Johny

Dear community, Based on feedback from server operators we acknowledge that the costs connected with hosting a server can be prohibitive and thus rules out a lot of gamers/squads from being able to afford one, so we have subsequently agreed to allow limited monetization of Arma 3 servers. Full set of rules may be found on http://www.bistudio.com/monetization. Please feel free to share your questions and feedback here in this thread or send us an email to monetization@bistudio.com. We have compiled a list of the most frequent questions and answers and you can check it out here: FAQ.

I am sorry you find our monetization of DLCs intrusive. Please remember that this way you are actually allowed to play the scenario without having to have the DLC. If the DLCs were sold in the regular way, you would not be able to play the scenario at all. In any case, the best way to get rid of the nags is to purchase the DLCs on Steam or our Store.

Currently all the data in Arma 3 is distributed under EULA (https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma3-end-user-license) . If you take such content like Altis Map and you want to edit it, you would have to debinarize it by using external tools, which would fall under disassembly or reverse-engineering and such use of the data is expressly forbidden by the EULA – whether you publish it or not is irrelevant. There might be practical issues with enforcing such provisions when it is done at home and no one knows about it, but that does not mean it is allowed or that it complies with our licenses. For editing Arma 3 terrains, you will have to wait for if and when the data is released under more permissive license such as APL-SA (Disclaimer - this is not a promise of such release and it is still something we will have to determine in the future.)

Hey, to the best of my knowledge, the Arma 3 terrains have never been released under APL-SA, so that license does not apply. The data, which we have released under the APL and similar licenses are available for download here https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages. Each pack has the correct license (or licenses) marked in its file name and also one copy should be attached to it in the file itself.

Hello Pozzer18, it seems that you are under a mistaken impression that gamechanging perks as rewards for monetizations in Arma 2 have been allowed. They are not and they have never been allowed. Only voluntary donations are allowed for Arma 2 and current Arma 3 and Dayz monetization rules extended those voluntary donations. So this new system actually gives more legal options to monetize our games and servers. Also a bonus is that it gives us a way to reward people, who do not infringe on the IPs of modders. Of course this would not be effective without enforcement, which is why we stepped our game in that area and are now pursuing monetization infringements with much more zeal than in the the past. Thanks, we will take a look. The best way to report these communities is to use the "Contact us" form at http://www.bistudio.com/monetization

James, I understand. If you use the official communication channels, then feel free to reference your post, I will make sure the info gets to me.

Hello James, can you please share what is the name of your community? We have several cases open. so I am not sure which you are referring to. In any case: Why you, why now? - Most probably your community was reported to us for infringing on Arma 2 and so we investigated it. But still, sending C&D letters is one of the last resorts, prior we usually try to communicate with the community for weeks, so it is highly unlikely you got served with a C&D letter out of the blue. We have always tried to contact and work the issues in a friendly manner and where possible suggest alternative ways of monetization. All we are asking of our communities is to start following the rules. We have not threatened anyone to sue them over past damages and the money they made. While I understand that running a server and community costs money, you need to understand there are rules and you need to follow them. There are other ways of rewarding donators (teamspeak priviledges, forum badges, etc.) which you can use without having to sell in-game weapons. You need to remember that monetization beyond voluntary donations was not allowed in Arma 2 so your argument, that you have been doing so for years, doesn't really help your case. Basically you are hinting that have made 36 000 USD by violating our license (not to mention the law) and that we are the bad ones for not stopping you sooner.

I am sorry you feel this way. From our perspective we did not stop anything as it has never been allowed to monetize the game (besides the videos and donations). This server monetization gave server owners several options to monetize and improve their donation systems with cosmetic rewards for donators, but at the same time our goal was to make sure everyone in the community may have the same gameplay features regardless of their budget.

Anything that affects gameplay is not allowed. The faq link above is a good starting point and also this thread is full of examples and explanations and you may always ask here or use the contact form on the website if you have an example you are unsure of.

If there is a server with pay to win perks, then please use the contact us button here http://www.bistudio.com/monetizationand send us more details and we will take steps to make sure the proprietor of the server understands whose perks are not allowed. Incidentally that link also features a list of approved server which may use the non-gameplay affecting perks. It is not exactly the honor system you are proposing, but I think it is close.

Thanks Dscha. It is nice to hear we were able to turn your opinion and help you.

