ARMA III & Steam WORKSHOP

[max power 21]

They're saying that if you put something on workshop, and valve chooses it to be part of a game and it is distributed with patches, you can't simply force the game devs to remove it.

[Sealife 22]

I believe that's a caveat in case the withdrawal is a game breaker possibly

Still believe owner of IP has a right to see the whole thing as dubious as I first stated but below 10,000dollar suites seem to be fairly handled and the IP is protected adequately in that document

[astast 12]

They're saying that if you put something on workshop, and valve chooses it to be part of a game and it is distributed with patches, you can't simply force the game devs to remove it.

Can they also do that if the software used to create the mod/content isn't licensed for commercial use? and if they can would i be sued for making the content and release it as freeware? or would steam get sued for using content that was made with software that wasn't licensed for commercial use?

[max power 21]

Well, that's part of it. That means that addon makers have some semblence of a basis for complaints of abuse. Now we have to figure out what the pragmatic application of the license is. Like, was this license in effect in past ip disputes, and how is this actually supported by valve's staff?

[rksl-rock 1300]

Apologies iPhone won't let me quote from within

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

Unde user generated content , where you may in your sole discretion

OK, I see some scope for "grey ground" here as to which one would supercede the other but they are actually for two different services.

1. The Subscriber agreement (SSA - just for ease of typing) is the one you agree to when you join Steam.
   
2. The Steam Workshop (aka SWS) agreement is the one you agree to when you actually upload to Workshop.
   

I would suggest that the SWS agreement would be the binding one in terms of IP control/breach largely because you have to "sign" it to upload any content. I would think that the Subscriber agreement section about SWS is more about End User use than uploading anything. But honestly I am only guessing but it seems logical.

SSA Section 6A is essentially SWS 2a. - "You grant Valve and its affiliates the non-exclusive, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, modify, create"

Its the same issue. I would still need to prove to Valve that its my IP.

SSA Section 6B paragraph #6:

"You may, in your sole discretion, choose to remove a Workshop Contribution from the applicable Workshop pages. If you do so, Valve will no longer have the right to use, distribute, transmit, communicate, publicly display or publicly perform the Workshop Contribution, except that (a) Valve may continue to exercise these rights for any Workshop Contribution that is accepted for distribution in-game or distributed in a manner that allows it to be used in-game, and (b) your removal will not affect the rights of any Subscriber who has already obtained access to a copy of the Workshop Contribution."

Again this refers to "Your" contribution. Its fine if "You" want to remove "Your" content. They hand everything back... or so they say. I'm still concerned/confused by the "irrevocable" part of this. How can it be returned to you if you already gave your rights away. This is one for real lawyers, not the likes of you or me but I'm trying to illustrate a point about the wording and application of the licence. Its not all that clear. And from looking into other game communities and issue they have not many people seem to have had much luck with having their stuff removed from Valve.

Now if your contribution isn't actually yours. Which is the scenario the majority of addon makers are concerned with the licence is meaningless. Say you entered into the agreement illegally and uploaded my Typhoon. You know this is not yours. Valve does not. I discover that you are using my content and I want it removed. I contact Valve. Valve says,"Who are you? Prove your claim." I have to jump through hoops to prove myself and my IP and claim. IF valve deem my claim worthy then you will be contacted to explain your side. If you still maintain your "claim". Then we both have to present evidence and it all rolls on and on. And on.

As concerned as I am about the terms of the licence - I would never agree to sign away my rights - what concerns me just as much is how the possible abuse of that licence is handled by Valve etc. Pufu and others asked some very valid questions that i would like to see answered too

What I am saying is that regardless of the licence the ease of abuse, the possibility of legal cost/drama/issues it all makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Now if BIS chose to limit the SWS size to 10mb then I'm not sure i'd be too worried. I dont think i've made an addon with a PBO size of less than 20mb since OFP. :P

EDIT I really need to type faster LOL

Edited June 2, 2013 by RKSL-Rock
too slow typing

[max power 21]

Can they also do that if the software used to create the mod/content isn't licensed for commercial use? and if they can would i be sued for making the content and release it as freeware? or would steam get sued for using content that was made with software that wasn't licensed for commercial use?

I don't know if you contribute something in a free patch is the same as a paid DLC when it comes to commercial vs. non-commercial. That would be between steam, the addon maker, and BI. I'm not clear on the process of taking an addon into a game but I would imagine that the addon maker is part of the decision making process, but I don't know. I think if it was found that the addon maker mislead the other parties into thinking that the content was free to publish and BI took offense to that, the addon maker would then be liable. I suspect that BI would choose a non-court solution for people braking the non commercial clause but it is within their rights by the wording of their tools license AFAIK.

