fan-creation mod for what is ultimately a fairly niche game"
probably every court it is presented to
digital comet
wow those are all legitimately pathetic
zenith moss
how would you explain disneys extremely rigorous and thorough IP that protects an asset worth billions and billions of dollars as not applicable to this?
elfin coral
Also do not forget that where valuable IP/Trademarks/et al are concerned if the owner does not demonstrably protect their interests (i.e. C+D/DMCA/Sue) a court can refuse to uphold those claims.
With the whole SW franchise being a huge profit making IP you can bet on Disney going after anyone who tries to mess with it.
I for one would not like to see that land on BI, nor anyone else's doorstep.
digital comet
except that the basic image of anything remotely related to one of the most well-known movie franchises in human history is not something disney can magically disappear at a will
copyright law is extensive and far too extensive imo
but it's not just "this no usable anymore"
elfin coral
the above includes anything which would affect thier commercial operations too, ergo games and other related media.
digital comet
which once again this still wouldn't
the chance of disney losing even 0.1% of its video game profits to an arma mod is absolutely zero
zenith moss
lol
elfin coral
free or not, you would be using their trademarks, copyrights etc.
and fwiw the existing SW mods which are banned use assets directly ripped from existing Star Wars titles, therefore they are banned here.
zenith moss
Is it a video game? Is it star wars? Then Disney can easily claim it could harm their active titles.
@elfin coral most of the existing
dont forget blue harvest
elfin coral
true 🙂
digital comet
is it a small mod for a niche video game? does it happen to use star wars's extremely common designs that are seen en masse across pop culture?
i checked and the mod makes excessively clear that it isn't an official star wars property
it doesn't even mention "star wars" except on a specific part of its website and makes extremely clear that it's an unofficial project
even the forum posts about it seem to say that it wasn't shut down for being a star wars mod and was shut down for stealing models from battlefront
zenith moss
Doesnt matter if it isnt an official star wars item
Check out spaceballs
that is about as close as you can safely get
especially with a video game
digital comet
and that's how terraria got away with literally adding lightsabers
and how stellaris has a star wars mod that's actually more popular than this one ever was
while also being even more recognizably star wars for that matter
zenith moss
they didnt add lightsabers
look at the name
and the people hosting/making the stellaris mod could be served with a C&D any day
digital comet
or rimworld's noticeably popular one, the thousands of literally ported gmod addons, the hoi4 mods, the civ mods, the space engineers recreations of star wars ships, the unturned mods
those are just going down my steam library
elfin coral
if you are referring to the one on a certain social media site, then it indeed does use ripped content from SW IP - no matter if they claim otherwise.
Anyway's it and the discussion of it is banned here, these conversations have been had over and over, the stance on them won't change.
digital comet
if it uses ripped content that's different
ripped content is absolutely a violation of copyright law
but one mod using ripped content doesn't magically make them all illegal
zenith moss
just because the others dont get caught doesnt mean you are fine to make one lol
they will eventually all get caught
digital comet
it's not a "getting caught" thing it's a "it's completely legal" thing
zenith moss
its not though
digital comet
it falls under fair use
zenith moss
I dont think you understand just how protected this is
digital comet
i don't think you understand that disney a separate body from congress
zenith moss
It does not fall under fair use when you are causing them injury in any form
elfin coral
given the history of those mods and the behaviour of the people who lay claim to them I doubt the blanket ban will be removed ever.
Disney have their IP to protect too, anything skirting close to that is likely to end up in court - regardless if you think Arma is a niche game or not.
digital comet
disney protecting it's ip to a stupid degree does not magically change copyright laws to make it illegal to make arma mods of said content
copyright laws have exceptions for fair use
zenith moss
for fair use yes
digital comet
disney sending cease and desist letters on cases it shouldn't doesn't change that fact
zenith moss
making an arma mod is not fair use
digital comet
i have explained several times how it absolutely is
the devs aren't making money off of it
zenith moss
you have explained incorrectly several times sure
it doesnt matter if they dont make money
digital comet
they are not actually taking anything from any disney contnet
digital comet
except it really can't because it's an arma mod
zenith moss
yes it can lol
elfin coral
my making a mod for a game you are defacto making a competitive product based on their IP which has the potential to damage thier commercial interests.
fair use or not, its dangerous legal territory.
digital comet
ah yes really going to cost disney because some people set up an arma mod that barely resembles anything disney has ever made
zenith moss
one person out there can go "hmm I think ill buy arma (or I already own arma) and play this star wars mod instead of Battlefront"
barely resembles?
I really doubt that
digital comet
yes barely resembles
zenith moss
Link
digital comet
they aren't implementing battlefront into arma
digital comet
this is star wars mods in general
zenith moss
they are both video games
digital comet
that's not enough
zenith moss
every star wars mod for arma has 100% resembled disney IP
I cant think of anything from one that hasnt
it is enough though
digital comet
it absolutely isn't
zenith moss
because you could potentially cause them losses
I will say again: one person out there can go "hmm I think ill buy arma (or I already own arma) and play this star wars mod instead of Battlefront"
digital comet
but that potential wouldn't hold up in a court of law at all
zenith moss
yes it would lol
digital comet
no it absolutely wouldn't
digital comet
unless disney just outright bribed the judge
disney's antipiracy policy is not us law
zenith moss
whats the name of that stellaris mod again
digital comet
there's like twenty of them
zenith moss
ill shoot that disneys way and we can see what happens
digital comet
go on the workshop you'll find plenty
digital comet
it's the opposition one
elfin coral
disney's antipiracy policy is not us law
correct, but they do adhere to the law and the US does follow US national as well as international intellectual property rights.
digital comet
it's under the opposition mod umbrella and only uses the star wars mod for that specific module
just because disney said it would do something does not mean that something is a viable definition of us law
like i've said disney is not congress
elfin coral
they arent defining the law, they are using existing laws to protect their IP.
zenith moss
saying disney is not congress is basically telling everyone you dont know what you are talking about
digital comet
no they're sending cease and desist letters that wouldn't hold up in an actual court
zenith moss
sometimes maybe
digital comet
that is a given thing
zenith moss
but in these instances they 100% would
elfin coral
cease and desists letters are your one-time get out of jail free card before they take you to court.
digital comet
they would take them to court and in even a somewhat unfair court they would almost certainly lose
elfin coral
sure 🙂
zenith moss
I dont know how I can make it any simpler, Disney make video game -> Disney sell copies get money -> You make star wars mod -> Less people buy disney game -> disney make less money -> you cause disney loss and disney sue you
digital comet
the cease and desist letters are entirely a means of controlling their ip to a degree beyond what the law allows
and they only work because random modders don't have the money to hire lawyers to challenge it
zenith moss
Sure sometimes that is the case but you can also sue someone for sending a fraudulent C&D
that isnt true
elfin coral
C+D's are a warning shot and should be treated as coming very close to being sued.
they are not a laughing matter.
digital comet
the literal point of what i just said is that it's people who don't have the money to deal with being taken to court
zenith moss
sure sometimes C&D are exaggerated ownership of something, that is not the case in this instance
digital comet
except for opposition's because it stole battlefront assets
zenith moss
you just dont seem to pick up on it
digital comet
you don't seem to pick up on what fair use is
this is a noncommercial derivative of a creative work that will not harm the creative work's bottom line
zenith moss
it doesnt matter
digital comet
that's fair use
zenith moss
it does harm the original work
it has the potential to take players from Disneys game
elfin coral
Who do you think a copyright court is going to side with?
