Is the Arma Communtiy getting too obsessed with legal issuse such as EULA's ?

[Tankbuster 1746]

This policy can freeze community's creation ability. And this is bad for community. I can understand their feeling, but if you do something for free, if you do something for community, then let community decide how use this and how make this better.

No, I don't agree. It won't freeze it, but it will certainly change it in the long run, for the better.

Perhaps I'm just an old git, but I can see the difference between free to use in the game and free to do whatever you will with content.

Just because someone gives you content for free, it doesn't mean it doesn't have value to the creator.

[DAP 619]

No, I don't agree. It won't freeze it, but it will certainly change it in the long run, for the better.

Perhaps I'm just an old git, but I can see the difference between free to use in the game and free to do whatever you will with content.

Just because someone gives you content for free, it doesn't mean it doesn't have value to the creator.

I don't talking about content :) I talking about missions and missions creation :) Only :)

[Tankbuster 1746]

Ah right. I'm with you on that, I think.

Perhaps I need clarification on why mission makers shouldn't be allowed to protect their content, but models makers should, if that's your point?

Note that I'm not advocating the above, just chucking it out there. :)

[DAP 619]

Ah right. I'm with you on that, I think.

Perhaps I need clarification on why mission makers shouldn't be allowed to protect their content, but models makers should, if that's your point?

Note that I'm not advocating the above, just chucking it out there. :)

Missions, which made by one man - his own :) No one can't change missions made by this man without his permission :) But this man can't restrict for other creating different missions with the same content, right? :)

[max power 21]

Let's not make the issue more confusing that it already is. The missions issue right now is whether or not you are actually capable of creating legal limitations on mission created referencing your addons.

Technically, I think a mission that references your addon might be considered a derivative work. But then again, so is a screenshot, which I think is protected under fair use. On the other hand, it's not legal to use samples over a certain length in music without permission and/or paying royalties... so is this more like music that samples other music, or is it more like taking screen shots?

Again, this is neither here nor there because we don't really know what UK_FORCE et al. was referring to when they mentioned limitations.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Max Power

[Tankbuster 1746]

You are the one who said let's make it more confusing! :)

I'm going to reread the thread from #top before I post again.

[DAP 619]

Let's not make the issue more confusing that it already is. The missions issue right now is whether or not you are actually capable of creating legal limitations on mission created referencing your addons.

Technically, I think a mission that references your addon might be considered a derivative work. But then again, so is a screenshot, which I think is protected under fair use. On the other hand, it's not legal to use samples over a certain length in music without permission and/or paying royalties... so is this more like music that samples other music, or is it more like taking screen shots?

I vote for screenshots :D Because if you made cake, then no one can require from you declare author of flour :D

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't see the issue. They made it, they have a (so far mostly undisclosed) licensing agreement with BIS, they can slap any EULA they like on it. I don't understand the releasing missions thing, but that's because it's not explained yet, and that's because it's not released yet.

Besides, we don't even know what the definition of "released" is yet in this context.

[max power 21]

I vote for screenshots :D Because if you made cake, then no one can require from you declare author of flour :D

Apparently you can copyright genes that already exist in nature and all kinds of ridiculous shit, but there would be no benefit for the flour companies to limit the use of their product. They produce it to be consumed. As long as you're buying it, I don't think they really care what you do with it. If flour was sold with a contract agreement you had to sign, they could put limits on what you use it for and how it is used, I think. Flour companies get revenue from the unrestricted sale of flour, while addon makers get nothing from the unrestricted use of their addons.

Obviously, normally addon makers release addons to be played with. Normally, it doesn't make any sense for an addon maker to impose limits on its use. The case here is that someone did, and then tables got turned over, holes were kicked in walls, and everything went south.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Max Power

[DAP 619]

addon makers get nothing from the unrestricted use of their addons.

So addon makers can get something from the restricted use of their addons? Maybe. But mission makers have no freedom for creation with this "restricted use of their addons". And ppl who dislike stock missions. So why this public release? :) Maybe better stay in own closed community?

Edited August 26, 2011 by DAP

[dmarkwick 261]

So addon makers can get something from the restricted use of their addons? Maybe. But mission makers have no freedom for creation with this "restricted use of their addons". And ppl who dislike stock missions. So why this public release? :)

Quoted from the recently locked PR thread:

UK_Force]Missions - if you want a mission, released and playable on the servers, it just needs running by the team to check it fits in with the gameplay modes, and we will add it to the Mod, with Credits of course.

...which sounds more to me like "released" as in "included with the mod". But in any case, the fact is the limitations haven't been clarified yet, but that doesn't stop people going off half-cocked.

