Steam workshop policing is meant to work how?

[semiconductor 309]

if you lock the hashes / signatures ,

they repack it or simply post newer/older version not locked etc

What about some sort of isWorksopData command that would allow modders (through scripts in modification/mission itself) to detect whether their addon was downloaded through Workshop and disable it's functionality/show notification if they don't want it to be distributed in that way? Sure, someone skilled enough can remove it and upload addon without protection but average Workshop user wouldn't be able to do it and that alone would decrease amount of illegal uploads thus making it easier to authors to find a report such uploads. Edited June 26, 2015 by Semiconductor

[serjames 357]

Alternatively some Way of packaging a AllowUploadToSteam=0 key that gets built in when the mod is built. Have some sort of filter at valve's end to check for this

[Dwarden 1125]

your B isn't going to solve A so it's weird to align those

also you don't give the rights to STEAM per say but that's matter of IP rights debate ...

[gammadust 12]

Yes.. B only addresses a subset of A, which would already be considered helpful. Given how broad "A" can and is proving to be, it is really up to Steam to provide entry points to allow the community to mitigate the problem. That is specially considering Steam curating themselves is apparently out of question. They don't want the maintenance costs, but could perhaps allow themselves some readily available resources towards one time solutions.

There is obviously no point looking at it as a one solution solving the whole issue.

[.kju 3245]

@ Dwarden

Sorry to say but to me it is just cheap saying BI can't do anything and Valve is to blame.

After all it is you BI that decided to adapt the system with full knowledge of the situation and awareness of Valve not to care (much).

[Binkowski 26]

;2958130']

After all it is you BI that decided to adapt the system with full knowledge of the situation and awareness of Valve not to care (much).

Thank you!

[Dwarden 1125]

you failed to understand

1. checking hashes / names w/e whitelist / blacklist - can be easily evaded and it will happen the second that is introduced (already been in that river multiple times)

2. I tried explain before, anyone can upload to workshop, so w/e we do is just informative (like warning about do not upload someone else IP) but it will not stop those who really want to abuse the system

3. we can't actively predict or pursue who is breaching <insert random content maker IP>, this is why is there DMCA (for the IP owners) and normal (users) report system

4. you can't expect us to be downloading <insert 1 and many 0> GBs of content and trying to find violation between those w/o actual report telling us exactly what/why/where

5. the system is developed by Valve but what i mean is - generic limitations will apply anywhere, be it 1st (DIY) or 2nd (Valve) or 3rd (PWS) party system

it's easy to ask for solutions which don't work well ...

[lumnuon 295]

Well I always thought the Key Problem is the Steam EULA many Modders don´t agree with. Is there really no way it could be changed or am I getting the whole situation wrong?

[roberthammer 582]

You know , personally i would close the A3 steam workshop for the addons (at least) because of obvious reasons

it doesn't changed anything to good , only it became a bigger mess and unnecessary problematic

[lumnuon 295]

You know , personally i would close the A3 steam workshop for the addons (at least) because of obvious reasons

it doesn't changed anything to good , only it became a bigger mess and unnecessary problematic

I think the Workshop is a great tool that can´t be used by bigger communities, with modpacks, because many mods like RHS and ACE (and more) are not available.

Right now it just doesn´t make sense to switch to the workshop for these communities,

because it would make things even more complicated to have half the modpack on Steam and the other half on JustSync (for example).

The workshop would be a really great tool if all the big mods were available.

Having said that, I can understand the modders that don´t like the workshop because of IP breaches and the EULA.

[haleks 8212]

I think the Workshop is a great tool that can´t be used by bigger communities, with modpacks, because many mods like RHS and ACE (and more) are not available.

The workshop isn't going to be a better tool because "x" mod is on there; as you said, those mod authors aren't going to make that move until Steam EULA has been changed, modders concerns have been adressed and/or the workshop is overhauled.

RobertHammer sums it up pretty good :

it doesn't changed anything to good , only it became a bigger mess and unnecessary problematic

[lumnuon 295]

The workshop isn't going to be a better tool because "x" mod is on there; as you said, those mod authors aren't going to make that move until Steam EULA has been changed, modders concerns have been adressed and/or the workshop is overhauled.