A: A historical multi-billion dollar franchise who can more than demonstrate their ownership of IP.
B: Some person making a mod based on their IP
zenith moss
that is more than enough
digital comet
under the same logic a little girl's harry potter fanfiction harms fantastic beasts and where to find them
zenith moss
Sure it potentially could if she were to make it into a movie
digital comet
there has to be some actual notable harm rather than just "oh they look the same it might steal sales"
lean plover
TL;DR (all)
i just read something about fair use and automatically figured that 99,9% of people using this term have no idea what it is...
zenith moss
she wouldnt be able to though because she doesnt have the rights to the IP
@lean plover okay dude you think you know what fAiR uSe is? Bet you dont know what a D. M. C. A. is
digital comet
and if she somehow made it into a professional quality movie and tried to sell that movie she'd be in hot water
digital comet
none of the arma mod's i've seen are professional quality and they aren't trying to be sold
zenith moss
I think you are finally understanding
elfin coral
The notable harm is the fact you modified a game using their IP to create another game.
You answered your own arguement there.
zenith moss
That doesnt matter that an arma mod isnt of professionally quality the distribution is there
if the little girl made a harry potter fanfic and distributed it to theatres around the country you think that would be covered even if she edited it on moviemaker?
we are going to flip that little logic switch in your brain soon, and then you will see
digital comet
going back to the little girl example a 30 minute film taken with a 2000s iphone and posted to youtube isn't going to be viably sued by disney
lean plover
according to the argumentation of so many using the term "fair use" to justify their wrong doings, here's an example:
according to the most people beliefs of what fair use is, i would be allowed to chop your GF/wife into pieces and just user her "lower parts" to my likings for a limited amount of time / use case specific time
¯_(ツ)_/¯
zenith moss
Well that depends, does the little girls film use disney IP?
digital comet
yep it uses the harry potter ip
just like the no-doubt thousands of other youtube videos that fit that exact description
lean plover
okay dude you think you know what fAiR uSe is? Bet you dont know what a D. M. C. A. is
buddy, i filed and won way over 500 DMCA cases by now... 😉
zenith moss
that might be a bit far if not weird audio................. lol
elfin coral
JK Rowling owns the rights to HP, not Disney, and if she got the chance she'd sue people for looking at her wrong.
zenith moss
@lean plover sarcasm i heard steam wanted mercy from your numerous dmcas
digital comet
and i highly doubt she would win
zenith moss
maybe they should add even more disclaimers to the workshop uploads
digital comet
because it's clearly not the original work, it's fairly different in comparison to the original work, it's not being sold, etc etc
zenith moss
and also only allow verified 2FA accounts with the game purchased to upload
zenith moss
its funny but I do feel bad for steam
elfin coral
it is a competing product using their IP or even a derivative of that - regardless if its 'free' or not.
lean plover
@digital comet
does this answer your question?
zenith moss
still they could do more to solve it
lean plover
i 🦆ing know my business
digital comet
what does that even have to do with anything i've said
digital comet
and you filing dmcas somehow proves that?
lean plover
i know exactly what i'm talking about since i work in an industry that has to deal with this all the time
digital comet
i didn't say that you don't potentially know what you're talking about
lean plover
content creation / music / arts
digital comet
but im also not sure what in the world you're even arguing against since all you've really done is say that you know what you're talking about
lean plover
@lean plover okay dude you think you know what fAiR uSe is? Bet you dont know what a D. M. C. A. is
well....
digital comet
that wasn't me
zenith moss
toast basically agrees to everything except that the mod doesnt have the potential to cost disney money
yeah that was me lol
lean plover
i got that mixed up in the heat. i apologize
zenith moss
hey you better be sorry or ill DMCA you
lean plover
but to recap all the fair use stuff:
99,9% of the people using that term have no idea what that even means. i also did struggle in the past while having a case (music) and had to be lectured by my lawyer
digital comet
i'm assuming copyright.gov is a fairly good source on US copyright law
lean plover
it is not easy to read the laws, but there are a lot of well explained cases on the net
digital comet
and based on what it mentions as the main issues on whether something is or isn't fair use it seems to agree that a star wars themed arma mod would be safe
lean plover
ip theft for mod creation does not apply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
digital comet
is that specifically stated somewhere?
i thought i'd heard someone say the us didn't have any protections for game mods
lean plover
well, common copyright laws still apply
also the rules for intellectual property (IP)
digital comet
i mean obviously making money on it and stealing assets are both still out
lean plover
technically, even the use of trademarks has to be looked at with caution
remember the humvee case?
digital comet
not really no
lean plover
or the ICRC case?
digital comet
which icrc case lol
they love suing games for using the red cross
although that one i can certainly see
considering that their trademark also happens to be an extremely important international symbol
lean plover
remember the humvee case
GM vs Call of duty
ICRC
ICRC vs. Prison architects
digital comet
actually aren't most of the ICRC ones a Geneva Convention issue rather than a copyright issue
or rather they're a mix of both
lean plover
companies like the mentioned go for a specific target. but the thing with disney is, they are no snipers if it comes to law suits. they use a sawed off shotgun with buckshot rounds, hitting as much as possible.
so, if disney decides to go after the mods, BI and most likely the whole modding community is 🦆ed
one of the major reasons why mods that use disney IP are banned
digital comet
i mean the thing that started this whole discussion was that someone asked how to set up zeus on a map without it and said the words "star wars zeus op"
lean plover
even tho that disney would be technically wrong going for BI / other modders, they just have more money and lawyers than BI...
we all know what that means
digital comet
tbf bohemia is also a company
it's different when both parties are capable of getting capable lawyers
i honestly doubt that disney would go after bohemia unless bohemia itself actively supported the mods because that's a lawsuit disney has no reason to try for and is far less likely to win
lean plover
the US law system is not about being right or justice... it's who has the better and more lawyers
sad, but true
digital comet
that's not completely true
it's definitely a huge benefit and that's a shame but you can win a case with worse lawyers
and disney would have an advantage but far less of one than it does against modders who literally cannot afford lawyers
lean plover
then why are there lawyers that do not defend the accused but rather go through all the fiules to find a typo that makes the arrest / case false?