Hello everyone, it has been almost half a year since we published the server monetization rules and we have approved a few servers, denied quite a lot more and there has been a significant number of people who just switched to voluntary donations. So since there has been a lot of questions and worthwhile feedback in the beginning I would like to ask you for your opinion and notes on the whole thing now, when you had a chance to observe it in real world for some time. As always, your feedback is much appreciated!

Hey, I am sorry I just noticed this thread. The version 2 has been on the steam for some time, but only as a developer "BETA". I will publish it to the main data this week.

I apologize for the confusion surrounding the patching and savegames based. I would like to sum few things up and explain in a bit more detail. Xbox360: Title Update has been available at the time the game was released (Live connected Xbox360 is required to download the Title Update). This update fixes several issues. Most severe one was that under certain circumstances Save game files were being created larger and large eventually resulting in save game corruption. This was fixed in the title update , but if the save game file is already affected by this bug, it will eventually become corrupted so it is the safest to start the game again. That was the main reason we have pushed for the Title Update to be ready before the game was released. Other wise the save games are compatible on Xbox360 between both versions. PC: Game was released in version 1.00 and 1.01 (displayed as 1.1.0.xxxxx) in game. Patch 1.02 (released on the UK Launch date,4 days before US launch date) may be applied to any of these versions except for Steam (I will address Steam bellow). This patch fixes similar Save game issue as I described in the Xbox360 version. Unfortunately PC version required few extra fixes that made it impossible for us to make version 1.02 save game compatible with previous versions so it is not possible to allow older savegames to be used without risk of the game progress becoming broken some time after patching. Steam version is different EXE (unlike regular version it for example uses Steam Achievements) and it has been already ready for release on the Steam before the decision to change version number on the patch from 1.1 to 1.2 was made (mainly because of the save game incompatibility). As my colleague has announced here ( http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?141129-Carrier-Command-Gaea-Mission-AI-pathfindng-to-be-addressed ) we are currently working on the patch. Besides providing fix for the AI pathfinding (and looking into other issues reported since the release) we are focusing on making the patch savegame compatible with v1.2(current patch) and Steam version 1.1 (release/current Steam version).

Hey Mickyleitor, prior to the workshop support release we have discussed the issue both internally and with Valve. We were quite aware that the original workshop rules were not very modder-friendly, but before steam workshop support was added to Arma 3 (in summer 2013), Valve has changed the original WS policies and integrated everything into the SSA. At that time they have added the following section: Part (b) of this clause does not really apply to Arma 3 workshop, as we are not accepting any workshop contribution for in-app distribution (like TF2 or CSGO do), which leaves Valve with license for derivative works only in situations described in (a). This limits scope of the license and rights assigned to Valve quite a lot. With the "App-Specific Terms", I am afraid that those are for amending changing parts section 6B, which does not really help with the licenses assigned to Valve in 6A. Also these terms are also mainly aimed at governing the workshop items monetization. Maybe if you could sum up the specific points, which you are worried about, then I could try and help. (feel free to send me an PM.)

We are looking into making the list a bit clearer. Plus we are exploring an option of having monetized servers visualized in the in-game server browser.

Yes, mods usually don't have registered copyrights, but you don't need to register a copyright to have IP rights to your works, you get those automatically. On the other hand we do have registered copyrights which gives us an advantage of better establishing our IP ownership and thus helps us with takedown proceedings. As I said before, I am not going to describe our process regarding the violators. As anyone who has ever tried to do so can confirm that taking stuff down from the internet is hard even without me giving a list of tips and hints on how to make it harder for us. About the taxes - we have no authority or right to monitor or audit anyone's tax morale. It is like if I were to ask Apple if they check that everyone selling apps on their app store is paying their income taxe.

Right you are,sir! Thanks a lot for pointing it out. I have edited the post.

Hello KBBW123, first let me apologize for the time it took us reply to your reply to the removal from the whitelist, we have had some issues with the issue tracking system and your email has fallen through the cracks. Second I would like to explain your situation - you were removed from the whitelist because we have received a report from the author of the several of the addons you are using on your website. He stated he did not give you permission and in your reply you did not provide any information which would prove (or even hint) the opposite. Without the server monetization permission your server is back to the "only donations" status and as I have explained several times in this thread: donations are gifts without any counter value. While I might personally agree that the squad XML is really a small and insignificant, we still consider it a counter value and and as such we consider it a monetization which requires permission. If you look at it from the players perspective, the XML it not so different from donator hat or uniform and that is just a step from donator car, donator gun or donator tank and bang we are back at the donator shops. Feel free to give your donators special status on the forums or your website, but unless you are on the allowed monetizator list you are not allowed to give them anything in game. Or you may try getting a permission from the mod author.