Maybe better stay in own closed community?

I have NO idea why you would wish this to happen, however there's no accounting for all kinds of ridiculous and pathetic behaviour on these forums.

UK_Force]If it fails with the community here, it fails, and we will happily run with it in the PR Community, which will populate the servers anyway from the outset.

*snip*

as PR is now concerned you may close the thread if you wish, as we will not be updating PR in these forums anymore.

So it looks like your wish is true. Well done, a fine victory.

Edited August 26, 2011 by DMarkwick

[katipo66 94]

So addon makers can get something from the restricted use of their addons?

What do you want to do with it?

[DAP 619]

What do you want to do with it?

What? :) I just try understand why addon maker can set using restrictions for his addons :) Especially with EULA.

Edited August 26, 2011 by DAP

[gossamersolid 155]

Why is this discussion going on again? The PR thread was closed for a reason, don't spill the conversation into a new topic.

[PuFu 4600]

@DAP: You clearly haven't understand a few things, and your view is very one sided:

1. PR is aiming for a certain gameplay mode (team based PvP). Their entire mod is designed around this very scope. They wan't to deliver more than just a pack of vehicles for the end user to create custom missions with. Their mod IS the mission.

Instead of bickering (which is entirely different than discussing = say Max's comments) that they dare to limit your creativity, that they dare to impose limits to the way you play the game (with your friends whatever), you could just let the said creativity wild, and NOT use the damn MOD!

You DO have that option. That said i don't understand what the real issue is

2. Regarding the BAF content - my own opinion is that BIS shouldn't have create that precedence, especially because this particular content is part of a DLC pack. In the end creating new meshes for some British Units shouldn't have been all that complicated for a studio with PR's pretensions.

But now that they allowed it, there is a new layer of restrictions, on top of what PR would have used ANYWAYS. If i were to take this very route, and had the same mindset, i would have simply removed the editor button from the main menu, and be done with it.

3. My own opinion on the matter is not important, but will put it down anyways: i feel these restrictions are pushing it.

That said, i understand that it is well within THEIR rights to release any sort of FREE content with whatever EULA they want to, even if EVERYONE else feels it opposes some "spirit of this community" - whatever that is.

If i and not gonna agree with the conditions they'll put in their EULAs, i will simply not use it. And yes, there is that possibility.

_______________________________

Said it before, will say it again:

A decade of quality free content has turned part this community into a spoiled, self-entitled bunch of brats. As soon as someone legitimately wants to protect their work, their design decisions and their IP, all the brats start crying the same boring bullshit about their "rights" to rip other peoples work apart.

Yes, i have the same feeling....

It just seemed to me that the PR team had been very arrogant by putting out that EULA, as if to say "We don't want you making our mod look bad with crap missions" and "You're too stupid to decide how you want to use PR, so you have to follow our rules".

Being arrogant is NOT against BIS EULA!!!! You can choose not to fucking use their mod if you feel they are arrogant, or that they might smell bad, or that their devs are taller/shorter than expected...or whatever other subjective reason you invent.

This is correct for content. But for missions creating? Example: I like mod's features, but dislike mod's missions. And same for my friends. And some other ppl. What we must do?

You simply don't USE IT. Again, NO ONE is forcing it upon you. Besides we are talking about a fucking game, so i am sure you will be able to live through the rest of your life without some sort of handicap because of it....

It prevent all mission makers from making missions with different gamemodes (warfare, domination, evolution, deathmatch, flag capture, sniper hunt and etc.) Also it prevent creating custom servers with PR mod and custom missions with this mod.

Yes, so what? read P1.

Why is this discussion going on again? The PR thread was closed for a reason, don't spill the conversation into a new topic.

This thread scope was to talk about EULAs and addon makers rights. It wasn't about PR (as you can see from the few first posts). But as expected, some weird frustrations spilled in this thread anyways.

Can we now go back to what this thread was intended to talk about and leave PR out of it? EULAs?

Edited August 26, 2011 by PuFu

[DAP 619]

@PuFu:

1. Mod - is mod. Mission - is mission. If this is just missions pack, so just call this "Mission pack". And will no any questions.

2. About "one sided vision". This is my vision and my point. Any problem? I look on this like mission maker. And don't see any perspectives for me with those restrictions. I like PR mod for BF2, but dislike this policy of PR team.

[jagheterjan 10]

Re the OP: EULAs and licences are all nice and dandy, but in the end they're still just fancy speak and won't stop any person with malicious intent from taking whatever might suit their fancy, without asking for permission or showing the least bit of respect to the author's wishes as stated (or not) in the readme that came with the archive they took their rips from. So it takes more than a readme and an image file showing some CC license to make sure people get the message IMHO.