¯_(ツ)_/¯
a typo
i've seen that happen
digital comet
that's far less damaging when both sides have lawyers
lean plover
a rapist got free because the arresting officer had a 🦆ing typo in the arrest document
digital comet
the main group that discourages is the aforementioned random modders who can barely afford even a regular court at best
elfin coral
it's not just the fact parties can be sued, its the damages awarded in those cases too.
digital comet
yes but even then going after a target more capable of defending itself means less damages and more money spent on lawyers
it's much more profitable to go after modders that BI isn't protecting and who are far easier and more profitable to sell
lean plover
disney has the financial capabilities to stretch a case over years, and a company like BI can not. this tactic can be seen as medieval siege
digital comet
and what benefit does disney get from this?
lean plover
win a case even if not in the right
digital comet
winning alone is not a benefit
lean plover
a small company has to retreat
digital comet
disney sues to make more profit and secure their ip
which is far cheaper and easier against the modders themselves
lean plover
but that would still cripple a smaller company to bankruptcy
elfin coral
anyways, there's a Stanford.edu (US) site about the copyright/fair use/topics, might be worth a read, even if to just brush up on things - https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/
digital comet
but crippling bohemia would be completely non-beneficial for disney
lean plover
good find. i was looking for that earlier but couldn't find it
but crippling bohemia would be completely non-beneficial for disney
wrong. it would proof their point: don't 🦆 with us
digital comet
as would suing the easier targets
lean plover
long term of such a scenario: no more modding
elfin coral
and it would send a message out to the industry as well as indie's and hobbyists.
lean plover
☝️
digital comet
and once again suing an actual company means accepting a real chance of failure
elfin coral
not when you have the legal rights to the IP.
lean plover
speaking of fair use: i was in the middle of cutting movie quotes (for parody use) and then got caught up here 😂
digital comet
because if the judge decides "no, that seems like it's alright" or BI's lawyer finds that metaphorical typo in the arrest document that causes real harm for disney
the reward isn't really worth the risk
elfin coral
I mean the chance of failing when you are the owner - or licencesor of an IP is so minute it's hardly worth mentioning.
lean plover
as said, disney can stretch a case over years, costing millions of lawyer salaries that BI can not do
digital comet
against people who have actually committed possible offenses sure
against a game company whose modders have modified their product to break a copyright?
elfin coral
anyway, as a commercial entity supporting a lot of people i'm pretty sure BI wouldn't want to put their company at risk.
digital comet
if it's a case that wouldn't make it in a fair world disney is risking a fair court
lean plover
again, disney uses buckshot rounds, hitting everyone
digital comet
disney is imprecise but it isn't run by idiots
lean plover
modders, BI, related companies, whoever
elfin coral
the case would be against the mod authors however, but it would have the potential to reflect badly on BI.
digital comet
that's the largest issue yea
it wouldn't look great on Bohemia for a mod to be taken down
elfin coral
and a high profile legal case in the press
digital comet
not exactly an issue
hell if anything that's a benefit
it's not often you get free advertising for a decade-old game
digital comet
i mean if they mention arma 3 at all i feel like it would give more benefit than harm
lean plover
remember when voices got loud after somebody used arma 3 to virtually train possible djihad fighters?
digital comet
that is an entirely different situation
digital comet
there's a difference in how people react to "this game's modders broke disney copyright" and "someone used this game to train terrorists"
elfin coral
not really - think about potential employees - would they want to go work for a company involved or mentioned in such a case?
there's a bunch of potential fallout due to that type of press due to a court case.
there's a lot of ethical values people put into things and it may completely go against their own ethics.
lean plover
in the end, it was just a modder who recreated the ISIS factions as opfor and some dude on facebook / reddit / other reliable news source blew it up AF
elfin coral
😏
elfin coral
yeah
digital comet
also the first news article i found on it targets the modders rather than arma 3
it is also the only news article that seems to exist on it
elfin coral
arma's been used in a bunch of news reports, just shows the quality of their reporting where they dont validate their sources 😉
lean plover
if you go through the public cases of disney vs whoever, you will find plenty of examples that not just the direct violator was targeted, but also related parties. either indirect or direct related
arma's been used in a bunch of news reports, just shows the quality of their reporting where they dont validate their sources 😉
IRA 😄
the first known case
digital comet
how does that even happen anyways
elfin coral
digital comet
arma screenshots aren't exactly hard to tell apart from real life
digital comet
if that's the original i can kind of see how it could be mistaken for being real
that is blurry enough to make it hard to tell
still bad journalism ofc but at least reasonable
but like some of the stuff they use is clearly a videogame and still gets in
elfin coral
there's a whole bunch of them 🙂
digital comet
ik
it's really odd
and some of them make some sense but then there's so many others that don't
elfin coral
so us it's odd, but to a journalist it may seem legit especially if its pixelated.
digital comet
yea like i said i can see ones like the "ira film" one
but take the russian one that you posted
that wasn't even that unclear
elfin coral
there was one a couple of years ago with the phalanx
digital comet
it was clearly arma and could be noticed just by looking at it paused for a few moments
the phalanx one is worse
how in the world
elfin coral
😄
digital comet
do you mean a different one or the "iranian missile strike in iraq" one
digital comet
it's a pretty video and the sounds are good but you can see blurry textures on the phalanx and the water looks ridiculous
how in the world did that get past anyone
elfin coral
yep, but if your a journalist in not a first country and you get video from someone - they may think that it could be off an old phone with a low res camera.
then pass it on confirming its authenticity - that they got it from some military source - but not actually verifying the content was fake - or from a video game.
digital comet
even in the comments people are calling it out as fake news
zenith moss
So does toast understand now?
digital comet
we dropped that topic a while ago without coming to an agreement
zenith moss
K
elfin coral
that stanford site is worth a read regardless, got some pretty good info on it
digital comet
yea i looked at it a bit
old jay
"without coming to an agreement"
A consensus is not needed to tell you its prohibited.
Disney, the Star Wars IP rights holder EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT the use of its IP outside of its designated license holders.