Could you elaborate? Extreme Pudding Mix are charging for the reserved slots. we will decide in each individual case when and what we will publish, but I don't want this turned into a witch hunt. (Also I would like to point out that if we publish something and later decide to go to court over the matter, it might damage our chances of success.) Your point is clear - you don't trust us to enforce the rules. But at the same time you say we did not enforce them in the past so from that point of view I do not see how us adding a public database with approved servers can make the situation any worse.

This would be a gameplay affecting perk and as such it is not allowed under the new rules. So no P2W. If we and Valve wanted to make some money out of it, then this would be the right way to go about it. It is similar to the workshop monetization you can see with CSGO or recently Chivalry. Also it would not stop any one from monetizing outside of the system, so from that respect we would have similarly secure system (granted the control over the approved monetizators would be better), with more legal stuff (just read the part on WS monetization in the Steam Subscriber agreement) and maybe even more work to be done - and I am not mentioning the implementation costs. Also it would depend not only on our willingness to implement, but also on Valve's. When we started to be more active in that regard we realized, that we have the most success with communities, which if given the option would jump to a chance to monetize legally within the rules. Then there were people who we felt could be reformed if given the choice of battling us or following the rules. The third group were people who didn't care, the worst kind. That was one of the reasons we decided to set up these new rules - get the "reformable" out of the way and so clear our hands to focus on the "worst kind". But to answer you - yes, we are willing and we are also able, it just not as simple and instant or quick as some make it to be. Especially since there are hundreds of such servers out there. But as I hinted before we are looking into some new ways of making life less pleasant for the servers that we are not happy with, which could make things easier. Well, we ourselves are openly admitting it is a test. A test we fully intend to evaluate. If you check the rules you will see we may infact stop the whole thing when ever we wish should this take an unexpected turn. At the same time we have set the 1 year test period, to give some idea of consistency to the people who would be taking the time and applied. I do see your point and understand the worries. To be honest I think that the microtransactions we are allowing actually promote fostering the community. People cannot sell anything that affects gameplay, so server operators need to think of way to engage community and get them to want cosmetic perks in order to get the money. For approval we require express permission of the author and we will ask for it if there is a dispute. But if author is not disputing the permission, then how can we know he did not give it. On your other questions - BI is not a law firm and cannot give legal advice so once more following is my personal opinion: Author may set up any restrictions he sees fit (as long as he respects the licenses of the tools and works he is basing his work on). Also IMO in IP law what is not expressly allowed is forbidden. If you find a random software on the internet without any accompanying license or permission from the author then you cannot just say it is a public domain because it has no license. It is the other way around - you cannot even use it, let alone for commercial purpose. Well you can see how it might be problematic to prove someone is using stolen work. But since we are taking away the monetization approval, we do not have to prove anything, it is enough we deem the server operator not to be acting in the best interests of the community. And at that point the burden of proof is on the server operator, who should prove it is his work if he wants to continue monetizing. If you sell weapons to people, then it affects the gameplay and is not allowed. But if you sell a "golden weapons upgrade" and it means that everytime user picks up the weapon he gets its golden variant of the same weapon, which has same specs but looks "cooler", then that would fit within the bounds of cosmetic items. If you are approved and have a permission from the weapons-mod author and hats-mod author then it is OK. Of course if there is a tank hidden in the hat, then that would be a problem :D To your last post I will say, that we are giving the option to monetize. We are not saying everyone must do it. We are not taking the monetization lightly - that is why we decided to limit the monetization to cosmetics and server access, which should set reasonable bounds for the exploitation you are speaking about.

