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

[maddogx 13]

Yea, they retain COPYRIGHT, not any other random rights they want to make up. Copyright only covers how content can be copied and distributed, not how it is used when someone has it.

Actually, EULAs regularly contain all kinds of clauses that "legally" limit your use of a product:

- You may only install the software on one device at any one time.

- You may only install it on branded devices.

- You may only use the software yourself. ("Named license")

- You may not install it on a device that is accessable via a public network. (Example.)

- You may not remove watermarks added to content created with the software.

etc.

[noubernou 77]

Exactly, so it's within their right for them to insist that you agree to some terms if you wish to use their stuff. You must agree to the EULA before you actually legally "have it", I think is how it goes.

If you agree to the EULA before you download it, that might make it more valid, but it still doesn't matter. They can NOT restrict you from play ArmA2, even with their mod, in any way that BIS allows you to play the game.

PR can not supersede the rights granted to you, either explicitly or not, by BIS when you purchased ArmA2.

[hellfire257 3]

You mean intelligent whining? becouse that is what you do, no matter how intelligently you choose your words.

Yes I'am well aware that nobody is talking about BF2 here...:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

Your point being??

By not trying to counter my points and instead making accusations you are essentially rage-quitting the argument.

Unless you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion rather than just wild accusations and branding of other people, don't post.

I wonder, do you brand everyone who disagrees with you a troll?

[noubernou 77]

Actually, EULAs regularly contain all kinds of clauses that "legally" limit your use of a product:

- You may only install the software on one device at any one time.

- You may only install it on branded devices.

- You may only use the software yourself. ("Named license")

- You may not install it on a device that is accessable via a public network. (Example.)

- You may not remove watermarks added to content created with the software.

etc.

All those things are regarding copying the software, which is copyright.

I think people are getting confused... Copyright says how you can redistribute the software, not what you can and can not do with the software. A EULA might get you to explicitly agree to certain specific things regarding copyright because they might be vague or edge cases or something like that, but a EULA has very little power to tell you what you can do with something AFTER you own it. You own the software, you are not borrowing it, licensing it, etc. You OWN it.

[hellfire257 3]

As much as I hate to quote Wiki, is this what you mean Nou?

Some copyright owners use EULAs in an effort to circumvent limitations the applicable copyright law places on their copyrights (such as the limitations in sections 107-122 of the United States Copyright Act), or to expand the scope of control over the work into areas for which copyright protection is denied by law (such as attempting to charge for, regulate or prevent private performances of a work beyond a certain number of performances or beyond a certain period of time). Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matters upon which copyright law precludes control.

[max power 21]

How is only installing it on certain devices about copying?

[hellfire257 3]

I think the gist of what we are seeing is what Wiki says. Specifically: "Such EULAs are, in essence, efforts to gain control, by contract, over matters upon which copyright law precludes control."

[noubernou 77]

As much as I hate to quote Wiki, is this what you mean Nou?

Yes, and EULA are in themselves almost entirely unenforceable on most matters beyond natural copyright (depending on the extent of the conditions, which in the case of PR, are ridiculous).

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

How is only installing it on certain devices about copying?

The intent with something like that usually is that you will have purchased it and received it on one device and that making an additional copy to another device of a different type constitutes an illegal copy. Again, copyright issues are broad and open for interpretation, people often get around this by saying "its for back up."

[Bee8190 10]

I just posted my view on that matter, page back.Its not however exactly regarding EULA licensing and i will withdraw at this point.

Wasting this space with arguing over ''this isn't BF2'' or inserting flaming cartoons is pointless in this thread and i am done here.

[max power 21]

The intent with something like that usually is that you will have purchased it and received it on one device and that making an additional copy to another device of a different type constitutes an illegal copy. Again, copyright issues are broad and open for interpretation, people often get around this by saying "its for back up."

Do you have any evidence to support your claims about the intent behind such licenses?

[noubernou 77]

Do you have any evidence to support your claims about the intent behind such licenses?

Beyond the words in the license no, but thats all you really need. What other reason is there? Why would they limit you to one specific device?

If you want an example look at issues surrounding things like console emulators on PC.