Please direct reports to us via one of the following methods:
Email: tips@disneyantipiracy.com```@digital comet
fair use absolutely applies
no it doesn't.
it falls under fair use
no it doesn't, stop spreading falsehoods here.
paper roost
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2088706157 The Ghurka in this mod is from GTA and the pbo says "d3s_insurgent_gtaV.pbo" 
owner claims it's not
inland sphinx
d3s is known for ripping all his stuff
paper roost
I emailed copyright@take2games.com regarding this as that's what the rockstar ToS gives as contact information
Good to see most of d3s stuff is gone from the workshop
Remember there being one new car every week from him or his friends
digital comet
ok so first of all i still don't see how fair use doesn't apply
and second of all can you not drag up a debate a day after its ended
turbid meadow
and second of all can you not drag up a debate a day after its ended
I wouldnt really call 6 hours a day if you mean what dedmen posted
I mean for dedmen its still the same day in terms of time
digital comet
ok can you not drag up a debate six hours after its ended
strange shadow
how dare anyone but you speak their mind huh?
dark tulip
To be fair... You still don't understand what Fair Use is, and seems to be unable to understand what "it's illegal" means... Even when the facta are presented and a BI employee tells you how it is...
So 6 hours to have someone explain it to you, again, is indeed bad... For not understanding it the first time...
old jay
@digital comet As the Moderator ( and the one who will ultimately ban you if you continue trying to promote/endorse/support illegal activity by blatantly spreading falsehoods) I do not need your permission, thanks.
digital comet
i am not "blatantly spreading falsehoods"
having a different view on the issue than you is not "blatantly spreading falsehoods"
and claiming otherwise is just rude
the issue was dropped 6 hours ago
old jay
You have now been told, by not 1, but two Moderators and a slew of professional mod-makers who are quite are of the legalities of this.
digital comet
i don't understand why you feel the need to drag it up again
old jay
Because you are about to be removed
old jay
We dont need to be polite when you are spreading false information.
digital comet
i was done arguing about it as was everyone else
unreal valley
I have a question, there is a steam workshop mod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1685039592
Said mod is missing a bikey file, and prevents the community i am part of from using it for events. I have manually compiled a bikey using the bisign in the mod files, but know that it is probably not correct to upload that to the workshop. I have spent a few months trying to get into contact with the mod author, who is frequently online and playing arma, to see if they can quickly add the bikey file to the mod, but have not been able to get any responses from them. Is there any way that I can upload the bikey file for the mod to workshop without breaking steam workshop TOS/rules/etc? and not stealing his work?
inland sphinx
hat it is probably not correct to upload that to the workshop
correct its not.
Is there any way that I can upload the bikey file for the mod to workshop
I don't know if the bisign/bikey has to be in the same folder as the pbo, if yes then you can't. If not, you can just make a "empty" mod with just the bisigns in it
turbid meadow
If you only upload the file you made that should be fine since you arent uploading his work
unreal valley
The mod already has bisign file, jsut no bikey
i compiled the bikey manually using the bisign that was in the mod file
i technically used his work
turbid meadow
Check what the license to original is uploaded under I guess, it might be counted as a derivative work
unreal valley
how do i see that
inland sphinx
the bikeys/bisigns you created completely yourself, so you wouldn't have copyright issues with that
unreal valley
ok
inland sphinx
I wouldn't count bisigns as derivatives 🤔
I mean.. technically the key is derived from the pbo content but.. uff
unreal valley
Im not sure if its possible to have exernal bikey?
turbid meadow
he used the original owners work to create the bikey though, no? That'd make it a derivative work (I think) since its based on the original authors work
i compiled the bikey manually using the bisign that was in the mod file
unreal valley
because it already had a bisign but no bikey for some reason
inland sphinx
Im not sure if its possible to have exernal bikey?
Yes. I don't know. Someone wanted to try a couple days ago but didn't afaik
unreal valley
the mod has bisign
inland sphinx
I actually.. don't know if clients need signs?
unreal valley
but no bikey
inland sphinx
Well you need the bikey that matches the bisign
unreal valley
so its all good
inland sphinx
not just any bikey
inland sphinx
the bikey is created by the mod author
unreal valley
but the mod author did not create a bikey?
inland sphinx
He did
he just didn't put it in the download
and you cannot just "make" a bikey, you need to get the one from the author
its a "key" you cannot just "make" a key that matches a random lock that you don't have
turbid meadow
you cannot just "make" a key that matches a random lock that you don't have
You say that
zenith moss
I thought the bisigns were basically just like hashes
inland sphinx
you cannot generate a public key (bikey) without having the private key, which you don't
elfin coral
I actually.. don't know if clients need signs?
they do, its one half of the key-pair used in pbo validation.
unreal valley
but then why would the mod maker upload the mod with bisign but not bikey T_T
inland sphinx
Because they didn't think it through
strange shadow
you can also check his license to see if it allows modifying and redist
unreal valley
how would i see his license
strange shadow
it should be included
turbid meadow
Note that the license allowing it doesnt mean that you can reupload it in the workshop
elfin coral
no licence == most restrictive licence, out of luck there 🙂
unreal valley
ill try to reach him on bi forums to see if he just forgot to include it
it seems like hes most active on there
abstract crest
Sorry @inland sphinx Completely failed to get back to you... bisigns and bikeys do NOT need to be in the same mod folder to work with signature verification
abstract crest
Testing something else on that now... i.e. can you override bisigns...
Because I just tested the bisigns being in a different place... Wait one
abstract crest
PM-ed...
cursive sedge
Leftover old/wrong bisign files will also throw failure even if a valid one is also present
abstract crest
Not if they are removed from the server they won't
I just mean that they only have to be remediated on the server
cursive sedge
leftover on client
inland sphinx
I read somewhere that bisigns are supposidely ONLY needed on server, anyone know anything bout that?
elfin coral
how would the key-pairs work during client validation if the clients didn't have them alongside pbo's to match against the server key?
if anything it would be bisigns required on clients, with server having the serverkey for key-pair validation during connection negotiation.
cursive sedge
Client side only addons are the prime candidates for that as well
elfin coral
yep
abstract crest
I did testing yesterday that showed that for a mod with no bikey you can (1) create a second mod with bikeys and bisigns for all of the pbos in that mod and install on server and client, (2) remove the bisigns from the original mod on the server and (3) install the new bikey on the server in the keys folder. This will correctly verify against the original mod with no changes to the client other than adding the second mod.
brave knot
hey what should I exactly write in this part of the DMCA section
Describe the specific content on Valve systems that you think is in violation
Identify the copyrighted material that you claim is infringing
I already linked the mod URL that has my content in a previous passage, so not sure what to write here
inland sphinx
In one part (I think the top one) I list all of the files with full path, and their SHA1 hashes
in the second part I explain why I don't permit it, where the permitted upload is, and where the statement is that specifically says that its not permitted
brave knot
sha1 hashes?
inland sphinx
Yes
brave knot
what is a sha1 hash exactly??
brave knot
I have like 2 pbos with a handful of files each, would be overkill for me I guess
fiery egret
@brave knot https://superuser.com/a/898377
Here you have the command that will compute the hash for you
inland sphinx
Its probably not important, and you probably don't need it. But its what I do, to tell valve exactly what content in there is infringing
dark tulip
I usually just put down the pbo names which also seems to work. Especially since they're (sort of) unique.
brave knot
with me they just ploppled my pbos in their pack
shouldn't be difficult to understand that my files are months older
inland sphinx
there are no changedates in pbo's
brave knot
but there are in workshop pages
wasn't sure if I should insert my workshop page somewhere, wouldn't risk accidentally DMCAing myself
inland sphinx
They won't check the full workshop item history
valve specifically say or said somewhere that linking your own, original upload makes it much easier for them
because they can check "jup, he has these files, and his item is older.. That looks legit"
you cannot.. really DMCA yourself can you?