I will try to illustrate on an example: Mr. Modder creates the Addon, which he releases under a license which forbids anyone from hosting it on their server. Mr.Badguy hosts a server with Addon (which is against the Addon license), but he hosts it without any monetization or any infringing on BI's rights. Modder is angry and tries to get BI to help, but BI unfortunately cannot help as it is an IP battle between Modder and Badguy. Now take the same situation, but this time Badguy is monetizing on his server with Addon. Badguy has a permission from BI to monetize the server, but does not have permission from Modder to monetize or even use Addon(which he lied about when he sent his application). Modder reports him to BI. BI takes away the monetization permission, but Badguy keeps on monetizing. At that point he is infringing on the BI rights and BI can act and stop him. Not because he is infringing on Modders copyrights, but because he infringes on BI copyrights. You are right that there will always be servers popping up who wont bother to register. This gets the approved ones in one spot for everyone to review and report on and thus helps make more time to focus on the people who monetize without approval. We can take away permission to monetize the YT video if we wish to, then youtube should takee down the video or stop the monetization of it. Youtube does not allow monetization of copyrighted content without permission. If he does not have it and still was able to get the monetization up we have every right and power to take it down. If you compose a music and some steals it and puts it into his homemade video and starts to monetize, then we have no right to take it down. Btw the info you are referring to is a bit outdated - this is up to date: http://www.bistudio.com/community/game-content-usage-rules/monetization-youtube There are always going to be abusive server owners, but the legitimate server owner is no longer someone hidden in the depths of the internet - getting approved and listed on the website should invite certain amount of spotlight. It should also show that people make money of their own or properly licensed content legally. No, we are not giving them a choice - they just have it. Just like every author has the right to decide whom to and how he licenses the work. The only news is that they may extend their licenses to this monetization. I apologize, but I don't understand the part the "false choice" part, can you elaborate a bit? There are people who share your opinion, on the other hand there are people who wanted to give stuff like a special in-game status or clothing to their donor but were not permitted to do so. Do I think that this will get every content thief to repent? No, but I believe it will give a chance to make a few bucks to the few honest ones and maybe reform a few of the less-than-honest ones. On top of that we will get contact and server details of a few less-bright "bad guys", which might help us get rid of them. But as stated in the rules, it is still a test.

We are not trying to force these rules on anyone. If you do not wish for people to use your content in this way, then you are not required to give that permission. You can release it in the same way you did before. Since this is going a bit in circles, I will try to sum up situation and what we are trying to achieve with this. People have been stealing other people's work for ages. And I have said this a few times already - BI has no way/right to enforce 3rd party IP rights - we cannot even take down a youtube video on your behalf. Also there have been people monetizating servers. Contrary to popular belief here, we have been taking action against them. But it is a never-ending strugle and the results are often limited and we had no way to influence people to get permission before using other peoples work. So this is where these monetization rules came in - We are maiking it clear that the donations are voluntary without ANY counter value - period. Everyone who wishes to monetize, has to register and get approved. Applicants have to give us contact details, server addresses, monetization rules and personal guaranties that they are not stealing other people's work. Now people have an incentive to follow the rules and monetize properly without fearing us coming after them. For donations you don't need approval, but donations are just donations - voluntary, no counter value. Limiting access to donators only is monetization and requires approval. While the hardware might be yours, the Arma 3 Server application is not. It is provided to you on a license, which limits the commercial usage. No, you may ask for the donations and keep server closed, but you cannot limit access only to the donators, because then you would be charging for access and for that you need to apply for approval. Charging for items is NOT OK - you need to ask for approval. Thanks to these new rules, after you get approved, you are OK to give a privileged access to people who pay. If you were doing so before, you were doing so illegally. If you would be selling "Team member" package, which would make anyone who purchases a team member with access to special vehicles, then you are selling game affecting items/features and that is NOT allowed. If you charge everyone for access to the server and out of the paying people there are few, who are your friends and you call them team members and you give them special guns/ pilot seats etc., then it is OK (provided you register and get approved). Basically there must not be any relation between money paid and game affecting perks. Does this help?

Monetizators need to have a permission for all 3rd party work, not just part. If they change the script name, rewrite it, etc. then it might be rather hard to prove you are the author. On the other hand we can take away the approval to monetize on a suspicion.

No one may use or monetize any of your mods or content without your permission. If that is happening, then you should report them on the monetization website so that we may investigate and if necessary take them down. We don't want such people to take advantage of these rules. This in no way limits you as a copyright holder from taking other steps to protect your IP. Also I would like to point out that every applicant has to declare that he has all necessary permissions from content creators and no application is approved automatically. I realize people might lie, but that is what the report button is for.