[dmarkwick 261]

@PuFu:

1. Mod - is mod. Mission - is mission. If this is just missions pack, so just call this "Mission pack". And will no any questions.

2. About "one sided vision". This is my vision and my point. Any problem? I look on this like mission maker. And don't see any perspectives for me with those restrictions. I like PR mod for BF2, but dislike this policy of PR team.

Did you make any missions for PR:BF?

[maddogx 13]

Re the OP: EULAs and licences are all nice and dandy, but in the end they're still just fancy speak and won't stop any person with malicious intent from taking whatever might suit their fancy, without asking for permission or showing the least bit of respect to the author's wishes as stated (or not) in the readme that came with the archive they took their rips from. So it takes more than a readme and an image file showing some CC license to make sure people get the message IMHO.

A EULA will obviously never stop anyone with malicious intent, but then again, what will? Even strong technical protection measures are defeated eventually. That doesn't mean content creators should just give up, waive their rights by default and release everything free-for-all.

In this particular case, anyone who decides to break the EULA and post infringing content to these forums or affiliated sites (because "what's some mod team gonna do about it anyway?") will probably find their threads locked and accounts banned, at the very least. The reason is simple: it's originally BIS' content, so BIS are the ones who will be coming after them, not PR.

Edited August 26, 2011 by MadDogX

[jagheterjan 10]

If my last post came across along the lines of 'content creators should just give in and succumb to the suck' then I have to correct myself. Quite the opposite is true. In the absence of a community mindset where DRM measures become obsolete (Hej, I'm allowed to dream!), I find myself asking for stronger measures to protect original works while I'm waiting for that dream to come true. And yes, I know that even the strongest encryption won't work when people just grab stuff from the GFX cards' frame buffers.

[PuFu 4600]

@PuFu:

1. Mod - is mod. Mission - is mission. If this is just missions pack, so just call this "Mission pack". And will no any questions.

Not everything is that black and white as you put it.

Obviously PR will have content and some features, but all those are designed around the said missions (all the scripts, images, features that one would put inside the mission.pbo can be packed into an addon.pbo and have those called from there).

2. About "one sided vision". This is my vision and my point. Any problem? I look on this like mission maker. And don't see any perspectives for me with those restrictions. I like PR mod for BF2, but dislike this policy of PR team.

Yes, my problem is that you are so fucking vocal about a thing that you don't have any control over. PR, or any other addon maker for that reason will do whatever they want with their creation and free time, because they don't owe you anything. If you don't like or you see no perspectives for you, just don't use it...seems you are unwilling to grasp this simple concept tough.

[DAP 619]

Did you make any missions for PR:BF?

Yes. Only for private use, of course. For small PR tournament in my town.

A EULA will obviously never stop anyone with malicious intent, but then again, what will? Even strong technical protection measures are defeated eventually. That doesn't mean content creators should just give up, waive their rights by default and release everything free-for-all.

In this particular case, anyone who decides to break the EULA and post infringing content to these forums or affiliated sites (because "what's some mod team gonna do about it anyway?") will probably find their threads locked and accounts banned, at the very least. The reason is simple: it's originally BIS' content, so BIS are the ones who will be coming after them, not PR.

Is this so big problem? How often someone breaks author's rights? I can understand this (EULA) for commerical products, but for free released content?

@PuFu: Don't worry, be happy :D Sorry, if I hurt your feeling, pal :) Just I have different opinion :) That's all :)

[[frl]myke 14]

I can understand this (EULA) for commerical products, but for free released content?

Soo...because the things i make are free of charge means it is not worth to be respected and therefor protected against abuse? Very interesting.

[DAP 619]

Myke;2011475']Soo...because the things i make are free of charge means it is not worth to be respected and therefor protected against abuse? Very interesting.

No. I didn't say that. But how you see effective protection of free product? Law suit? :) Come on.. :) Community reaction now is best decision. And the only. For now, maybe. Additional instruments like EULA useless and looks pathetic.

[teilx 4]

I think they want only missions they can integrate into already existing mp modes,. Pr Arma 2 should be played like PR bf2.

MP Modes:

- AAS

- Attack & Defend - (one directional AAS/front-line flow)

- Command & Control

- Skirmish

- Insurgency

If somebody wants Coop = he play Arma 2

PvP + one of these MP modes = he play PR

i can't see any bad intention against mission makers

If you want to create a mission for PR they must fit in one of the MP modes

Edited August 26, 2011 by TeilX