Can you counter claim and sue yourself in court 🤔
brave knot
I'll milk money out of myself
also should I write it in english or in italian?
I guess that this will go to italian valve staff?
inland sphinx
I always write english, Dawn is american
You write the DMCA to the reuploaders of your stuff
mainly.. partly... english is better
brave knot
figured so
abstract crest
I feel sorry for Dawn. Hardest working employee at Valve...
abstract crest
She... and it is possible that she is tbh...
brave knot
oof must be annoying
patent copper
In case anyone has a private or friendsonly workshop mod he'd like to also be available to scan for in the workshop crawler you can add my bot and then it will track your item too, just pm me
zenith moss
@steep parrot
zenith moss
watch out @lean plover were simps now
zenith moss
just simpin out here trying to protect the free content we provide
lean plover
how dare you demanding rights!!!
zenith moss
what can I say man im a simp
shell scaffold
its OUR content in this soviet state
vast stump
It's pretty much always people who have not created any content that complain.
potent wadi
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1825521205
Kimi_HMDs_Wipeout
also has in Parachute_01_F.p3d
yax is already aware of the MH-60 reupload
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1305680619
@ocean ibex im assuming this is one of your maps
@turbid raven
reupload of the nimitz
ttt_nimitzfunctions.pbo
@lean plover chernarus_winter.pbo cup ?
Its probably safe to assume his whole workshop is reuploads
https://steamcommunity.com/id/shakxtra/myworkshopfiles/?appid=107410
vast stump
Uncertain. Would not personally trust it.
strange shadow
i think a bunch of em are ripped from forza or one of those games
lean plover
unlikely
zealous ore
Are Ivory
@shell scaffold nope
willow crane
None of Dezkit/Ivory models are his own they are all ripped and always have been.
terse night
So I'm really new to the "legal" side of addons. How would I go about licensing a workshop item (eg. under APL-ND)?
lean plover
feel free to use CUP-L if it suits you
http://cup-arma3.org/license
terse night
Thanks, would I just put a readme or something in the addon saying something like "This addon is licensed under CUP-L. By using this addon you agree to x, y, z..."?
lean plover
sure. best to also leave a link to this license
and mention the license on a later workshop page
terse night
Alright, appreciate the help
lean plover
👍
golden topaz
These are the licenses provided by BI, including APL-ND that you mentioned
there's a simple flowchart for picking a type of license there
old jay
@terse night Please ensure that the content is "actually" yours, that you have "full legal authority" to claim it as your own and that the license holder of the thing you're creating allows for your use of it.
A specific example would be that you wanted to make something that looks like a "Tie-Fighter" or looked similar enough to one or if you wanted to create a fictional craft for the Star Wars Universe or even just wanted to call it a "Tie-Fighter Too". None of this would be permissible under Disney's licensing. Again this is a very specific example of one of the most restrictive licenses out there, but it should give you pause for consideration.
terse night
@old jay Yeah, that's one of the things I'm not entirely sure about. The main thing I'm worried about, which I'm doing right now is a set of flags for a unit I play on.
The flags are based on (and include) the insignia of the real life unit. The flags themselves are done in photoshop, but I'm not entirely sure I can class it as "mine", as I didn't make the original design, but essentially slapped the insignia on a flag consisting of the regimental colours.
Whilst I did make the flag itself, I don't know to what extent it needs to be mine for me to license it.
I'd assume my best bet would be to just contact the author of the original insignia and check how they look at stuff like that?
old jay
I'd assume my best bet would be to just contact the author of the original insignia and check how they look at stuff like that? Absolutely!
In fact, this is enshrined in our rules.
Excerpts:
The first and most fundamental rule is that you must seek permission to alter someone's work, to mirror it or use it in any way other than for personal use. No permission, no editing, no mirroring, no adding to your mod pack, no editing and sharing around your private squad, none of that is acceptable.
if a person/team post a thread to share an addon/mod using content from someone else without permission and we receive a complaint then the mod thread will be closed until the issue is resolved and the forum member(s) risks being permanently banned from these forums for taking someone's work without permission.
This isn't just limited to re-using content in addons/mods/missions however, it's not acceptable to edit someone's work without permission and then to post screenshots of it on the forums (even if the edited addon/mod is purely for personal use), it's also not acceptable to edit someone's work, or use someone's work in any way that you don't have permission for and then to create videos which you post on these forums, doing any of the above without the permission of the original creators risks a permanent ban, for individuals, for whole mod teams or squads.
terse night
Alright, appreciate the feedback. I've contacted the appropriate department and will be keeping the mod unlisted until I know for sure.
brave knot
Anyone knows if this is allowed? https://imgur.com/a/qSgHuIi
turbid meadow
Afaik retextures of base game stuff is fine as long as they only retexture it and dont re-distribute the whole object and as long as they comply with all the other rules like monetization and that kinda stuff @brave knot
wintry yoke
Wasn't it impossible to retex a building object without editing the model directly?
turbid meadow
Dont think so? Might be wrong though since its only stuff I've heard and havent done it myself
brave knot
To retexture that tower you would have to open the p3d due to lack of hs
Which I don't think is allowed
Unless that tower was present in some previous Arma games or something
vast stump
lifers?
brave knot
its from lingor
vast stump
if its from Arma 2/released datapack files then its kosher
brave knot
don't think though
never seen it in A2
vast stump
it does use CUP
brave knot
that tower is from apex doe
and defenitely not present in cup nor A2
I hope BI unlocks the files one day
abstract crest
Both those models are from Lingor btw
abstract crest
Yeah, I meant the blue control tower and satellite dish... I was suddenly realising I was not clear 😉
brave knot
you get the point I'm trying to make though
ocean ibex
Mikero tools linked in official tools are able to change the texture
Lingor will be removed completely today
Due to msgs i got from many ppl
brave knot
seems extreme
is it for the tower?