I can't really see valve putting content into BI's game without BI knowing about it anyway.

[Sealife 22]

Can they also do that if the software used to create the mod/content isn't licensed for commercial use? and if they can would i be sued for making the content and release it as freeware? or would steam get sued for using content that was made with software that wasn't licensed for commercial use?

Uploading is covered in the link , you guarantee by uploading that you have full weight of responsibility along with any other parties involved in the making of the addon , so if you upload and someone try sue Steam , steam coming for you and they got ya cause by uploading and subscribing you agree all uploads are above board , I guess when BIS activate there side , they allow BI tool generated content to be uploaded and Steam to use the content in promo to sell Arma 3

[rksl-rock 1300]

I can't really see valve putting content into BI's game without BI knowing about it anyway.

Ah but that not the only possibility. Reading the licence it doesn't limit which game any user submitted content could be used in.

[Smurf 12]

BIS must approach Valve and try to reach a middleground (community\BI moderated WS?), limit it to some types of content or drop it (won't happen).

[Alwarren 2767]

Look it is a very simple concept. If you're so mad at Valve's EULA, well then simply don't post your mods there. .

That is what I intend to do, yes. However, some people call that "to not embrace it is to deny the future" ... people like... Oh right, you.

I'm just not someone who dresses up in tin-foil.

So you are essentially saying people that release their mods and missions are clamoring for attention? Thanks, I rest my case then.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Seriously, don't use it if you guys are so against it. Keep your content on your community sites. It won't matter.

Edited June 2, 2013 by PurePassion
unnecessary flamebaiting image & text removed

[Smurf 12]

Keep your content on your community sites. It won't matter.

There is the problem. They can choose to keep them out of WS but if someone else upload it there?

WS EULA isn't that clear on what can happen with this content and there is no quick way to take it down.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Smurf

[jibemorel 10]

That is what I intend to do

Don't worry a Steam kiddy will probably do it for you...

[jefferspang 2]

http://www.knowthenetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tin-foil-hat-3.jpg

Workshop's going to suck my brains out ahhh! It's going to harvest my soul!

Seriously, don't use it if you guys are so against it. Keep your content on your community sites. It won't matter.

Will you stop reducing people who care about their IP to the tin foil brigade you absolute...!? :mad: you're an outrageously disrepectful person!

Edited June 2, 2013 by JeffersPang

[Sealife 22]

There is the problem. They can choose to keep them out of WS but if someone else upload it there?

WS EULA isn't that clear on what can happen with this content and there is no quick way to take it down.

The EULA is very clear and has a section dedicated to uploads and who is eligible to upload

See C. Representations and Warranties

The time of taking down is however not clear this is true

Edited June 2, 2013 by Thromp

[ak1287 1]

Will you stop reducing people who care about their IP to the tin foil brigade you giant buttface!? :mad: you're an outrageously disrepectful person!

I don't think calling someone a giant buttface is very respectful either. But maybe that's just the way I was raised :p.

Seriously, nobody should be getting this heated about the debate. It's not like one side is 100% correct, and the other side is badwrongfun. This entire situation is why the phrase 'shade of gray' exists.

[purepassion 22]

Seriously, don't use it if you guys are so against it. Keep your content on your community sites. It won't matter.

Will you stop reducing people who care about their IP to the tin foil brigade you absolute...!? :mad: you're an outrageously disrepectful person!

Let's keep the discussion civil and refrain ourselves from calling people names. Thanks! :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

The EULA is very clear and has a section dedicated to uploads and who is eligible to upload

See C. Representations and Warranties

The time of taking down is however not clear this is true

Its not just the time. Its the whole process. Going off previous people's experiences of SWS people that have had stuff "stolen" report absolutely no communication from Valve about the removal. it just appears to disappear one day and there is no statement from Valve to say that that person's rights or material will not be infringed and removed from Valve's repositories etc. Basically any legal traceable acknowledgement.

EDIT - RE Section C Representations and Warranties - All sides acknowledge that is can and will happen. I dont see any grey area there at all. But the questions and confusion is around what happens when it does happen? How is it handled? Who handles is? Who can I/should I talk to?

Edited June 2, 2013 by RKSL-Rock
Typos

[jefferspang 2]

you're right, I've changed it. But seriously this absolute person posts derogatory images about us when we're trying to have a civilised debate, really deserves to bore off

[Insanatrix 0]

I understand why addon makers are so up in arms about the Steam Workshop and I don't disagree with them on the aspect of the licensing and giving up their IP rights or creating a grey area for it..

