ARMA III & Steam WORKSHOP

[rksl-rock 1300]

I'd say its central to this topic. The fear has to have a basis in reality doesn't it?

The reality is that the current EULA is one that any sane modder would not agree to. Further to that there is legitimate concern that someone else may upload your IP without your consent. If that is not a real "fear" as you put it then I do not know what is.

[dayglow 2]

No I completely understand the second part. I've made no arguments against it. It's a legit concern regarding the uploading if ip without concent. But this concern isn't unique or limited to Valve or SWS.

[rksl-rock 1300]

I'm asking what the rational grounding if the fear that Valve is going to exploit mods uploaded into their site is based on. I've seen many examples of popular mods being turned into commercial stand alone games and the mod makers breaking into the game making business.

*Sighs...*

I've already explained the "rational fear". As have Pufu, Binkowski, Gnat etc.

In the end it doesn't really effect me. I will continue to use Armaholic and other sites for my mod consumption. I just have a hard time understanding the sky is falling mentality when there is absolutely no factual information to back it up. I could total see your side if there are examples of Valve exploiting mod material in the past. I haven't seen it. If done google searches. I have found examples of mod makers financially benifiting from Valve when they have a popular mod, but nothing on Valve taking content and putting it in games without compensation.

You see thats what makes me think you are just trolling.

As for the "Sky is falling mentality", go make an addon that you spend your own money, thousands of hours of your free time to develop. Then come back and tell me how you feel when someone rips it off. Hacks it apart and re-releases it with their name on. Or sells it on a 3D warehouse site without your consent.

<There is a whole paragraph missing from here but i cant be arsed wasting more time re-writing it>

Especially when you realise you wont receive any royalties because the way the licence is written means you wont see any profit shares (As you have mentioned that some modders do) because its not actually a Valve made game you are modding for. If you have done Google searches you will have found all the same links i have. All the people posting - in their various game forums - about their concerns with Steam Workshop. You wont find any on Steam/Valve sites because they get deleted.

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

No I completely understand the second part. I've made no arguments against it. It's a legit concern regarding the uploading if ip without concent. But this concern isn't unique or limited to Valve or SWS.

Yes it is a legit concern. And no it isnt unique to Valve or SWS. But if Workshop was adopted for ArmA3 it would be another "threat" due to the licence terms. Surely you can see that.

THis entire debate is about that licence. Not the possibility of theft in general. Just Valve's general Workshop licence.

Edited April 1, 2013 by RKSL-Rock
Added the missing paragraph note.

[dayglow 2]

*Sighs...*

I've already explained the "rational fear". As have Pufu, Binkowski, Gnat etc.

You see thats what makes me think you are just trolling.

As for the "Sky is falling mentality", go make an addon that you spend your own money, thousands of hours of your free time to develop. Then come back and tell me how you feel when someone rips it off. Hacks it apart and re-releases it with their name on. Or sells it on a 3D warehouse site without your consent.

Especially when you realise you wont receive any royalties because the way the licence is written means you wont see any profit shares (As you have mentioned that some modders do) because its not actually a Valve made game you are modding for. If you have done Google searches you will have found all the same links i have. All the people posting - in their various game forums - about their concerns with Steam Workshop. You wont find any on Steam/Valve sites because they get deleted.

No you haven't explained your rational fear. I understand you don't like the idea of what Valve *might* do, but haven't pointed out why you believe they would do it. Valve *might* use your assets for profit without your permission, but I'm pressed to find any example of this. I've seen many posts of people claiming Valve stole their ideas from posts, or have released sequels that have similar content, but how is that different from BAS releasing their AH-6 mod for OFP, then BI having a AH-6 in Arma?

I see a EULA by Valve to protect themselves. Without the wording of the EULA, say Valve posts in the news timeline for ArmaIII that the new ACE mod is out and provides a link to the SWS page for it. Without the wording the developers could try to claim that Valve is profiting off of their work because it's such a popular mod people are buying the game to use the mod. Instead of having a clause for every possible eventuality they simply say they have control of the content once it's on their site.

