ARMA III & Steam WORKSHOP

[rksl-rock 1300]

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.

Trust me its already happend in other games. As I've implied above I was the victim in FS in 2000/01. I had an entire collection of aircraft "stolen" repainted/re-engined and sold as a commercial product in stores world wide. Its was very expensive to pursue and ultimately all i was left with was a large legal bill and a gagging order. At the time it warrented about 4 lines on the FS news sites and was forgotten about.

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.

That is currently controlled by EULAs and Readmes. Most will say no derivatives etc and when caught most just get a slap on the wrist and the mod removed by some of the more responsible/honourable hosting sites and forum mods. BIS tool licences have no control over our Licenses save to prevent us from selling content made with them. As far as I know they could not dictate what a 3rd party may do. Besides there are plenty of 3rd parties making tools to hack addons anyway without using anything made by BIS.

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....

Exactly!

[Hellhound 10]

No offense, but i really don't see the problem here. What i mean is this, given the fact that by buying this game on steam you are already giving up on consumer rights in the first place, why bother with the rest ? The whole steam workshop is just the icing on the cake.

[max power 21]

No offense, but i really don't see the problem here. What i mean is this, given the fact that by buying this game on steam you are already giving up on consumer rights in the first place, why bother with the rest ? The whole steam workshop is just the icing on the cake.

Please don't troll. There are other threads to express your unhappiness about steam in general.

[nodunit 397]

No offense, but i really don't see the problem here. What i mean is this, given the fact that by buying this game on steam you are already giving up on consumer rights in the first place, why bother with the rest ? The whole steam workshop is just the icing on the cake.

Buying a game and having your work stolen are two very different things.

[chortles 263]

Right now the Steamworks integration is mainly serving as the DRM function (albeit one that isn't going to be patched out by BI in six months) while also facilitating "auto-updating"/development builds (not the quite the same as beta patching) and the "methods of mod creating, uploading and distributing" are just like with Arma 2... Steam Workshop is a whole different ball game.

[dm 9]

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.

Then you do not understand the issue.

but how is that different from BAS releasing their AH-6 mod for OFP, then BI having a AH-6 in Arma?

Its different because the AH-6 in Arma is not the AH-6 made by BAS. An entirely new model, textures and config were made by BI.

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 already said, you clearly dont understand the issue.

To put it in the layman-ist of laymans terms:

You own a car. Under the current BI tools EULA, you hold the keys and are allowed to lock the car. BI simply provides a parking space.

Under the Steam Workshop rules, Valve now owns the parking space, and you must give them the keys when you park there. You are also no longer allowed to lock your car.

Its not a perfect analogy, but it highlights the risk involved with the Workshop EULA.

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.

Point is, under the Workshop EULA, you hand over your rights to protect your work from such things.

[[aps]gnat 28]

You own a car. Under the current BI tools EULA, you hold the keys and are allowed to lock the car. BI simply provides a parking space.

Under the Steam Workshop rules, Valve now owns the parking space, and you must give them the keys when you park there. You are also no longer allowed to lock your car.

Good anology DM

I would go as saying that with SWS 2a, its now no longer your car.

[R0adki11 3945]

Gnat;2362491']Good anology DM

I would go as saying that with SWS 2a' date=' its now no longer [i']your[/i] car.

DM that was good way to explain the issue in a clear manner, i would have to agree with Gnat that it would't be your car either with SWS 2a. On a note related to this thread if SWS is implemented i will not be uploading any of my Nogovan Armed Forces content if i create anything for A3.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Bottom line No1: As a someone who may one day release an addon for A3. I do that shit for fun. Not to jump through hoops to maintain the integrity of my IP. Currently this community does all the watch dog'n for itself which has benefits that a give-away EULA like Steam Workshop just cant touch. Rock, Gnat, Binkowski, and DM have been dead on.

Bottom line No2: Steam Workshop does nothing to make my life easier. As I will play multiple mods and sometimes specific groups of addons, SIX does a great job of updating the specific mods when I want to use them and I simply cant imagine how SWS could be an improvement.