brave knot
thats cool
didn't knew it was possible
ocean ibex
I never opened a ebo like some other mapmakers confirmed to me
strange shadow
no need toopen ebo to see those p3ds from tanoa
ocean ibex
And even sent me .exe tools from russia :)))
strange shadow
only tanoa map is ebo.. not assets
ocean ibex
Yes pbos were released years ago
And that are the ones i have on my p drive via official tool
Or mikeros dont remember
brave knot
I never seen anyone using that tool
could make some cool stuff retexturing A3 buildings
unless its only for specific ones
tbh I don't see any reason in removing the map if its all legit
strange shadow
re uploading altered or not p3ds from a3 is not legit, no
brave knot
he said he didn't tho
ocean ibex
Thats why mikero made movefolder and moveobject
Dunno who in team made objects2 but I'll remove stuff, there are also bugs there ruining enoch
Well, enoch ruined it so we need to fix it heh
Since i am fully busy right now i can only remove stuff altogether
brave knot
so you're deleting the map or the objects?
ocean ibex
Map, cant delete part of it, i dont have backup with me at this location
strange shadow
o.O
brave knot
I understand that, makes sense
but it might cause issues with some people
why not just update it with the fixed stuff
also that mikero tool has some cool potential, could retexture the domes or the civilian houses
strange shadow
which is not legal
all of us map ppls would be doing hella ret2xtures if we could
brave knot
oh so even the tool is not legal?
I'm checking the Pbo and I don't see the actual model in the files
strange shadow
the tools is legal, uploading modified p3ds is
strange shadow
the only way possible to retexture structures is to modify p3d. uniforms and vehicles can use hidden selections. buildings must have 1x p3d per variant
brave knot
yeah knew that
though that maybe the tool made it so it could retexture without doubling the model
lavish basalt
There's another workaround to retexture unretexturable things: overwrite pboprefix does, that's how CrazyMike did for Winter 2035. Of course this risks a lot of things
brave knot
I guess he found a way to use other paas with the same name
lavish basalt
You meant CrazyMike? No, that's a pboprefix trick
brave knot
huh interesting
lavish basalt
Like, if a building uses a texture like a3\pbo\data\texture.paa, he makes a pbo with texture.paa, and set its pboprefix a3\pbo\data
strange shadow
wont that also swap it on the or7g7nal map?
inland sphinx
So to clarify, IceBreakr was implying that just copying vanilla binarized models, hex editing them and redistributing them is allowed/fine. Its NOT.
To quote the EULA
As a Subject to the Grant of License herein above, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, duplicate, reproduce, translate, reverse-engineer, modify, disassemble, decompile, derive source code, create derivative works based on the Program, remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Program or otherwise modify the Program without the prior written consent of the Licensor.
brave knot
I know this sounds stupid for just a tower but its either everything or nothing
turbid meadow
lean plover
in this form, no
brave knot
is this an entire website around breaking monetization rules?
dark tulip
yup
obsidian cypress
is this an entire website around breaking monetization rules?
That's a good summary 😄
dense field
Pre sure it's stollen as well iirc some guy called koala made that, Winter is one of the Anzuz devs iirc
old jay
Link removed, but we are already aware of it, thank you.
sleek lantern
Hey all, so i found this website selling my stuff when you can't sell it in the first place - https://armaservices.net/product/police-department-building/ what can i do?
I've talked to the website owner and he won't remove it without me giving him my source
and I never give out source files
inland sphinx
A3 Tools eula violation, also send mail to BI mail in #ip_rights_violations description
high wasp
@sleek lantern can toss a DMCA at his website host provider as well
IANA ID: 269
Abuse Contact Email: abuse@key-systems.net
Abuse Contact Phone: tel:+49.68949396850```@sleek lantern @high wasp dont forget to hit up his payment provider / payment gate
mighty plaza
Lol anyone that pays for free mods deserves it imo
inland sphinx
But the guy who gets paid for stuff he didn't make, doesn't
lilac sparrow
@sleek lantern Do you understand we have a 150$ invoice for your PayPal and attached discussion with you selling this police department?
You can spread lies over my Discord server, but I would not recommend lying to everyone here, because I have that as a fact.
I'm just wondering If you willing to refund that 150$ bill for selling the property you made with A3 Tools.
inland sphinx
Do I understand right that the site is yours?
You know that selling anything that moved through A3 Tools (that includes p3d models) violates the tools EULA right?
lilac sparrow
Yes, however there is a misleading to this caused by such "lifers are d*gshit" people, we sell products that are not a P3D models - product is a service that also includes API integration, installation and etc, and I'm pretty much aware of that. There is no option to download P3D models directly with a purchase, and on the other hand, to keep transparency with this, you can ask my vendors to provide any P3D model used even without any of purchase being done on free-to-use basis.
inland sphinx
Nice that you say that, but just looking at the page it very much looks like you are selling models.
lilac sparrow
That's a content description. I don't think people will understand CfgVehicles asset configruation for this model to make it brr brr like a car description. However if somebody has a problem with that description and if it's misleading that much I will listen to advise of change.
My point is to let people sell the work they own, if this strategy fails I would have to remove anything related to violation of EULA. However that's just gonna be another let down and a pretty clear reason for me why people move far away from working with A3.
wintry yoke
they move away because there are consequences to violating the EULA? 🤔
inland sphinx
Well I would recommend that you state on your website what you are really selling.
You tell us here that you only sell services, but the website says you sell a building
lilac sparrow
This will be done then.
they move away because there are consequences to violating the EULA? 🤔
That's not the exact reason. However this is an offtopic for this channel - we can discuss it elsewhere.
old jay
No, its not done. It will catch up to you.
wintry yoke
By the way, why not just forward it to the BI legal department and let them decide if it's allowed?
lilac sparrow
I meant this will be done to product description by stated recommendation from Dedmen above. However you decided another context in my message, classic.
inland sphinx
@lilac sparrow Though, selling other peoples stuff without permission is still not allowed, even if you don't violate the EULA.
So if that guy is selling Kangaro0's model...
Peoples stuff being stolen and sold under a different name and someone else taking credits and money for things they haven't made, is why people are leaving Arma, not because you cannot make money, because you never could make money in the first place and that didn't change.
@lilac sparrow You tell me you sell services but nothing that went through A3 Tools
<law-enforcement-pack-d3stextures-config>
But this says its already all set up in a pbo and the buyer basically doesn't need to do anything than place that pbo in their modpack?
lilac sparrow
While in meanwhile, the mentioned "owner" sold this asset for 3-digit price now calling out for being abused now.
inland sphinx
And the seller of that thing literally has stuff on his workshop that he himself labeled as reupload
https://steamcommunity.com/id/jason78/myworkshopfiles/ which is very much not allowed and puts up a question about him selling similar content..
sold this asset for 3-digit price now calling out for being abused now.
If he is the author/owner of that content, its his right to sell his source content as long as it doesn't violate the A3 Tools EULA.
But its not your right to sell copies of his stuff just because he does too.