The same wording has caused fear that Valve can take assets from a mod and package it up in a game and sell it for profit, yet there is no examples of this happening. This is why I call it an irrational fear.

As for your example of a mod being hacked up and sold to a 3D warehouse, that has nothing to do with Valve or SWS and could happen any time you put your assests out into the public sphere. I fail to see how SWS would make it more likely to happen.

Pot put it crudely I see mod makers wary of SWS because they fear Valve will fuck them over, but I haven't seen any examples of how they will do that based on past behavior.

[kireta21 13]

Decided to read Worksop EULA whole and found this:

4. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant:

a. that You are free to enter into the Agreement, and that You have full legal power and authority to enter into this Agreement;

b. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement was originally created by You (and, with respect to a Group Contribution, the other Contributors);

c. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement does not infringe or violate any copyright, trade secret, trademark, or other proprietary or personal right held by any party other than You and (with respect to a Group Contribution only) the other Contributors; and

d. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

Doesn't that mean uploading someone's else IP without that person/organization consent is a violation of workshop's EULA?

[nodunit 397]

C and D? Maybe, but how do you prove whose content it was that uploaded? BI and traditional websites have the ability to fix these things because the admins collaborate and so on whereas the workshop is on a separate server, how would they police that?

Considering we DON'T have to use the workshop vs websites, I think most of the actual fear boils down to hands being forced by someone uploading another users content to the workshop without permission.

Even if the agreement wasn't 'instrusive' would people still care about their addons being hosted there and claimed as anothers?

Edited April 1, 2013 by NodUnit

[chortles 263]

DayGlow, I believe that you're missing Rock's point that any such risk is too much for these modders... though, I suppose, the EULA bit moreso than "Valve stealing their content" per se (for the aforementioned reason that, as John_Spartan admitted, on a technical level nothing prevents anyone from "stealing content" -- it's Valve's legal CYA that's the issue here), so stuff like Placebo mentioning something about moderating SWS isn't enough (not least because I have no idea if any Steam Workshop-enabled game devs already do that for other games).

[max power 21]

No you haven't explained your rational fear. I understand you don't like the idea of what Valve *might* do, but haven't pointed out why you believe they would do it. Valve *might* use your assets for profit without your permission, but I'm pressed to find any example of this. I've seen many posts of people claiming Valve stole their ideas from posts, or have released sequels that have similar content, but how is that different from BAS releasing their AH-6 mod for OFP, then BI having a AH-6 in Arma?

I don't think that the issue is based on any fear of what Valve might do, but what addon makers can no longer do after they sign such an agreement. Insomuch as addon makers have control over what they create now, after they sign the agreement, they no longer have any right to control those files. So say someone downloads you made, your addon, makes a cheap reskin, and then redistributes it. If you don't own the IP you have no right to ask him to stop as you have no claim to control over those files. It is not your property anymore.

Also it's somewhat confusing. Consider what happens when you upload some files to armaholic and the same files to SWS. So, you simultaneously have an enforceable license on your own work and you don't.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Max Power

[kireta21 13]

@NodUnit:

If I understand well, your concers is that Valve admins will ignore reports of copyright infringements and won't remove content violating your IP rights (and in result their EULA), because they are lazy, or because they just won't care.

OK, so first we need to find such case in previous games using Workshop and see how it went, so we can evaluate the risk. Anyone more familliar with Workshop can provide link to such "Workshop vs, say Nexus" case, and how it went?

btw, I see why they made that part of EULA. That way you can't sue them for hosting your IP without permission (and profiting from boosting sales), because it's violating their EULA, ergo, they never agreed to host it.

[kanadetachibana0 10]

reading all of posts like 16 pages of this thread.

Steam Workshop has auto-updated feature by subscribe to that author's mission/mods/scripts/addons but you have some opional to disable auto-updating at your own end.

Armaholic - great source to browse and look for what you need and dl + play the mission. they alway post your new mission/addons or others on the front page so telling the public saying come play or download or try this and let us know what you think for this.