SWS simply isn't worth the cost to the community for the sake of a few players who cant understand file structure or get their heads around PwS

[dmarkwick 261]

Does this mean that SWS also takes responsibility for addons? :)

[dayglow 2]

Then you do not understand the issue.

I understand the issue, I just want to better understand the rational thought process behind it. As I see it the EULA is crafted as a single catch-all for Valve instead of pages apon pages of specific conditions to cover their own ass in any foreseeable event.

I understand the issue that people are worried Valve then can take their IP, package it up and resell it as their own for profit. The issue is that Valve has zero history of doing this. If anything Valve has a history of working with mod makers to create new products.

The seperate issue of people ripping models and selling them has nothing to do with Valve or SWS and will happen no matter where the file is uploaded.

What it comes down to is trust of what Valve intentions are through the EULA. I'd like to better understand the mistrust against Valve. Past performance is an indicator of future actions and so far I haven't seen any examples of untoward actions of Valve against the mod making community. The main issue seems to be the unauthorized reporting of work and the timeliness of removing the work.

[max power 21]

I don't think it's a mistrust of Valve per se but more of an inability to prevent bad things from happening in the future. You don't wear a seat belt because you expect to get into a wreck.

[dm 9]

I understand the issue that people are worried Valve then can take their IP, package it up and resell it as their own for profit. The issue is that Valve has zero history of doing this.

So based on this logic (and running with my car analogy), I have no history of stealing your (or anyone else's) car. Assuming it was in an open lot, full of fuel and otherwise in perfect working order, would you give me the keys?

[ballistic09 241]

The issue is that Valve has zero history of doing this.

I have zero history of crashing my car when I close my eyes while driving. Therefore, I can safely drive my car down the freeway with my eyes closed.[/sarcasm]

Just because something hasn't happened in the past, doesn't mean it isn't going to in the future. It's entirely rational to be concerned about Valve exploiting SW content, especially when their eula explicitly sets it up as a possibility.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Ballistic09

[dayglow 2]

Be careful, they could kick in your door and drag you off to create content at gunpoint. I mean they haven't ever done it, but it doesn't mean they won't.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

So based on this logic (and running with my car analogy), I have no history of stealing your (or anyone else's) car. Assuming it was in an open lot, full of fuel and otherwise in perfect working order, would you give me the keys?

I've had my car parked by a valet before, what's your point?

[rksl-rock 1300]

I understand the issue, I just want to better understand the rational thought process behind it. As I see it the EULA is crafted as a single catch-all for Valve instead of pages apon pages of specific conditions to cover their own ass in any foreseeable event.

I understand the issue that people are worried Valve then can take their IP, package it up and resell it as their own for profit. The issue is that Valve has zero history of doing this. If anything Valve has a history of working with mod makers to create new products.

The seperate issue of people ripping models and selling them has nothing to do with Valve or SWS and will happen no matter where the file is uploaded.

What it comes down to is trust of what Valve intentions are through the EULA. I'd like to better understand the mistrust against Valve. Past performance is an indicator of future actions and so far I haven't seen any examples of untoward actions of Valve against the mod making community. The main issue seems to be the unauthorized reporting of work and the timeliness of removing the work.

Lets just turn this around...

Prove to all of us that they haven't exploited user made content.

I'll prove they have IF you prove they haven't.

[ballistic09 241]

Be careful, they could kick in your door and drag you off to create content at gunpoint. I mean they haven't ever done it, but it doesn't mean they won't.

Has Valve ever said that kidnaping you and forcing you to make content was a possibility?

No. Hence the second sentence of that paragraph, which you conveniently ignored:

It's entirely rational to be concerned about Valve exploiting SW content, especially when their eula explicitly sets it up as a possibility.

Referring to:

You grant to Valve a 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,

[dayglow 2]

Lets just turn this around...

Prove to all of us that they haven't exploited user made content.

I'll prove they have IF you prove they haven't.

To prove a negative is a falicy in logic.

[chortles 263]

DayGlow, the point is that the mere legal possibility is too much for these modders.

[dayglow 2]

Has Valve ever said that kidnaping you and forcing you to make content was a possibility?