Or are you allowed to sell your own Hollywood movie DVD copies just because the original maker also sells them? No you aren't. So thats not a justification
lilac sparrow
However the vendor didn't purchase a 1$ copy of that DVD, he purchased the whole hollywood movie price.
wintry yoke
but did the vendor buy with the notice that it will be copied and resold?
inland sphinx
what?
old jay
The simplest answer is to ban you both.
lilac sparrow
So this is how you resolve issues like that, ban?
old jay
One for selling, the other for reselling. Quite clear
lilac sparrow
I'm trying to cooperate here to make everything proper and make people earn from their stuff in meanwhile. The point is that assets doesn't really have any positive impact on my service directly, I'm currently taking more risks than profits at this point. The point is that this whole game is still breathing based on 3rd-party content of the community which basically made this game as it is right now. Both paid or free-to-use content, it's just I do not agree that some people work should be free as default. And I'm not talking about this particular incident right now, but overall.
inland sphinx
Can you explain how asset content is sold? and what service along with that?
So I assume you sell as .fbx/.obj + textures in what format? + text files
How do people get that content ingame?
wintry yoke
Isn't paid (3rd party) content only a thing in the Arma Life community?
lilac sparrow
@wintry yoke You would be surprised.
wintry yoke
Please, enlighten me
lilac sparrow
With what? My telemetry data? And this is going offtopic again, please contact me in PM for that case.
inland sphinx
Please answer my questions above
Thats relevant, whether only lifers pay for stuff is not.
wintry yoke
I've yet to meet a 'milsim' group that uses paid content myself
lilac sparrow
That was an answer to another person, do not infringe me please for that.
wintry yoke
and I wouldn't say Arma Life is what keeps the game breathing
lilac sparrow
Can you explain how asset content is sold? and what service along with that?
So I assume you sell as .fbx/.obj + textures in what format? + text files
How do people get that content ingame?
@inland sphinx
- You pay for the service (call that a product).
- Product is manually served to API and related with installation guide where people can access and read that.
- Assets are manually delivered with an external link to whatever source (should be open to public) provide by vendor.
So basically anyone has access to this content on web by just direct link, purchased or not. This is why this is a service, since anyone has a free access to share any of the links for that content and it's not self-contained within the service. The basic thing is you cannot use that asset (currently only CfgVehicles supported) in-game without a permission from a specific framework called "core".
So basically some products provided is not even protected in any way and can be shared and used without our vendor knowledge if somebody decides to use that for free (which I'm pretty sure is going to happen) since people never pay for what they can access for free, there is even a service strategy to mitigate a % of damage from that as result. Let's be clear, I personally post only SQF-related content myself, and I met a lot of reports of someone re-selling my own stuff.
wintry yoke
Is that core something that checks a license in-game or something similar?
lilac sparrow
In short - yes.
inland sphinx
So in the end, you have a in-game object, that you imported yourself with A3 tools, that you can all do yourself for free.
But you cannot use the ready in-game object that went through A3 Tools because you didn't pay for it 🤔
lilac sparrow
Yes, you purchase the access to it.
That probably should be properly stated in ToS and product description
wintry yoke
I'm not sure how buying access to the PBO files is different from buying the PBO files?
lilac sparrow
You don't have to buy access to PBO
inland sphinx
But how do you make sure that a model that the buyer imports himself can only be used if he has your core files 🤔
wintry yoke
You just pay for the license?
lilac sparrow
@inland sphinx Pure SQF, how else.
Like there is other way
I can't use your Intercept for that reason for sure.
inland sphinx
Well when the user imports the model, they can choose their own name and stuff. I don't see how you would detect that the specific model is yours if the user who does the importing by himself basically decides all factors that you could to detect that
Can you send me the source files for that police station that that vendor is selling via DM?
Considering they are free anyway?
lilac sparrow
Any P3D models made outside Blender (with Object Builder) is not ours and we do not claim that.
inland sphinx
@lilac sparrow
Can you send me the source files for that police station that that vendor is selling via DM?
Considering they are free anyway?
That way we can end the question of whether your platform is actually legally selling that stuff once and for all.
Though whether Kangaro0 allows his content to be sold would be a different story still
lilac sparrow
I'll make a conversation with a vendor and return back to this.
inland sphinx
You can DM me without a friend request btw
lilac sparrow
Not really 
inland sphinx
I have DM's open for everyone
Alternatively you could just send the link here, as you say you aren't selling it and its free for all to download.
lilac sparrow
Version you purchase have an ObfuSQF over it, I don't think that might be useful for you.
inland sphinx
I meant the building model
you said the model itself is given away for free
I want just that
- Assets are manually delivered with an external link to whatever source (should be open to public)
So basically anyone has access to this content on web by just direct link, purchased or not.
That
turbid meadow
Version you purchase have an ObfuSQF over it
I hope the person that created that never used any community resources to learn how to make it
lilac sparrow
That's basically RSA256 DRM
turbid meadow
Otherwise thats a pretty 💩 -y thing to do imo
inland sphinx
You said its free to download on a publicly available link. Just send me that.
lilac sparrow
However you requested a model, not a pacakge itself.
inland sphinx
That pbo contains a binarized p3d format model that went through Arma 3 tools which cannot be sold.
What is the actual service on that product?
lilac sparrow
You just got what's called a service. Well besides some additional SQF inside the package.
inland sphinx
You pay for the license of your core script not preventing people to use the content.
You are putting post-A3Tools content behind a paywall
you are monetizing content that went through A3 Tools..?
lilac sparrow
How's giving access to a link a monetization of A3 Tools products?
inland sphinx
Its not
giving people A3Tools made content, but paywalling them behind a payed service, is
proud helm
protecting models via SQF
dafuq? think i just left reality... but cookies seem to taste good here
turbid meadow
lilac sparrow
dafuq? think i just left reality... but cookies seem to taste good here
¯_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say to you.
There you go as you requested
inland sphinx
So as far as I can see, you are putting a paywall around A3Tools made content.
That is monetization
There you go as you requested
Thats not a source file. Thats post A3Tools binarization.
lilac sparrow
Wait a minute, so what exactly do you need?
inland sphinx
I just wanted proof of wrong doing or not wrong doing
so far you gave me proof of wrongdoing twice
lilac sparrow
So you ask me to post a public version of P3D model in source?
inland sphinx
If what you sent me is whats included in the service that people pay for in your shop. Thats monetization of A3 Tools content which violates the EULA
brave knot
if you want your buisness to be ok within monetization rules just sell .obj or .fbx files instead
inland sphinx
These products, from that vendor violate the A3 Tools EULA and are illegal to sell. So please take them down from your shop now.
lilac sparrow
Not sure how google drive link is something "included" in my service.
inland sphinx
Not gonna tell you that again. You now know that product from that vendor is not legal. So please take it down of your platform now that you are aware of wrongdoing.
inland sphinx
As I said, I requested that to check if you/the vendor is violating the EULA. Result is, yes you are violating the EULA.