[PuFu 4599]

This is pretty much my issue with this whole thread in a nutshell. :p Especially when the most recent official word is, "what, if, when, how ...is yet TBA, TBD ... until then ... it's discussion and speculations".

Though, does anyone know if there's any games that ever got "locked" into Steam Workshop development pre-release, or were those all post-release decisions by the dev/publisher?

I'm sorry, i still fail to see your issue with this thread...is it related to the fact that it hasn't been decided? If so, i guess the reason for this thread is to put down some of the concerns. As you might know, even Maruk and Suma are taking a sneak peak on these forums...(even if quietly). Besides, if you don't agree with it, you can always choose NOT to participate :j:

So lets assume that in the near future BI decide that SWS is the way to go complete with the licences/agreements put in place by valve/steam etc.

Would all the mod makers here in the thread and others walk away from the series or just Arma 3 ?

For me, A2 is already history. That is mainly because i really see little reason to pursue a hobby for an older version of the game. Eventually, everyone will switch to A3, or just leave (i still believe OFP is unique, and ArmA2 playerbase will most likely not gonna stay for as long as some stayed with OFP).

Business wise I think that’s what BIS will have to do, eventually, go the whole steam route. I believe they know this already, but want to believe themselves they can structure some type of compromise, which probably won’t happen. They know that this community built up around the official BIS community/forums has helped them. But they are a business and will have to move forward, all businesses do.

Mod/addon makers on the whole don’t make money from their work, unless they strike lucky perhaps, its not needed to make money from it, its a hobby. BIS on the other hand, have to make money, it’s a business..

Some addon makers do earn money from their work ;) Even if not from this very community, so here is more important stuff to take into consideration when IP is concerned.

At last check, John_Spartan, is there anything actually preventing anyone from distributing your content besides the risk of identifying/banning the thief and taking down the links? Considering that development consolidation was a factor in the Steamworks decision, I definitely don't believe that a separate set of "non-Steam Workshop compatible" tools are planned... so everything comes down to whether or not there actually is a Steam Workshop announcement or not... though I imagine that this thread mainly keeps going because of Maruk having not actually ruled out the possibility.

It is mainly, as so many times explained about the reach of it. If you were to rip off an existing mod and redistribute it as your own, you will most likely; be banned form these forums, banned from 3rd party websites that host addons, links removed and so on. Even if you are to upload in some promiscuous place on the web, your reach will be nth times smaller anyways. Even so, some websites can be forced to take down content eventually.

If we are talking about free distribution of commercial content, then things are, more or less similar in terms of reach. If we talking about someone selling those, it will hardly happen since no one sane enough would even think about buying 3d models from these sort of resellers, without being aware very probable phishing, theft and the likes.

All professional grade 3d model marketplaces have a pretty high standard and action times regarding IP theft.

I'd say its central to this topic. The fear has to have a basis in reality doesn't it?

If your current ISP would be the only one in your area, and they would come up with a contract that stipulates that all files that you receive or send through their connection are their property, and as such, they make backups of all those files you send or receive for possible further use, would you sign said contract, even if they would not necessary have any immediate need for those files?

In the end it doesn't really effect me. I will continue to use Armaholic and other sites for my mod consumption. I just have a hard time understanding the sky is falling mentality when there is absolutely no factual information to back it up. I could total see your side if there are examples of Valve exploiting mod material in the past. I haven't seen it. If done google searches. I have found examples of mod makers financially benifiting from Valve when they have a popular mod, but nothing on Valve taking content and putting it in games without compensation.

Regarding the bolded part: they why are you taking part in this discussion? As you said, you have nothing to gain or loose. Moreso, there is no sky falling mentality, but why would i give up my property rights towards anyone, without any financial gain? Just because? Sorry, but no. Read the above again.

C and D? Maybe, but how do you prove whose content it was that uploaded? BI and traditional websites have the ability to fix these things because the admins collaborate and so on whereas the workshop is on a separate server, how would they police that?

That is precisely the real downside of things, besides the possible file backups (there is no where written that those files would be deleated upon removal).

Even if the agreement wasn't 'instrusive' would people still care about their addons being hosted there and claimed as anothers?