I understand more of the issue to do with someone uploading an addon to the Steam Workshop without the makers consent. To me, that seems to be the most serious issue. The only way I could see to alleviate it would be to have someone check every addon that gets added to the Workshop, a proactive approach instead of a reactive one. Possibly BI could work something out with Steam about that, anything is possible really.

As far as Steam Workshop killing off Armaholic and Ofpec type sites, I don't see it happening unless a large portion of the community adopts the Steam Workshop as the defacto mod/addon hub. I think more or less, the Steam Workshop could introduce members from outside this forum who own the game about the possibilities that can be accomplished with this game. I also think that it's a much easier accessed and less obtrusive method of content distribution because it's integrated with the platform that you use to play the game. I think that is the overall goal of BI for including support for this.

[max power 21]

Seriously, don't use it if you guys are so against it. Keep your content on your community sites. It won't matter.

Thank you for your contribution. I think every addon maker who has expressed concern has already stated their intent to do just that well before you chimed into the conversation. If you don't have anything t contribute but ground already covered and flamebaiting images, please just move along and let the people who actually have something invested in this have a civil discussion.

The next person to make a derogatory comment in this thread gets the fullest infraction I can muster. This goes for either side, but especially those who have recently made such comments.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

If you don't have anything t contribute but ground already covered

That's just the thing I was trying to point out. There's nothing left to discuss in this topic. You guys aren't lawyers, and you certainly aren't starting a movement to have Valve rewrite their legal documents on this matter. BI looks like they rather approve of Workshop and are fully intent on including it with the prospect of uploading and downloading user made missions. The modders who make their own content outside of missions can continue to upload their content wherever they so please.

What's left to discuss?

[max power 21]

That's just the thing I was trying to point out. There's nothing left to discuss in this topic. You guys aren't lawyers, and you certainly aren't starting a movement to have Valve rewrite their legal documents on this matter. BI looks like they rather approve of Workshop and are fully intent on including it with the prospect of uploading and downloading user made missions. The modders who make their own content outside of missions can continue to upload their content wherever they so please.

What's left to discuss?

I think that was also already covered. If you don't understand it, why don't you leave that to the people who want to discuss it?

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Absolutely, I'll leave this dead horse here for you guys to continue beating while I actually go enjoy the Alpha some more.

[bad benson 1733]

the perfect scenario (for me at least) would be a platform that is moderated by people already involved in the community. while all the license mambo-jambo is relevant too i really think it comes down to who manages the files and how well the person/persons are tied in with the community.

while some attitudes may be misinterpreted as elitism or the like, it's really just about trust. making something non commercial in your free time means that you are the only party with an interest in protecting that work as opposed to you making something for a company which said company then will sell under a certain license. they will protect your work since they paid you to make it for them to sell.

so going after someone who puts your work on the SWS will be literally you as a private person against a company. it's not a matter of valve being evil or something. it's just that a single person has not much leverage compared to a company.

right now the situation is that people like Foxhound are trusted and known and they respect the content creators' wishes on a personal level. you won't have to make a lawyer write a letter to foxhound to make him take down your addon because he built a reputation and people just know he will handle things properly.

that can hardly be replicated with something like SWS without the involvement of trusted people like him or giving the modders more rights and tools to work with.

you can call this nostalgia or elitism all you want but it's actually all about community. so far all we know about SWS is that it will make it easier for the consumer. that's all fine and i'm not a steam hater. but you can't just ignore what this community as a collective of actual people does. it's only possible like this because people know they can trust certain people acting in their interest. although BI advertise their game with it, it's not their product that they can simply improve upon. it's a separate thing.

i'd love to see something like being able to manage my mods on my steam profile. so i could have my own release page and handle the files 100% myself. like dropbox but on the steam server or something like that. and the workshop would just link to that page.

while user friendly features are welcome, i think the main focus should be improving the modders' capabilities and not the consumers'. much like steam itself helps developers to get their stuff to the people. if you improve it for the modders you'll improve modding overall and help it grow. if the focus is only on making it easier for the average dude to download stuff then it won't help the modding community. and i won't start on the SDK situation because my post is already way too long;)

i can see SWS, how it was shown sofar, as a good way to share missions though. i never liked armaholic's news section being cluttered with each single mission that was submitted to the site.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Bad Benson
removed "derogatory" comment