So yes, good job.
I don't know what else you expect.
wintry yoke
How is cooperation related to being cleared of wrongdoing
brave knot
just because I show pics of my victims it doesn't make me less of a murderer
wintry yoke
bit disturbing example there @brave knot 😛
brave knot
gets the point across
lilac sparrow
How did you from purchasing an access to a link with assets (google drive link) is violating any of EULA here, especially when I went fully cooperative on my statement, that anyone can receive any BIS-related content (such as P3Ds) via simple request?
We probably are living in a different worlds.
inland sphinx
I explained above
you are locking A3 Tools created content behind a paywall, thats monetziation.
lilac sparrow
So giving a paid access to A3 servers is a paywall?
inland sphinx
What you CAN legally do, is sell the source files (.fbx/.obj models, png/tga/whatever textures) and a guide on how to import it.
However that is not what you are doing
So giving a paid access to A3 servers is a paywall?
If you need to pay to get in, yes.
lilac sparrow
Do you understand you just went against your own company monetization statement?
inland sphinx
specially when I went fully cooperative on my statement, that anyone can receive any BIS-related content (such as P3Ds) via simple request?
I don't understand what you want to say that? You were cooperative, and showed me proof of wrongdoing.
What?
wintry yoke
You know servers can apply for monetization permission, right?
inland sphinx
And I don't see how thats related to me, I don't have any paywalled servers?
brave knot
end user licence agreement
Bohemia interactive its not an end user
lilac sparrow
It's related to monetization statement of BIS
lilac sparrow
You call my work paywall by giving access to a link with content, however BIS provides a same legit "paywall" to accesss A3 servers.
inland sphinx
Where?
brave knot
I swear to god if he says "buying the game"...
lilac sparrow
From February 1st 2015, anyone is allowed to monetize their Arma 3 server in the following way as long as they're registered, approved and listed on https://www.bohemia.net/monetization/approved/arma3:
Charging players to access your server, if the fees and associated perks do not affect gameplay in any way, is allowed. Cosmetic perks are allowed. Limiting access to only paying players is allowed.
So that's a paywall right?
inland sphinx
Yes
lilac sparrow
Ok, how's my "paywall" related to any EULA?
inland sphinx
I ask you to actually read
as long as they're registered, approved and listed on
You are.. neither of these 3
lilac sparrow
Do BIS own google drive links?
inland sphinx
And you don't have a A3 Server either
But you are still selling/monetizing content.
brave knot
btw its BI not BIS
separate companies
turbid meadow
What does BIS have to do with any of this, I thought we were talking about Arma and not VBS 
inland sphinx
Yes approved monetizers are expempt from that rule, but you are not one of them. Thus you cannot do that
lilac sparrow
But you are still selling/monetizing content.
@inland sphinx No, I sell access to the link with a content with additional agreement on anyone is able to receive A3 EULA'ed content from that content by request. Not sure why you even went for requesting me to post a public P3D unbinarized version of it. Making up rules on the way?
inland sphinx
But the content is paywalled. and you sell access to get through the paywall
brave knot
you can add as may steps to the content you want
end of the day you're still paywalling it
inland sphinx
Thats still putting the content behind a paywall
Making up rules on the way?
I didn't make up any rules.
lilac sparrow
That gets ridiculous. May I see where is it stated that I cannot sell google drive links?
inland sphinx
Its not
lilac sparrow
I wonder if Google knows about this.
inland sphinx
and I didn't say that it is
lilac sparrow
So what are you infringing me here with?
inland sphinx
Your paywall is the problem, where the content is downloaded is irrelevant
You are putting Arma 3 Tools made content behind a paywall, which is monetization which is forbidden per the Arma 3 tools EULA.
And as the paywall is a service, directly from your website/shop, thats your violation.
lilac sparrow
Didn't I just gave a public link to that for free by your request?
Or that's a paywall too?
inland sphinx
Dude.
lilac sparrow
Don't dude me please.
inland sphinx
I asked you for what you give the people who buy that product.
And you give them a paywalled obfuscated pbo
There is noting unclear here
lilac sparrow
@brave knot Listen I'm not sure who are we in your statement, however I would not recommend calling yourself a we and speak for whole community.
inland sphinx
The basic thing is you cannot use that asset (currently only CfgVehicles supported) in-game without a permission from a specific framework called "core".
That. Quote from you. Thats not permitted. Thats paywalling content and violates A3 Tools eula
lean plover
@brave knot and others:
leave the convo to dedmen and DD for now to avoid confusion / sidetracking. thanks
inland sphinx
So for the last time now @lilac sparrow @tidal bridge are you going to take down the violating content? Now that you were explained multiple times why its wrong and are aware of the rules
lilac sparrow
@inland sphinx Wait, so I'm not allowed to code my own core with my own hands that will use a specific SQF code to restrict access to my own content in-game (not direct access to P3D file)?
inland sphinx
so I'm not allowed to code my own core with my own hands that will use a specific SQF
You can
to restrict access to my own content in-game
its your vendors content, and no you cannot paywall stuff made with Arma 3 Tools.
lilac sparrow
I don't restrict you accessing P3D, on the other side it can be requested. I'm not just entirely sure in which world you people decided that someone else work (human hours) inputted into creating this P3D should be posted public in source
So I'm asking you, do you make up rules on the way?
inland sphinx
I don't restrict you accessing P3D
But you just sent me a obfuscated pbo, with the content in it, that also includes a paywall
And you stated above, that what people pay for is the license to use the content ingame, as your script (in the obfuscated pbo) blocks it.
Thus, that is clearly part of your business model, and that is not allowed.
lilac sparrow
Did a make obfuscation with any of EULA'ed tools?
inland sphinx
No. But the p3d inside is made with EULA'ed tools.
lilac sparrow
Ok, no problems I will ask vendor to re-upload all the content (P3D) made with Blender.
inland sphinx
But then you cannot paywall it
which you previously said is your businessmodel 
So how's that gonna work 🤔
lilac sparrow
But in that case it's none of your concern. You don't own Blender either.
inland sphinx
If you do not violate the EULA or any of our rules, you are right, it would be none of my concern.
lilac sparrow
Kinda full of aggression mode as usual.
old jay
It also does not change the fact that you have profited from EULA violating content. So, it does not make everything OK.
lilac sparrow
You own Blender?
inland sphinx
But while you are doing that (which you currently very much are) that is VERY much of my concern.
lean plover
content (P3D) made with Blender
sorry for interrupting, but afaik this requires FHQ blender toolbox which also afaik does not allow monetization
woeful zinc
Just keep in mind that binarize.exe is also part of A3 Tools
lilac sparrow
What if tell you there is a custom made tools?