Of course they would. Check Rock's signature. ;)

---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

@NodUnit:

OK, so first we need to find such case in previous games using Workshop and see how it went, so we can evaluate the risk. Anyone more familliar with Workshop can provide link to such "Workshop vs, say Nexus" case, and how it went?

WE found this for yous:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148879-ARMA-III-amp-Steam-WORKSHOP&p=2360258&viewfull=1#post2360258

[kireta21 13]

Yes, I assumed since 3 links I opened were just Steam EULA discussions, they all are, my bad. Reading into Mod Theft and Steam Workshop ATM.

OK, seem illegal content can be removed, but moderators don't care and act only if forced to. Too bad we don't know if illegal mods were removed by mods or by users.

PS. Say, What? Bethesda forbid people from making nude mods???:omg:

Edited April 1, 2013 by boota

[nodunit 397]

@NodUnit:

If I understand well, your concers is that Valve admins will ignore reports of copyright infringements and won't remove content violating your IP rights (and in result their EULA), because they are lazy, or because they just won't care.

More or less, that and the amount of time and hassle to go through. I don't really see the idea of having to mash a report button to be all that great of a workaround and with the amount of content and users they would be bogged down in paperwork to the point that it might as well be a political ordeal for a situation that demands far more instant reaction.

If you want to see just how much people want to create content just look at garry's mod. http://www.garrysmod.org/downloads/

Case and point.

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/images/vehType_transport_uh1y.jpg

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576721281738347442/756C903077A990E1AD1FC1E43868E92BAF324F6B/

http://www.garrysmod.org/downloads/?a=showimg&v=117608_1

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=108909229

And there is something about donations at the bottom... Though I am amused at how they took the venom out of arma 2 but took the cobra out of battlefield 2.

Edited April 1, 2013 by NodUnit

[rksl-rock 1300]

No you haven't explained your rational fear. I understand you don't like the idea of what Valve *might* do, but haven't pointed out why you believe they would do it. Valve *might* use your assets for profit without your permission, but I'm pressed to find any example of this.

That is exactly the fear. The possibilities that the current default Workshop EULA allows.

Why do I believe they would do it?

Simply because they have written a EULA that specifically allows them to do it.

I've seen many posts of people claiming Valve stole their ideas from posts, or have released sequels that have similar content, but how is that different from BAS releasing their AH-6 mod for OFP, then BI having a AH-6 in Arma?

Because the shape of the AH-6 is not the unique concept or Intellectual Property (IP) of BAS or BIS. Any content I create as an artistic representation of an object, item or product is mine as long as I don't infringe someone else's trademark or copyright.

I see a EULA by Valve to protect themselves. Without the wording of the EULA, say Valve posts in the news timeline for ArmaIII that the new ACE mod is out and provides a link to the SWS page for it. Without the wording the developers could try to claim that Valve is profiting off of their work because it's such a popular mod people are buying the game to use the mod.

Well - yet again I have to point out I'm repeating myself - if they only want to promote the addons/mod do they want to:

modify, and create derivative works from Your Contribution in any media"

No other addon hosting website demands this. Not, ArmAholic, Nexus etc. Even if they need to repackage it. Incidentally looking at the workshop upload tuts, everything has to be uploaded in its raw form. So that make the needs to package technically obsolete.

Instead of having a clause for every possible eventuality they simply say they have control of the content once it's on their site.

And the "rights to worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, assignable right and license to (a) use, copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, and create derivative works from Your Contribution in any media, (b) identify You as the source of the Contribution, and © sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law."

Clause 2.a part C is also key to my point about them exploiting content. This gives Valve the right to "sell on" and "sub license" your contribution for any purpose. IE they could sell the rights to use it to BIS, Ubisoft, Atari (does it still exist?) Sony or Hello Kitty without your consent or knowledge. But in consolation you might get your name in the credits somewhere in the manual as per "Clause 2.b part B".

The same wording has caused fear that Valve can take assets from a mod and package it up in a game and sell it for profit, yet there is no examples of this happening. This is why I call it an irrational fear.

