Re-uploading mods on the workshop

[PuFu 4600]

as long as these fixes are separate, as in separate configs, textures, whatever, without touching the original files in any sort of form or extent, that is allowed yes. 

If the author is out of reach, then the default state for any sort of permissions to directly modify his work (as change his files then repack and re-release) is "denied".

[Mynock 244]

So essentially anyone who has provided a fix by re-uploading a mod, etc. with the fix implemented instead of a completely separate fix should be ousted from the community and reported? Interesting.

[PuFu 4600]

42 minutes ago, Mynock said:

So essentially anyone who has provided a fix by re-uploading a mod, etc. with the fix implemented instead of a completely separate fix should be ousted from the community and reported? Interesting.

yes.

most of the times the said "fixes" can be done without even touching the original files, as external configs, as external textures etc, which is also called "implementing fix" so then i actually wonder why the hell people go in and rummage through someone's else things, instead of keeping it separate... 

[Varanon 892]

2 hours ago, Mynock said:

I have a question of sorts this thread has made me think about. What is the general consensus on "fixing" mods, maps, etc. that clearly are no longer supported by their original creator assuming the fix is done purely to make the mod/map/whatever functional again as Arma is updated?

 

It's actually quite easy, and universally applicable: Ask the author. If he's ok, with it, go ahead, and chances are that if he no longer actively develops a mod, he will be ok with it.

 

If he doesn't answer, or says no, then don't do it. Or, do a "patch" mod that you have to load in addition to make it work. 

[Mynock 244]

Guess I need to be using the report button significantly more often then.

[Alwarren 2767]

On 4/20/2017 at 11:03 PM, Macser said:

I don't necessarily understand the protectiveness some authors have towards their creations. Non-commercial specifically. But even so, that's just my opinion. If someone specifically puts a few restrictions on their stuff, I just think it's the decent thing to do, to abide by it.

 

The "no harm" argument works both ways. Would it really be any harm to just say "fair enough", and move on? Is it really impinging on their freedoms by not having access to a collection of addons? Obstructing the functioning of their daily life? I doubt it. If it's just entertainment , or a hobby, are they really losing much by just letting it go? I don't think it's as innocent as it sometimes looks.

 

Well, here are a couple of reasons:

 

1) The demotivation

I recently made a set of new Little Bird models for CUP. If I see any comment like "CUP's Little Birds look like Arma 1 models", that will be a rather de-motivating thing to happen. And quite infuriating if I learn afterwards that the guy was indeed looking at the Arma 1 models because re-uploaders rarely if ever keep the mod up-to-date. 

 

2) The motivational

My FHQ Accessories pack now has 75000 subscribers. That is a motivating factor for me to finally go about updating it. If there are several re-uploads (and I have already taken down a number of them) I don't see these numbers. Given the fact that most feedback any addon-maker and especially Mission makers is negative (you hardly ever get someone to post something positive; they only post when they have problems), these numbers are the only positive feedback you get. You also hardly get any upvotes. The subscriber numbers are the only "positive" feedback you usually get.

 

3) The bug reporters

Sadly, the first thing one has to ask on problematic bug reports is "are you up-to-date". If they subscribe to the wrong mod, they might think they are and still not have the right one. It leads to unnecessary issues and extra work.

 

4) False Ownership claims

Often enough, re-uploaders do not state that they are not the author of the addon they upload. They don't need to even say "this is my addon", not saying anything implicitly states that it is theirs. 

 

These are just some examples of why I do not want any of my addons re-uploaded. I have everything on the Workshop, there is no need for re-upload, and as I pointed out above, there is plenty of reason not to do it. Of course, the ultimate reason is that I am the author of the addon and I want my wishes to be respected. It's a simple matter of respect, above all, to respect the author's wishes.

[Rich_R 1087]

37 minutes ago, Mynock said:

Guess I need to be using the report button significantly more often then.