[-GR-Operative 10]

I think the flamewar is a bit offtopic, as talking exclusively about PR.

Now, what if a mod is encoded in such a way that it's contents/features are only playable when it's the only mod activated? Or what about a different launching .exe? This would render all additional mods not compatible with the first one. Is this possible to do in ArmA according to the EULA? (I'm in no way a programmer/scripter/encoder, so please don't be so hard in the asnwers ;) )

[max power 21]

Beyond the words in the license no, but thats all you really need. What other reason is there? Why would they limit you to one specific device?

Because they want to sell more devices.

I guess the issue that you're bringing up is one of intent, but you already said you don't care about intent, so I guess we should continue to talk about what's actually in the licenses, which brings up MadDogX's examples on limitations of use.

[maddogx 13]

You own the software, you are not borrowing it, licensing it, etc. You OWN it.

Different sources, even different U.S. courts seem to disagree on that point.

According to you, this information for example is simply wrong?

Selling software is a legal minefield. When you purchase a digital product, you’re not buying the CD/DVD and packaging, but a license to use the software. The license is a legally-binding agreement that determines how you may use that product. If software was “soldâ€, you would be the legal owner and could do what you wanted, e.g. install it anywhere, disassemble it, give it away or anything else that didn’t contravene copyright laws.

Source: Sitepoint.com

I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but everything I've ever read or been told on the subject has lead me to believe that what you're saying is false. There are regular uproars about certain "draconian" EULAs that are percieved to infringe on the rights of the users. So is this just mass hysteria?

[noubernou 77]

Different sources, even different U.S. courts seem to disagree on that point.

According to you, this information for example is simply wrong?

Source: Sitepoint.com

I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but everything I've ever read or been told on the subject has lead me to believe that what you're saying is false. There are regular uproars about certain "draconian" EULAs that are percieved to infringe on the rights of the users. So is this just mass hysteria?

It is disagreeable in the US court system. There is no one clear answer on the validity and enforceability of EULA. The cases where it has been brought up have come out differently in different courts. None of them have set precedent either, so it remains something contested. The things that determine the ruling of the court in favor in not in favor of a EULA have been the specific conditions of the EULA argued.

I am arguing based on the conditions that PR is attempting to pass off. They are insane. No court would hold those up.

BIS grants you the use of Arma2 however you like beyond what they define in their EULA (and you can argue some things in there too I am sure, but that is not the point). PR can not modify Arma2 and then supersede the rights granted to you by BIS. It is as simple as that.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Because they want to sell more devices.

I guess the issue that you're bringing up is one of intent, but you already said you don't care about intent, so I guess we should continue to talk about what's actually in the licenses, which brings up MadDogX's examples on limitations of use.

When I said I dont care about the intent of PR, I meant what they intend to do for the community, not what the intent of their EULA is (which in a lot of ways I guess seems how they want to affect the change they desire).

[max power 21]

BIS grants you the use of Arma2 however you like beyond what they define in their EULA (and you can argue some things in there too I am sure, but that is not the point).

I guess we can all agree then that when you download software you don't 'OWN it'.

When I said I dont care about the intent of PR, I meant what they intend to do for the community, not what the intent of their EULA is (which in a lot of ways I guess seems how they want to affect the change they desire).

Fair enough. The driving force behind their EULA is to control the experience quality that people have when they are using their software, I think.

I just want to say that I agree with almost everyone in this thread. If their intent was to threaten legal action against people running more than one mod, they are insane.

[maddogx 13]

I am arguing based on the conditions that PR is attempting to pass off. They are insane. No court would hold those up.

I think that's kind of beside the point. See this post: link.

Specifically the last three lines:

UK_Force;2010563']The only way to "release" missions for PR' date=' is via speaking with our team.

The only way to "legally" run a server with ANY PR assets, is via signing for a server licence - where you will then agree to the terms and conditions to allow you to run a PURE PR Server.

[b']Failure to do this will mean you are in violation of our EULA, and also will put you in a Legal problem with Bohemia.[/b]

Emphasis mine.

To me this sounds like creating PR-based missions or hosting PR servers without permission will get people into trouble with Bohemia, not just PR. If this is the case, it doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with it, or whether you think the PR team has any kind of legal clout. Getting on the wrong side of BIS will probably be undesirable for any community member.