And you can provide no proof that is not happening can you.

Now I again say, if it is not their intent or at least has not been considered to use/exploit/derive commercial content for use outside of the original scope why did they write a licence that allows them to do just that.

As for your example of a mod being hacked up and sold to a 3D warehouse, that has nothing to do with Valve or SWS and could happen any time you put your assests out into the public sphere. I fail to see how SWS would make it more likely to happen.

I have never said SWS was more likely to make it happen. I have said that the SWS licence allows someone else to use my content illegally and profiting from it. I have also said - repeatedly - that I would never knowingly agree to that EULA. But if someone did upload my content I would then be stuck trying to prove that my content was mine.

The onus of proof is on me not with Valve or the idiot that uploaded my content. And my concern is that Valve will either ignore my claim or it will take a lot of time and effort to get it sorted. Something evidenced by issues reported in other communities.

Pot put it crudely I see mod makers wary of SWS because they fear Valve will fuck them over, but I haven't seen any examples of how they will do that based on past behavior.

I am more concerned with someone else fucking me over and then Valve being a large lumbering commercial entity that they are slowly plodding on and me being ignored due to the high demand in their customer service team.

Skyrim modders are reporting issues not being resolved for 3-6 months. One of my friends says he knows of one case last 8 months and it was only resolved by paying £75 for a Solicitor's letter.

The other issue - again going of other's reports - is that even when content is removed there is no communication from Valve to the Author to say that it was removed and that his content was completely removed from their Servers and will not be used further.

You see until they actually acknowledge that has been a breech they can still legally - even if a bit immorally - blunder on and use what they want. Currently they aren't communicating with the Author in anyway to acknowledge his claim. Which is slightly worrying if you know anything at all about contract law.

Decided to read Worksop EULA whole and found this:

Doesn't that mean uploading someone's else IP without that person/organization consent is a violation of workshop's EULA?

Yes it does. BUT if you make a claim against some uploaded content YOU have to PROVE it is YOUR IP.

And believe me, that's not always easy. Most moderating staff just don't give a stuff and unless you apply a lot of pressure and keep pestering you don't get anywhere. It takes a lot of effort and time.

I don't think that the issue is based on any fear of what Valve might do, but what addon makers can no longer do after they sign such an agreement. Insomuch as addon makers have control over what they create now, after they sign the agreement, they no longer have any right to control those files. So say someone downloads you made, your addon, makes a cheap reskin, and then redistributes it. If you don't own the IP you have no right to ask him to stop as you have no claim to control over those files. It is not your property anymore.

Yes and No Max. You do have a very valid point about the reskins etc. I hadn't actually thought of that. Most of those cases are currently dealt with by the Author reporting it to moderators and Hosting sites etc. It would be very hard to do with Steam Workshop moderators unless they were real fans.

Personally, for me the "fear" is what Valve could do with content uploaded via that EULA. I make a large part of my living out of making commercial models - mostly for simulations not games per se but I dont liek the idea of my reworked, rehashed and resold without my consent. The SWS EULA clearly is written to allow that possibility if needed.

Also it's somewhat confusing. Consider what happens when you upload some files to armaholic and the same files to SWS. So, you simultaneously have an enforceable license on your own work and you don't.

That's the beauty of ArmAholic and other community sites. Not only DONT they demand rights to your IP they actually help you enforce it. Largely because they care about the community and your contributions to it. I don't get that "warm and fuzzy" feeling from SWS :)

OK, seem illegal content can be removed, but moderators don't care and act only if forced to. Too bad we don't know if illegal mods were removed by mods or by users.

You see that part of the problem, no one knows what actually happens. There is no statement by Valve acknowledging the rights of the original Author. Now if the dodgy uploader removes the offending file before the moderators do... does Valve still retain the rights to " use, copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, and create derivative works from Your Contribution in any media,"?

PS. Say, What? Bethesda forbid people from making nude mods???

LOL yeah.

Which is something that gives me hope. You see it proves that BIS could negotiate a specific ArmA3 Eula that would make it easier for all the different scenarios of modders to be supported.