RobertHammer sums it up pretty good :

It´s not about the tool itself, it´s about the content the tool can deliver. The workshop works great in terms of installing mods and managing them (including Collections). Many people just don´t use the Workshop because of missing content.

Again, I can absolutely understand the modders that don´t agree with the EULA but I fail to see how the Workshop with it´s core mechanics and concept is something bad.

[Defunkt 431]

Given Valve are unlikely to amend their EULA or provide adequate protection for content creators' IP I think BI should simply develop their own addon directory. They don't have to host the actual content, just devise an XML/JSON manifest format and allow addon makers to register a URL where their manifest of available mods can be retrieved (including text descriptions and images for browsing, right in the ArmA launcher). Side-stepping the Valve EULA would immediately make it possible for all of the most significant addons to participate and remove the largest driver that leads to people uploading content illegitimately. If it still proves necessary or desirable they're then in a position to add hash checks or approved bikeys to the registration system.

[lumnuon 295]

What about making something like a petition to show the interest in a change in the EULA. That would highlight the Problem to Valve. Maybe it´s an incredibly stupid Idea though. What do you guys think?

[badluckburt 78]

My solution in a perfect world would be this:

Bohemia sets up a key distribution service where addon makers can apply for a unique key by providing their Steam account. This key is then bound to that account and is also registered within the addon as a hash so a cross-check can be done when a person tries to upload it to the workshop.

I deliberately mentioned perfect world because this solution means changes on both BI's as well as Valve's side and I have no clue how much freedom you guys have in changing stuff like this. That said, it would for the most part be a pretty fool-proof solution and in the end would save a lot of time.

[gammadust 12]

^^ in a nutshell using a digital sign system the way it is meant to work. The system depends on an authority, which the community can rely upon, certifying the signatures origin. If the only acceptable entities to assume that authority refuse to do so, the only purpose signatures serve is assuring that a downloaded file on client is a copy of the one in the server. Something which is not at issue.

When using the https protocol we rely on such a system also, the reason that is transparent to the user is the browsers are installed with an embeded whitelist of Certificate Authorities*. If one wants to transparently certify its identity to the user on its website, one must obtain a certificate from one such CA's, process which implies a more or less relaxed vetting procedure**. This can also be attacked, but its overall efectiveness is not dispensed with.

* This assumes internet users trust the provided whitelist.

** This is usualy paperwork providing some sort of real identity data.

Of course anyone can self-sign certificates but then those certificates fall out from the whitelist and the user is notified by the browser.

Now your suggestion is imo a reasonable compromise between having one's real identity liable for violating an IP and having instead its Steam identity liable for it. This limited liability would be proportional to the violation and embedded within the system.

Not exploring the obvious avenues to solve this, leads me to think there is lack of will in addressing the issue.

Edited June 27, 2015 by gammadust

[badluckburt 78]

I'd say a lack of priority before will but I see your point. However, I doubt they're happy with the current situation, especially Dwarden so they're probably looking into ways of fixing it. It's just that BI most of the times seems to have different priorities than we expect :)

But my suggestion wouldn't take that long to implement if it's technically possible with Steam so I hope they're considering something like this.

[bad benson 1733]

i'm by far no expert on the technicalities but to me this all sounds a bit overkill. like people calling for encypted pbos that one time. i also can't see this working so well. sure you could use signatures i guess but that doesn't sound like it would keep people from repacking data into a new pbo creating a new key, right?

anything else would require messing with the pbos themselves resulting in people not being able to even look at other people's work for educational purposes, right? is that really what we want? just because there's a problem with the steam EULA. sounds kind of backwards to me.

i'd rather have someone (*cough..BIS..* ;)) team up with foxhound and make an armaholic launcher that draws files directly from the site's servers (maybe BI could sponsor additional servers). not sure how hard it would be but there are already tools that do similar stuff in one or the other way (community tools updater comes to mind).

