Steam workshop policing is meant to work how?

[.kju 3245]

Seems like a modded/combined version of Epoch+RHS.

It is BI job to analyze reported entries.. they should be doing the supervision in the first place too..

[PuFu 4600]

it is a 2MB mission file ^^

regarding supervision, i am aware that BI should do it, but it simply won't happen. On the other hand, without a list of files, i have to manually download things that look fishy for me

Edited June 2, 2015 by PuFu

[.kju 3245]

yeah my bad. mixed the dot and comma for 1000

[.kju 3245]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=455375976&searchtext=

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=455366761&searchtext=

[benargee 20]

;2948401']https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=455375976&searchtext=

AiA is licensed under APL-SA. Doesn't that mean people are free to do as they please under the same license for non-profit? Doesn't that cover uploading as well?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Benargee

[gammadust 12]

AiA is licensed under APL-SA. Doesn't that mean people are free to do as they please under the same liscense for non-profit? Doesn't that cover uploading as well?

(...)

Share Alike - If you adapt, or build upon this material, you may distribute the resulting material only under the same license.

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Arma Public License - Share Alike ("Public License").

in Arma Public License Share Alike (APL-SA)

Uploaded content falls under Steam Subscribers license, with multiple incompatibilities...

6. USER GENERATED CONTENT

A. General Provisions

(...)

You grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive, right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site.

(...)

B. Content Uploaded to the Steam Workshop

(...)

Workshop Contributions are Subscriptions, and therefore you agree that any Subscriber receiving distribution of your Workshop Contribution will have the same rights to use your Workshop Contribution (and will be subject to the same restrictions) as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions.

(...)

D. Representations and Warranties

You represent and warrant to us that you have sufficient rights in all User Generated Content to grant Valve and other affected parties the licenses described under A. and B. above or in any license terms specific to the applicable Workshop-Enabled App or Workshop page. This includes, without limitation, any kind of intellectual property rights or other proprietary or personal rights affected by or included in the User Generated Content. In particular, with respect to Workshop Contributions, you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors).

You furthermore represent and warrant that the User Generated Content, your submission of that Content, and your granting of rights in that Content does not violate any applicable contract, law or regulation.

in Steam Subscriber Agreement

Edited June 8, 2015 by gammadust

[.kju 3245]

@ Benargee

Its not just a matter of legal arguments I think we agree.

I've handed over AiA to CUP and another individual for further improvement and releases.

To me it seems fair to let them decide when to put it on Steam and not have random people take that away.

That aside I would expect at least people to ask for the OK/permission to upload other people's work to Steam workshop.

[benargee 20]

I totally agree that it's wrong. I'm just looking at it from a legal standpoint. I'm also pretty sure that a license is not retro active. Even if CUP issued a new license on newer versions, older versions would still be under the old terms. Unless if there was some further agreement that steam or BI issued in regards to getting permission from creators when uploading their content.

The problem is you want action taken, but I'm sure if anyone is legally obligated to. If that is the case, I think BI's portion of the Steam Workshop agreement needs to be changed to address this.

[PuFu 4600]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=457903402&searchtext=

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=457904936&searchtext=

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=457925920&searchtext=

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=458036321&searchtext=

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=458039593&searchtext=

[.kju 3245]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=457871593&searchtext= (maybe)

[PuFu 4600]

confirmed for the above^^ IP breach for RHS, CBA, ASDG, FHQ, RH etc

[.kju 3245]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=458264769 (likely/already has another claim)

[PuFu 4600]

Massi, CUP, idz, usaf IP breach on the above.

And yes, i am downloading shit to check it. I have unlimited bandwidth on a broadband lane, but it would be nice if there would be a list of files though...

[Guest]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=458586695&searchtext=

Author told me in a PM its not his model at all....he just ported it.

[benargee 20]

The | Gamer is a 4/4 repeat offender. I contacted the creator of Jurassic Arma and said he has infact uploaded his content without permission. Already has a DCMA

[.kju 3245]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=459541571&searchtext= (maybe)

[PuFu 4600]

;2950390']https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=459541571&searchtext= (maybe)

RH , A3L, CL3, ivory, ASDG, HLC etc

[.kju 3245]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=459560502&searchtext= (maybe)

[djotacon 190]

Another one:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=462287668

[bad benson 1733]

RH , A3L, CL3, ivory, ASDG, HLC etc

seeing those collections i wonder, if people even know that can make a collection of addons on the workshop. it's a great legal way to link existing addons (by the original authors) together into a collection that is almost/pretty much treated like an addon by the launcher. good for server owners.