Sadly though looking through some of the game specific EULAs it seems the dreaded Clause 2a is still present. But by discussing it here and airing our views BIS are at least aware.

[max power 21]

Yes and No Max. You do have a very valid point about the reskins etc. I hadn't actually thought of that. Most of those cases are currently dealt with by the Author reporting it to moderators and Hosting sites etc. It would be very hard to do with Steam Workshop moderators unless they were real fans.

Personally, for me the "fear" is what Valve could do with content uploaded via that EULA. I make a large part of my living out of making commercial models - mostly for simulations not games per se but I dont liek the idea of my reworked, rehashed and resold without my consent. The SWS EULA clearly is written to allow that possibility if needed.

Of course I have a valid point. All of my points are valid ;)

In seriousness though, I'm not sure what you mean by no when you say yes and no. I'll hazard that you're saying that the no is that it's not the loss of control that you're not down with but what Valve can do as a result of it. What I'm saying is that Valve is only able to do that because of the transfer of control that they demand. The potential for them to do anything is effectively nil but for your agreement to the SWS TOS. If that didn't exist, there would be no cause for concern. I guess in effect they are the same thing, but my point was that the most basic level of the problem is what you can't prevent, not what they may or may not do.

[kireta21 13]

Now if the dodgy uploader removes the offending file before the moderators do... does Valve still retain the rights to " use, copy, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, and create derivative works from Your Contribution in any media,"?

No, as EULA agreement was invalid in the first place. Of course, that matters only if one can trace source of theoretical stolen model Valve would use. If able to prove model was yours and was uploaded illegaly, which means Valve didn't have right to it in the first place, then, yes, things can get really hairy. Which is probably also why Valve didn't give in tempation to release "Steam-only DLC" ripped from Workshop, for some quick buck. Same why you shouldn't eat wild animal you haven't shot yourself I guess.

Which is something that gives me hope. You see it proves that BIS could negotiate a specific ArmA3 Eula that would make it easier for all the different scenarios of modders to be supported.

Maybe, but I think it would be also totally possible for BIS to change EULA for their tools, as those are not even tied to Steamworks, so Valve's EULA has nothing to do with it. Sure, you can write scripts and configs in notepad, but I can hardly imagine converting models and pbo's in and out of ArmA without BI tools.

Edited April 1, 2013 by boota

[PuFu 4599]

Maybe, but I think it would be also totally possible for BIS to change EULA for their tools, as those are not even tied to Steamworks, so Valve's EULA has nothing to do with it. Sure, you can write scripts and configs in notepad, but I can hardly imagine converting models and pbo's in and out of ArmA without BI tools.

I don't follow. change it how? and what would that accomplish?

[rksl-rock 1300]

In seriousness though, I'm not sure what you mean by no when you say yes and no. I'll hazard that you're saying that the no is that it's not the loss of control that you're not down with but what Valve can do as a result of it. What I'm saying is that Valve is only able to do that because of the transfer of control that they demand. The potential for them to do anything is effectively nil but for your agreement to the SWS TOS. If that didn't exist, there would be no cause for concern. I guess in effect they are the same thing, but my point was that the most basic level of the problem is what you can't prevent, not what they may or may not do.

Correct-ish :) I am concerned with the loss of controls but also the scope of what Valve could do with my IP. I find it bothers me rather a lot.

No, as EULA agreement was invalid in the first place. Of course, that matters only if one can trace source of theorical stolen model Valve would use. If able to prove model was yours and was uploaded illegaly, which means Valve didn't have right to it in the first place, then, yes, things can get really hairy. Which is probably also why Valve didn't give in tempation to release "Steam-only DLC" ripped from Workshop, for some quick buck. Same why you shouldn't eat wild animal you haven't shot yourself I guess.

The EULA agreement maybe in valid but you have to jump through hoops to prove that. And currently there appears to be no acknowledgment from Valve that it was invalid. For example, someone uploads your addons illegally, then gets a conscience and deletes it. The package is no longer available on Steamworks but Valve still have a copy of the package and a "signed agreement" from someone claiming to be the original Author. If you dont know it was uploaded how do you know if your rights are being infringed or not?