i know people are protective of their work for good reasons and i'm like that too in certain cases but let's not pull a "patriot act" move out of fear. there's always good and bad sides to "solutions" like that. like promoting hiding and not sharing of knowledge and an overall overly competitive focus much like the hated life communities do among themselves. and i don't think it will keep anyone from making the tools to go around any type of encryption.

armaholic is already the trusted working "system" that is asked for. it's already there. it just needs to get the benefits of the workshop. which as far as i'm concerned are auto download and update. doesn't sound like rocket science to me (especially looking at how many dayZ mod launchers there are). the only thing would be, as mentioned, the required infrastructure to cope with the traffic. i might be missing something though. just thinking out loud.

[lumnuon 295]

The problem lies within the EULA so why not push for a change in the EULA? Or is that absolutely impossible?

[bad benson 1733]

The problem lies within the EULA so why not push for a change in the EULA? Or is that absolutely impossible?

yea sure. but imho it's unlikely to change since it applies to all games on the workshop, doesn't it? why would they change it for one game and its community? but who knows. maybe a separate EULA for arma would be possible. something you have to agree to when you use the workshop a la apple itunes harassment ;)

but it sounds probably more realistic than making a new system to watermark/protect files i guess.

[lumnuon 295]

yea sure. but imho it's unlikely to change since it applies to all games on the workshop, doesn't it? why would they change it for one game and its community? but who knows. maybe a separate EULA for arma would be possible. something you have to agree to when you use the workshop a la apple itunes harassment ;)

but it sounds probably more realistic than making a new system to watermark/protect files i guess.

Yeah you are probably right :( but still. Could BI atleast try to have a talk with Valve or give the community a way to show its concern to Valve regarding that issue?

[gammadust 12]

We're drifting a bit offtopic but...

The problem lies within the EULA so why not push for a change in the EULA? Or is that absolutely impossible?

yea sure. but imho it's unlikely to change since it applies to all games on the workshop, doesn't it? why would they change it for one game and its community? but who knows. maybe a separate EULA for arma would be possible. something you have to agree to when you use the workshop a la apple itunes harassment ;)

but it sounds probably more realistic than making a new system to watermark/protect files i guess.

The Steam Subscriber Agreement explicitly mentions “App-Specific Termsâ€

Specific Workshop-Enabled Apps or Workshop web pages may contain special terms (“App-Specific Termsâ€) that supplement or change the terms set out in this Section. In particular, where Workshop Contributions are distributed for a fee, App-Specific Terms will address how revenue may be shared. Unless otherwise specified in App-Specific Terms (if any), the following general rules apply to Workshop Contributions.

This covers in a different direction than the one related with IP issues, and relates with "revenue sharing", but it does allow for app specific terms. We've seen an example* of it with the Skyrim mods.

*(EDIT for historical purposes) a valid webarchive link of those "App-Specific Terms" affecting Skyrim. [Note: the terms have been made void after the backlash of the Skyrim modding community and Steam's backtracking on them - see [RPS] Valve Drop Steam Paid Mods For Now for more details]

So it is not impossible to allow it.

Notwithstanding the license described in Section 6.A., Valve will only have the right to modify or create derivative works from your Workshop Contribution in the following cases: (a) Valve may make modifications necessary to make your Contribution compatible with Steam and the Workshop functionality or user interface, and (b) Valve or the applicable developer may make modifications to Workshop Contributions that are accepted for in-Application distribution as it deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay.

I may be wrong but i suspect the above clauses that limit the ability to derive from mod authors content was introduced relatively recently (since Steam started to widen the Workshop use to games not under their IP). So it is not impossible to expect them to accomodate better mod authors concerns, yet they apparently require huge amounts of pressure to do so.

---

Edit: The above terms affecting derivative works were introduced between June-July 2013 according to webarchive.

2. LICENSES

(...)