maybe BIS should do some educating. like a quick video tutorial on how to use the workshop and all its features. the opticalsnare hjohnson case also showed that by doing it the right way it can be ok (config patch with requirement for original addon). i always wonder if people know these ways to do things. i think if rules are strict, they should be explained properly.

and another thing that i don't want to actually report but use as an example to get some feedback by BIS.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=437115291

this addon looks (not confirmed) like it's edited versions of arma 3 models.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425997626

here he also mentions that he edited the model.cfg which makes me assume that he debinarized models.

now instead of reporting those i'd like to make BIS aware of them as examples of what totally SHOULD (imho) be allowed. this these addons do no harm and basically add onto existing content. it would be really great if BIS could finally get a little more tolerant in terms of addons like these and we could maybe get more loose rules when it comes to editing vanilla models. that would allow a lot of possibilites and i honestly don't see any harm being done here.

if this leads to those being flagged, well then my bad and i'm sorry, but i thought they are very good examples of what really should be legal imho.

[.kju 3245]

Collections only work if the content is available on Steam workshop in the first place. This is the main reason why people just mass upload all mods they want to use.

[PuFu 4600]

seeing those collections i wonder, if people even know that can make a collection of addons on the workshop. it's a great legal way to link existing addons (by the original authors) together into a collection that is almost/pretty much treated like an addon by the launcher. good for server owners.

maybe BIS should do some educating. like a quick video tutorial on how to use the workshop and all its features. the opticalsnare hjohnson case also showed that by doing it the right way it can be ok (config patch with requirement for original addon). i always wonder if people know these ways to do things. i think if rules are strict, they should be explained properly.

I have said it before, i even talked with dwarden about it - BI should explain what a collection is and how it works, as well as the fact that according to steam EULA, you are not allowed to upload on steam content you don't own. It is not just another mirror.

and another thing that i don't want to actually report but use as an example to get some feedback by BIS.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=437115291

this addon looks (not confirmed) like it's edited versions of arma 3 models.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425997626

here he also mentions that he edited the model.cfg which makes me assume that he debinarized models.

now instead of reporting those i'd like to make BIS aware of them as examples of what totally SHOULD (imho) be allowed. this these addons do no harm and basically add onto existing content. it would be really great if BIS could finally get a little more tolerant in terms of addons like these and we could maybe get more loose rules when it comes to editing vanilla models. that would allow a lot of possibilites and i honestly don't see any harm being done here.

if this leads to those being flagged, well then my bad and i'm sorry, but i thought they are very good examples of what really should be legal imho.

Well, BI usually tolerates editing of their models as long as it is kept in the same engine.

I understand their current stance (as in tolerate versus making it officially ok). On the other hand your first link, editing is based on Marksman DLC, which is a big nono in my book.

[bad benson 1733]

i just realised i totally misread the list of things i quoted from your post. i thought it was someone having uploaded RHS and HLC among other things in one big pack. so that kind of thing is what i was refering to. sorry about that.

Well, BI usually tolerates editing of their models as long as it is kept in the same engine.

I understand their current stance (as in tolerate versus making it officially ok). On the other hand your first link, editing is based on Marksman DLC, which is a big nono in my book.

i didn't know BIS would tolerate that. is it something that would go through on the forums too (as in providing actual addon downloads)? keep in mind i'm talking about very specific things for a start. like for example adding memory points to all vanilla characters or similar stuff or just editing the frikkin model.cfg for that matter (just that would be so insanely useful). i feel those things should be allowed since all not allowing it does, is cripple modding possibilities.

although it would be great if visual edits would be allowed too. i mean. isn't it kind of weird to others too how delicate even releasing reskinned black MX rifles was? or the fact that there aren't a lot of nice user made camos or more detailed roughed up versions available for the weapons. or maybe that's the general way it is already possible? ask devs and you can do anything?

and then releasing the content as samples later. i never understood that. is it the artists' pride (i get it, just curious)? and if so, why do they release the stuff later? are they afraid someone will make another arma using those models? i never fully got that approach. i personally am mostly not interested in using helmets for my own addons or stuff like that. i want to add features. so getting the models later for me personally usually does nothing.

as for the models in that example being from the DLC. i didn't think of that aspect. good point. that's of course a more obvious problem since it would potentially allow the average Joe who already owns arma 3 to get content from the DLC for free.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Bad Benson

[PuFu 4600]

i just realised i totally misread the list of things i quoted from your post. i thought it was someone having uploaded RHS and HLC among other things in one big pack. so that kind of thing is what i was refering to. sorry about that.