 

Coming to the same conclusion :)

[Macser 776]

@Alwarren

I don't think people are understanding what I meant. I know that people feel protective of their stuff. I know they have their own reasons for feeling that way. What I mean, in practical terms, not on an emotional level, is that it doesn't matter what your reasons are.

 

The decent thing for people to do, is abide by the author's wishes, when they're clearly stated. But where they are not, you ask them if they'll give permission. If they say no, or you don't get a response, then move on. It's not causing any harm to either party. I consider that to be the decent choice. 

[Alwarren 2767]

I misunderstood you, then

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[kremator 1065]

Surely there is one VERY easy solution. 

 

Noone is allowed to re-upload a mission/mod to Steam except the original author.

 

Should any unofficial mods be seen on Steam they are immediately reported and taken down. 

 

This would satisfy everyone wouldn't it?

[PuFu 4600]

1 hour ago, kremator said:

Surely there is one VERY easy solution. 

 

Noone is allowed to re-upload a mission/mod to Steam except the original author.

 

Should any unofficial mods be seen on Steam they are immediately reported and taken down. 

 

This would satisfy everyone wouldn't it?

that is precisely what steam agreement stipulates anyways...you can't even give someone permission to upload on steam, unless you actually make a paper to share your IP rights with him

[R0adki11 3949]

17 hours ago, PuFu said:

that is precisely what steam agreement stipulates anyways...you can't even give someone permission to upload on steam, unless you actually make a paper to share your IP rights with him

Unfortunately most uploaders don't read the steam EULA

[Auss 208]

On 4/21/2017 at 7:47 PM, Auss said:

Interesting discussion, how do I go about removing stuff like this?

 

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=843848832&searchtext=australia

 

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=879856246&searchtext=australia

 

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844418062&searchtext=australia

 

I have given permisison to one group, the underbelly crew who actually asked, the rest have just uploaded.

 

Well 5 days after pushing that little flag button it seems very little has happened to have these removed. One has been taken down and that's only because I contacted the uploader.

[Flax 397]

3 minutes ago, Auss said:

 

Well 5 days after pushing that little flag button it seems very little has happened to have these removed. One has been taken down and that's only because I contacted the uploader.

 

As you are the IP owner you should file a DMCA request on them as well as flagging them.

[PuFu 4600]

11 minutes ago, Auss said:

Well 5 days after pushing that little flag button it seems very little has happened to have these removed. One has been taken down and that's only because I contacted the uploader.

lol...nothing happens because you are doing it wrong. never flag, always DMCA:

[Auss 208]

yep doing that now

[Rich_R 1087]

GIVE ME JUSTICE (click)

OR GIVE ME DEATH (click)

 

lol

[Dwarden 1125]

@Auss remember You can't do DMCA claims unless you IP owner ... 

[Auss 208]

well aren't I? I thought I was :)

[Dwarden 1125]

was just for sure comment ;)

 

also for some reason one of your report, wasn't at all showing in the admin interface ...

hence why i didn't ban it, don't ask me why ... i don't get it either

[Tankbuster 1746]

13 hours ago, Auss said:

well aren't I? I thought I was

I think you'll find God is the IP rights holder for Australia.

Does anyone have Slartibartfast's email address?

[Auss 208]

well that DCMA thingi does the trick, someone waved their wand and Kapow they all goneski

[Montgomery 205]

3 hours ago, Auss said:

well that DCMA thingi does the trick, someone waved their wand and Kapow they all goneski

 

Congrats, now how will you stop him from uploading it to the 500 trillion other places to upload files on the internet? 

[ProfTournesol 956]

3 minutes ago, montgomery said:

 

Congrats, now how will you stop him from uploading it to the 500 trillion other places to upload files on the internet? 

 

And ? Is this a lame reason not to do anything ?

[Montgomery 205]

@ProfTournesol

 

Not lame, just realistic. You will never be able to police the sharing of files on the internet. Just ask the movie and music industry.