C. Mods and Derivative Works.

Your Subscription(s) may include access to the Valve software development kit (the "SDK") for a version of the computer game engine known as “Source†(the "Source Engine"), or other editing tools through which you can edit or create derivative works of a Valve game or Valve game content (such as, for example, content editors included in Steam Workshop-enabled Valve games, or The Source® Filmmaker Software). Unless otherwise provided in applicable Subscription Terms, you may use the SDK or such other tools only on a non-commercial basis, and solely to develop a modified game for Valve products compatible with and using the Source Engine (a "Mod") or to create derivative works of Valve game content (such as new levels for games, virtual items, or audio-visual content) based on Valve game assets (“Derivative Worksâ€). Except as expressly set forth in any applicable Subscription Terms, (i) you may reproduce and distribute Mods in object code form, solely to licensed end users of Valve games that are compatible with and using the Source Engine; and (ii) you may reproduce and distribute Derivative Works in object code form, solely to licensed end users of the Valve game from which the Valve Derivative Works were derived. In each case, except as otherwise expressly set forth in any applicable Subscription Terms, such reproduction and distribution right is conditioned upon your making the Mod or Derivative Work publicly available without charge on a non-commercial basis.

If you would like to use the Source SDK or other Valve-provided editing tool, or a Mod or Derivative Work, for a commercial purpose or activity, please contact Valve at sourceengine@valvesoftware.com.

6. USER GENERATED CONTENT

A. General Provisions

"User Generated Content" means any content you make available to other users through your use of multi-user features of Steam, or to Valve or its affiliates through your use of the Software or otherwise.

You grant Valve and its affiliates the non-exclusive, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, 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. If you use Valve cloud storage, you grant us a license to store your information as part of that service. We may place limits on the amount of storage you may use.

If you provide Valve with any feedback or suggestions about Steam, the Software, or any Valve products or services, Valve is free to use the feedback or suggestions however it chooses, without any obligation to account to you.

B. Content Uploaded to the Steam Workshop

Some games or applications available on Steam ("Workshop-Enabled Apps") allow you to create User Generated Content based on or using the Workshop-Enabled App, and to submit that User Generated Content (a “Workshop Contributionâ€) to one or more Steam Workshop web pages. Workshop Contributions can be viewed by the Steam community, and for some categories of Workshop Contributions users may be able to interact with, download or purchase the Workshop Contribution. In some cases, Workshop Contributions may be considered for incorporation by Valve or a third-party developer into a game or into a Subscription Marketplace.

You understand and agree that Valve is not obligated to use, distribute, or continue to distribute copies of any Workshop Contribution and reserves the right, but not the obligation, to restrict or remove Workshop Contributions for any reason.

Specific Workshop-Enabled Apps or Workshop web pages may contain special terms (“App-Specific Termsâ€) that supplement or change the terms set out in this Section. In particular, where Workshop Contributions are distributed for a fee, App-Specific Terms will address how revenue may be shared. Unless otherwise specified in App-Specific Terms (if any), the following general rules apply to Workshop Contributions.

• 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.
  
• Notwithstanding the license described in Section 6.A., Valve will only have the right to modify or create derivative works from your Workshop Contribution in the following cases: (a) Valve may make modifications necessary to make your Contribution compatible with Steam and the Workshop functionality or user interface, and (b) Valve or the applicable developer may make modifications to Workshop Contributions that are accepted for in-Application distribution as it deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay.
  
• 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.
  

Except where otherwise provided in App-Specific Terms, you agree that Valve’s consideration of your Workshop Contribution is your full compensation, and you are not entitled to any other rights or compensation in connection with the rights granted to Valve and to other Subscribers.

Edited June 28, 2015 by gammadust

[lumnuon 295]

But all in all it would be possible, which is great news for the moment. As mentioned already BI could push for a change or the community could start a petition to show it´s interest in a change of the EULA.If nobody does something everything will stay as it is and the Workshop will never get to it´s potential usefulness

[PuFu 4600]

The problem lies within the EULA so why not push for a change in the EULA? Or is that absolutely impossible?

yes, it is impossible, and if i were Valve, i would have a similar EULA, just because covering my ass is more important than dealing with stuff that i make no money of, just so PuFu and the gang can upload his files on steam

[.kju 3245]

Valve already did adjust their EULA based on such feedback AFAIK - seems very unlikely to me that they would do it again.