No. Hence the second sentence of that paragraph, which you conveniently ignored:

Referring to:

i haven't ignored it. As others have pointed out it protects them if they find a new way to distribute a mod in a format that the mod wasn't originally submitted. I agree they use large sweeping language to encompass every eventuality instead of having a specific paragraph for every situation.

The question is what is the spirit behind the EULA. I see it as CYA by Valve. I don't see them using assets from mods to create a game. They have no history of it. They actual have quite the opposite in their history.

I understand that some mod makers in their own risk analysis of the situation they don't want to play and I don't expect them to change their mind. I'm just asking for more insight into the reasoning behind their decision and so far it's all based on what they might do, not anything on what they have done.

[rksl-rock 1300]

To prove a negative is a falicy in logic.

To continually insist that Valve will never exploit that license to their own advantage without actually knowing their intent is just as fallacious.

You choose to believe that Valve have not and will not exploit that EULA in a negative way based on no evidence at all.

We are concerned based on a publicly available document that is written in such a way as to allow exploitation of user made content. We have far more "evidence" to back up our position than you.

You admitted you arent an addon maker and this issues "does not affect" you. But you defend Valve based purely on your faith that they "won't ever doing anything bad". I'd really like to live in your world. Because its abviously not populated by lawyers and business that will do almost anything to make a quick buck.

[dayglow 2]

There's nothing wrong with a challenge of has it happened to the assertion that it may happen.

What would Valve gain by using assets created in a mod? That's a logical question.

Again it falls to what you believe the spirit behind the EULA. It seems that your belief is that all corporations are evil and will exploit you at every chance. There are corporations like that out there, there's just no evidence that I'm aware of that Valve acts that way as well. I'd hate to live in your world where everyone is out to get you.

[Messiah 2]

Yet living in a world where you believe everything is pink and fluffy and I fart rainbows, is inherently better?

[whisper 0]

If I put 100's of hours of work into something, giving it for free, even for the kindest person in the world, and trusting that guy he won't ever re-use my work even if that means losing money for him, would be STUPID

Stop asking modders to be stupid.

Really, as long as you've not put that much work into something, I don't think you can even understand what it means, and how much it is YOURS.

If Steam doesn't intend on re-using the content, then it's quite simple : they don't write this in their EULA. They currently expressedly write they want to reuse the content. As long as this is written, modders will not use their distribution tool.

which brings the last point : you can whine all you want about modders unwilling to use Steam Workshop, in the end it's their (imho logical) choice. Instead of having a go against them (which I understand too, it's far easier to write against a single or a dozen modders on a forum than against a company like Steam), you should have a go AGAINST STEAM STUPID AGREEMENT.

Asking people to hand hover 100's of hours of work for free is stupid.

Stop asking modders to be stupid.

[rksl-rock 1300]

What would Valve gain by using assets created in a mod? That's a logical question.

Money.

Again it falls to what you believe the spirit behind the EULA. It seems that your belief is that all corporations are evil and will exploit you at every chance. There are corporations like that out there, there's just no evidence that I'm aware of that Valve acts that way as well. I'd hate to live in your world where everyone is out to get you.

You chose to believe that the world is a nice cosy place where people have good intentions. Thats nice. Im happy for you.

I'm far more pragmatic. I'm forty years old. I spent 9 - actually with Aux service it was closer to 14 - years serving in the RAF Regiment and RAuxAF Regiment. I served all over the world in various conflicts. I then when on to spend the last 15 or so years working in Aerospace. BAE Systems, Eurofighter Gmbh, Airbus, EADS etc mostly dealing with subcontractors. Managing large contracts and projects. In recent years I've been freelancing making content for both engineering and military simulations. All that time I've gained extensive experience working with contracts and EULAs. Not to mention companies ranging from sole traders upto giants like Microsoft, Boeing, BP and National Militaries. Not once have a come across a contract that was not milked for anything and everything they could get from it.

My experience and that of the Solicitors I use tells me that I should not sign that EULA. Nor should anyone that has any interest retaining control of their own creations. That really is the be all and end all.

Edited April 2, 2013 by RKSL-Rock
grammar and a little finish