And even if the SWS moderators remove it there is no communication, no statement from Valve that as a result they will now store/use/exploit your content etc. It just vanishes so how do you know they acknowledge the issue?

Do you see what i'm getting at?

Maybe, but I think it would be also totally possible for BIS to change EULA for their tools, as those are not even tied to Steamworks, so Valve's EULA has nothing to do with it. Sure, you can write scripts and configs in notepad, but I can hardly imagine converting models and pbo's in and out of ArmA without BI tools.

Its not the tools I have an issue with. Its the SWS EULA. BIS may be able to add/change the EULA for their bit of Workshop as Bethesda have done to ease concerns over donated content, mods derived from sample models etc. But again, as long as Clause 2A exits I would not be willing to use Workshop at all.

[max power 21]

One of the stipulations that Valve is making is you must first have the rights to give away, and the ability to legally give them away. For instance, I think what it's saying is you must be bondable, and you must own the property you're uploading. I would imagine that they retain the right to ban accounts that are violating their legal agreements, but when people can have an unlimited number of accounts that's hardly a problem for anyone. The only ones it would punish would be the people who are either foolish enough to knowingly violate the EULA with an account full of games they paid for or hapless people who were ignorant of the whole thing and whose good intentions were misguided because no one reads EULAs.

[rksl-rock 1300]

One of the stipulations that Valve is making is you must first have the rights to give away, and the ability to legally give them away. For instance, I think what it's saying is you must be bondable, and you must own the property you're uploading. I would imagine that they retain the right to ban accounts that are violating their legal agreements, but when people can have an unlimited number of accounts that's hardly a problem for anyone. The only ones it would punish would be the people who are either foolish enough to knowingly violate the EULA with an account full of games they paid for or hapless people who were ignorant of the whole thing and whose good intentions were misguided because no one reads EULAs.

Yeah but what I am also saying is:

1. how does Valve know unless someone tells them?
   
2. What happens if that uploader removes your content before SWS becomes aware that it is illegally uploaded.
   

Does Valve continue to have the right to exploit your content? Logically yes because they accepted the license agreement in good faith. SO If I dont know its been uploaded and Valve arent aware it was done illegally... Valve and its partners could still profit from my stuff without consent. You don't get that with a conventional hosting and mirroring.

[max power 21]

Does Valve continue to have the right to exploit your content? Logically yes because they accepted the license agreement in good faith. SO If I dont know its been uploaded and Valve arent aware it was done illegally... Valve and its partners could still profit from my stuff without consent. You don't get that with a conventional hosting and mirroring.

No, because the user doesn't have the right to give away what they don't own in the first place. This occasion is provided for in the SWS stipulations you must acknowledge.

4. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant:

a. that You are free to enter into the Agreement, and that You have full legal power and authority to enter into this Agreement;

b. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement was originally created by You (and, with respect to a Group Contribution, the other Contributors);

c. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement does not infringe or violate any copyright, trade secret, trademark, or other proprietary or personal right held by any party other than You and (with respect to a Group Contribution only) the other Contributors; and

d. that the Contribution submitted pursuant to this Agreement does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

The person uploading stuff 'in good faith' fails a, b, and c. Or b and c if a is specifically referring to someone who is legally bondable, and not referring to the authority over the copyrighted work.

[kireta21 13]

The EULA agreement maybe in valid but you have to jump through hoops to prove that. And currently there appears to be no acknowledgment from Valve that it was invalid. For example, someone uploads your addons illegally, then gets a conscience and deletes it. The package is no longer available on Steamworks but Valve still have a copy of the package and a "signed agreement" from someone claiming to be the original Author. If you dont know it was uploaded how do you know if your rights are being infringed or not?

And even if the SWS moderators remove it there is no communication, no statement from Valve that as a result they will now store/use/exploit your content etc. It just vanishes so how do you know they acknowledge the issue?

Do you see what i'm getting at?