RHS policy doesn't allow any content (in part or in full) being uploaded on Steam. I am dealing with that part via DMCA takedowns myself.

i didn't know BIS would tolerate that. is it something that would go through on the forums too (as in providing actual addon downloads)? keep in mind i'm talking about very specific things for a start. like for example adding memory points to all vanilla characters or similar stuff or just editing the frikkin model.cfg for that matter (just that would be so insanely useful). i feel those things should be allowed since all not allowing it does, is cripple modding possibilities.

well, truth be told, they sort of tolarate things were there is no way around (hex editing back in A1 and A2 days for retexes, where there was no hidden selections for instance).

Things like model.cfg and adding mem points is a bit tricky due to the fact that you need to reverse engineer the thing, so it stands no comparisson to hex.

although it would be great if visual edits would be allowed too. i mean. isn't it kind of weird to others too how delicate even releasing reskinned black MX rifles was? or the fact that there aren't a lot of nice user made camos or more detailed roughed up versions available for the weapons. or maybe that's the general way it is already possible? ask devs and you can do anything?

afaik, most A3 weapons do take hidden selections these days. Of course it is advisable to ask before mess/release with other people's work

and then releasing the content as samples later. i never understood that. is it the artists' pride (i get it, just curious)? and if so, why do they release the stuff later? are they afraid someone will make another arma using those models? i never fully got that approach. i personally am mostly not interested in using helmets for my own addons or stuff like that. i want to add features. so getting the models later for me personally usually does nothing.

You mean 1 game behind samples (as in A2 samples at the release of A3?). It is simply to protect their IP rights i assume, as well as minimize the number of assets that are sold on 3d models websites.

as for the models in that example being from the DLC. i didn't think of that aspect. good point. that's of course a more obvious problem since it would potentially allow the average Joe who already owns arma 3 to get content from the DLC for free.

yeah, especially since with very basic scripting everything in the DLC is available to anyone, not only the ones that own it. Moreso, after a few patches BI removes the pbo lock on those DLC files anyways. That said, being able to have a pick inside doesn't equal being able to reverse engineer everything and re-release it as your own addon...

I think there is a pretty fine line between allowing modders to work with A3 content and add uppon it and in the same time selling their own products (DLCs and Expansions)

[bad benson 1733]

well, truth be told, they sort of tolarate things were there is no way around (hex editing back in A1 and A2 days for retexes, where there was no hidden selections for instance).

Things like model.cfg and adding mem points is a bit tricky due to the fact that you need to reverse engineer the thing, so it stands no comparisson to hex.

yea i know that but there is technically no difference because both require you to reupload the model file which then makes it accessible to people not owning the game, binarized or not. as for reverse engineering. is that a term used in the EULA to differentiate? because on its own i don't see it being a bad thing. it's what modders do all the time. it's pretty much the essence of it and what happens everytime a new feature gets released.

afaik, most A3 weapons do take hidden selections these days.

yea. i'm pretty sure that was a response to those black MXs and the general history of simple reskins being such a hassle. but overall inconsistency remains which for example means no retexturing of houses or even trees (season versions anyone?) to create more variations for map makers. i'm just giving examples of situations where i thought "this would be cool...nope...not allowed...too bad".

Of course it is advisable to ask before mess/release with other people's work

well yea obviously. i was more indirectly asking for a precedence of model.cfg changes being allowed, or even visual edits, by coordinating with the devs since so far these things are "illegal" afaik. and again all of them require reupload of data making it possible for EVERYONE to download.

You mean 1 game behind samples (as in A2 samples at the release of A3?). It is simply to protect their IP rights i assume, as well as minimize the number of assets that are sold on 3d models websites.

that's my point though. how does it protect their IP if they release the stuff later anyways. and how is the potential damage bigger if the game is still uptodate? hence me asking. like, is it ok once they feel the models are outdated and they can do better now? would be great to hear a dev's perspective on this. i just want to fully understand the concept and motivations.

That said, being able to have a pick inside doesn't equal being able to reverse engineer everything and re-release it as your own addon...

I think there is a pretty fine line between allowing modders to work with A3 content and add uppon it and in the same time selling their own products (DLCs and Expansions

yea i agree. and it can be a blurry one. so having good examples and stuff can help draw the line more clearly and hopefully more logically. also, i'm the last one to take HJ's side since i find his attitude towards fellow modders more than questionable but i have to say that in those examples he stated the models being vanilla and made by BIS, same for the model.cfg. so in terms of "claiming as your own" and all the other ethical stuff this could be a good example for devs to draw lines or say "this is not over the line" or similar.