I think it would be ideal if a BI representative cleared this part up, in order to ensure there are no misunderstandings. :)

BIS grants you the use of Arma2 however you like beyond what they define in their EULA (and you can argue some things in there too I am sure, but that is not the point). PR can not modify Arma2 and then supersede the rights granted to you by BIS. It is as simple as that.

I believe this too remains to be seen.

[noubernou 77]

I think it would be ideal if a BI representative cleared this part up, in order to ensure there are no misunderstandings. :)

Agreed.

Though I did state in that thread that yes, you could get in trouble for copying BAF content that PR has been allowed to use. I do not see how BIS can enforce that though through distribution of a third party, non-BIS licensed product such as PR though.

Seems to me like they essentially gave away BAF models for free to the user community by giving it to another group that they do not have any distribution agreement with for PR.

So I guess the question is, is PR an official BIS mod?

[PuFu 4591]

the fact that you get something for free, doesn't mean you OWN it. Not even close. If in the EULA is written You cannot reverse engineer it, then in theory, even if you do it for your own personal use or similar, you have broke the said EULA.

Who says that PR EULA will NOT be in accordance with BIS one? I really doubt it.

But then again, surely no one sane will say you cannot use PR together with say ACE. But no one is stopping them (at least in theory) to make it so it doesn't work with any other mod. Uk-force already said that if one player would connect on a different server than the ones allowed/whitelisted, the player will have a black screen...

Again, saying in a text that you cannot do certain stuff with a product is nothing new, and i have read and agreed with those before, and obviously could be said that it insane. But denying the that amount of stuff is a bit different.

i'll give the same example to your Nou: if i were to make a small addon that would remove all the buttons in your main menu but the SP and option one, while giving you features like shooting and walking inside vehicles (hypotheticaly of course), would you feel that would be a breach of BIS EULA (from reading it today once more, i say it wouldn't), just because it removes features available in vanilla game?

I know this is for a commercial product, but you should read this very strict EULA - comes with all autodesk products:

3DS MAX EULA

[Sealife 22]

I don't think bis could contribute anything to this other than "the dogs may bark but the caravan moves on " , there energy is best spent on A3 and TOH .

I still see no definitive explanation to mission makers wants from PR ,Add-on makers certainly want for nothing from PR as there announced beta asset list is replicated elsewhere on armaholic.

I come to the conclusion that in 24 hours people are scared that PR are trying to enforce a gameplay mode when using there work . Well this has been done before as mentioned by some RPG gamemode I forget the name of apparently and by all accounts very succsesully , so that leaves one last thing BAF units donated to PR under a strict Eula , I guess when the download is available we should see what this Eula says because I assume it will be part of PR Eula and Bis will surely have to sanction any legal talk in their name ?,only then if Bis or Pr feel the Eula is breached will it be necessary for BIS to act ?

[PuFu 4591]

oh, btw, from A2 EULA

(i wasn't able to find the whole damn thing in a proper .TXT file on my PC, but this is the part i have posted before on these forums)

3. End Users Obligations

A. 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.

[noubernou 77]

i'll give the same example to your Nou: if i were to make a small addon that would remove all the buttons in your main menu but the SP and option one, while giving you features like shooting and walking inside vehicles (hypotheticaly of course), would you feel that would be a breach of BIS EULA (from reading it today once more, i say it wouldn't), just because it removes features available in vanilla game?

No, of course not, but you wouldn't be able to sue me if I made an addon for the same game that re-enabled all that stuff with out touching your code. That is the point I am trying to make.

Their EULA is trying to enforce restrictions on your right to use ArmA2 in certain ways that are already granted, which they have no right to do.

[katipo66 94]

Then don't use it?

[noubernou 77]

Then don't use it?

I don't plan to, but for people that want to do something like run additional content or make new missions for it, I am telling them that they shouldn't be afraid of stupid boogeyman legal threats that PR are making on content developers.

[celery 8]

Then don't use it?

That is such a useless argument. It has nothing to do with discussing whether or not such practices are right or even legally valid.