Exactly what I mean by "hairy sitation", Valve would end up in, if they find out IP was stolen after they release it as their own. "Only" lawsuits if ripped from commercial product, but a huge shitstorm if stolen from free mod. Lewinsky scandal of game industry, not very important, but very, VERY loud.

Its not the tools I have an issue with. Its the SWS EULA. BIS may be able to add/change the EULA for their bit of Workshop as Bethesda have done to ease concerns over donated content, mods derived from sample models etc.

If BIS forbids using their tools to modify other author's work without their agreement, that would make any unauthorised moddification illegal per see, giving ground for removal of those files and punishment of uploaders. Sure, we all do unauthorised modifications for personal use from time to time, but those are not supposed to be released anyway, right? That doesn't mean I reject idea of using ArmA3 EULA as regulation.

On possible downside it would cut short ripping models from other games. But if one considers it as a downside he will sit quiet anyway.

But again, as long as Clause 2A exits I would not be willing to use Workshop at all.

Of course, that's all about unauthorised reupload. If you would upload mod yourself, you'll have no control over mod content, and that's something any mod author with at least some common sense won't agree.

I would imagine that they retain the right to ban accounts that are violating their legal agreements, but when people can have an unlimited number of accounts that's hardly a problem for anyone.

Hmm, good point. I didn't know you can upload to SWS mods for games you don't own. While I hardly imagine person cunning and patient enough to mannage 10+ accounts just to upload mods, seeing amazing reaction speed of Workshop moderators, there's probably no need for such measures.

Edited April 1, 2013 by boota

[max power 21]

Hmm, good point. I didn't know you can upload to SWS mods for games you don't own. While I hardly imagine person cunning and patient enough to mannage 10+ accounts just to upload mods, seeing amazing reaction speed of Workshop moderators, there's probably no need for such measures.

I know of people who create accounts for games they don't intend to own for very long.

[rksl-rock 1300]

No, because the user doesn't have the right to give away what they don't own in the first place. This occasion is provided for in the SWS stipulations you must acknowledge.

You are technically correct. But I repeat, if Valve and I are unaware of the breach they could still exploit my IP without my consent or knowledge. Yes they could possible end up in the shit if i ever found out but if they sell it on or otherwise dispose of my IP to a 3rd party then how would I know.

My point with all of this is that this situation can only arise due to the SWS Eula. It would not occur in any other hosting scenario!

The person uploading stuff 'in good faith' fails a, b, and c. Or b and c if a is specifically referring to someone who is legally bondable, and not referring to the authority over the copyrighted work.

Yes it does but the license assumes that all people using the service are nice law abiding citizens. You and I both know that is not always going to be the case. Clause 2a is just another obstacle to me in protecting my IP. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law (so they say) but If you enter into a contract in good faith and operate under that contract for a protracted period of time its bloody hard to prove wrong doing in court. And trust me in that scenario it will go to court and will cost a lot of money to pursue a judgment. I've already been down this path once before about 12 years ago. It cost me nearly £6000 for bugger all in the end and I still lost my IP to someone who made over £70,000 from it over 2 years.

[gammadust 12]

The bottom line here is "reversal of onus", a modder provides "free to use" mods, valve offers to provide "free distribution" of said mods. Given how easy it gets for things to go downhill, they do and will, wether you have signed or not SW license it is upon the victim (whose mod as been ______ - insert abuse here) that lies the burden of proof.

To amend its hand, valve must do three things:

- take full responsability for the service it is offering, namely the distribution of mods. This service can't be "half-served", either they assume the directly atributable risks to their providing the service (which brings cost that may or may not turn the service profitable) or they don't provide it, full stop.

- accordingly remove from the license all legalese that supposedly transfers that burden upon the legitimate user / unknowing victim.

- draw its guns against eventual thieves / impostors / defrauders, to dissuade and help mitigate the inccured risk occuring as the sole consequence of the higher exposure enabled by its service and higher loss for the eventual victim. (it is doing the other way around, hence by inaction siding with...)

Until then i shall gladly ignore its service. (But wait i can't!... someone can still upload my work! No way Jose!)