PC EULA changes and mod drama.

[BFT2020]

No this was regarding the weaponization and spurious use of DMCA against creators who were using MM and yes there was DMCA used by  TFP against at least 1 creator. 

It was not a case of weaponization.   The MM mod was generating money to MM through the use of a game modification (twitch bits with 20% of those donated going to the mod creator) - which in the EULA (even before the recent one in 2023) was policy that creators were not allowed to monetize modifications to the game 

MM and content creators using the MM mod were legally notified first from TFP that use of the MM mod was illegal per the EULA.  Anyone that ignore those legal notifications were then escalated to the next step in the legal process.

 

[Arma Rex]

I know it is not uncommon in THIS industry but I still do not understand the reasoning for it in a general sense.  I am not really commenting on this specific incident as I do not know enough about what has been targeted but in general it seems asinine that anyone tries to limit MODS making money off a product that the modders created.

I see no difference between a MOD being sold and an after market scoop for my car.  They are both third party additions to a product.  There are a LOT of absolutely asinine things in modern copyright/digital 'rights' that are simple nonsensical.  I have never been furnished with a single reason that makes this practice any different from the other nonsense thing you find in the 300 page long copyright 'agreement' that comes with most software these days.

What am I missing?

You'd be better off talking to a copyright lawyer than debating the veracity of monetizing mods for video games here. I doubt many people here are going to give you a solid explanation either way.

 

[canadianbluebeer]

A scoop for a car vs a mod for a game are really apples and oranges.

A mod that used its own assets (in essence an addon)  might have a legal leg to stand on but then again ...

You buy your car, not license it like a game.

Nobody has ever taken such a thing to court (a don't look at me, that's a can of worms best left buried!) 

As I said, flat out selling a mod/addon/extension is a no-no.  Has been from day one.

That clause I agree 100% with.

It was not a case of weaponization.   The MM mod was generating money to MM through the use of a game modification (twitch bits with 20% of those donated going to the mod creator) - which in the EULA (even before the recent one in 2023) was policy that creators were not allowed to monetize modifications to the game 

MM and content creators using the MM mod were legally notified first from TFP that use of the MM mod was illegal per the EULA.  Anyone that ignore those legal notifications were then escalated to the next step in the legal process.

Eula changed July 13.  I never got a notice about that.  Never got word 1 about using MM for the years that I did use it. zip. zero. zilch. nada.

The EULA itself says any changes  go  into effect after 30 days.  (well, continuing to use the software after 30 days means you accept the new terms)

Whole other issue over getting a popup or not when it changes. Not going there.  (not lawyer so not even gonna offer an opinion, silly or otherwise)

Perhaps it WAS a no-no to have something like MM prior to Jul 13.  Could say the previous EULA was ambiguous enough (or not specific enough), that it slipped through the cracks, and the change was a clarification.  Dunno.

I've done tech support for over 30 years, and have had to defend company actions that sometimes were um "questionable".  (let's just leave some of those decisions at that, mkay?)  Having to explain to customers why said decision was done, and how:

Companies exist to make money. (no, really?  yes, really! d'oh!!) 

(some customers just never ever could grasp that  "no ma'am, you have to go and buy your own replacement batteries for your remote. I'm not sending a tech to replace them")

(no kidding, I actually had to explain that.  "When your car runs out of gas, you think the dealership is going to send someone to refill your tank, for FREE?"  /headdesk)

So TFP see an area where then can make some more money off THEIR game.   

They decide to do so.  All good.   No problems.

As I've repeatedly said, my issues with the whole mess is 

1) HOW it was presented/handled,

2) How many people are mis-stating things,

3) How many people don't seem to understand how extensions using bits work on Twitch.

(it's the techy in me.  /shrug)

Do I think TFP are going to change their minds, or that *I* can convince them to do so?

<insert The_Look(tm) here>

:laugh:

 

[theFlu]

A scoop for a car vs a mod for a game are really apples and oranges.

It's not that bad a comparison, a physical addition to a physical property vs a licensed addition to a licensed .. item. If the first case is crystal clear, manufacturer of the addon is able to sell the addon, then I don't see how the reasoning would differ for the license versions .. other than "that's what the situation de facto is".

 

[Riamus]

It's not that bad a comparison, a physical addition to a physical property vs a licensed addition to a licensed .. item. If the first case is crystal clear, manufacturer of the addon is able to sell the addon, then I don't see how the reasoning would differ for the license versions .. other than "that's what the situation de facto is".

Well, technically something licensed has to abide by rules through the entire use of the item.  Something sold does not.  It would be closer to compare it to a lease, though still not quite accurate because you can still buy the leased vehicle.

I'm not going to get into the idea of software being licensed instead of sold as I have never thought that was good practice but as long as it is licensed, of they have rules for using it, they have the right to enforce those rules.

 

[hiemfire]

they have the right to enforce those rules.

And change them as long as they notify users of the licensed product, which TFP did.

 

[theFlu]

idea of software being licensed instead of sold as I have never thought that was good practice

Yeh, I get the system de facto, but the logic in it is lacking. It all derives from copyright, where we try to commoditize data, trying to make "data products" behave like real world objects. And then we've ended up to a place where the "data products" have worse buyer rights than real objects. Sure, unraveling any of it would be quite the business earthquake by now, but that doesn't make it make any more sense ...

 

[Desmoulins]

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

 

[BFT2020]

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

I doubt that your favorite mod was taken down as part of MM's issue.  However, if they were removed, it was likely for two reasons - one they were charging people for the mod or two, they were using unlicensed copyright material in the mod.

 

[SylenThunder]

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

I'll be honest, looking at the data for this mod, it could have been shut down by someone other than TFP quite easily. Especially if that "innocent mod" was using assets from a number of sources where those models are available.

 

[TwilightVaramek]

I'll be honest, looking at the data for this mod, it could have been shut down by someone other than TFP quite easily. Especially if that "innocent mod" was using assets from a number of sources where those models are available.

if  it was taken down for that then something wrong cus vroid is built into the game craftopia  like its a function of that game vroid also has a mod for valheim  and raft i have used the mod in all of those games and its the only reason i came back to play 7 days 2 die i used my own player model i paid for as doe pretty much anyone that uses these mods if the mod doesn't come back because of what ever is happening with   mod drama i  likely wont return to the game i don't want to be a human on the internet when i am in real life  i want to play games to be my own  character with my own designs not a boring human that looks the same as every other human on the planet

 

[SylenThunder]

if  it was taken down for that then something wrong cus vroid is built into the game craftopia  like its a function of that game vroid also has a mod for valheim  and raft i have used the mod in all of those games and its the only reason i came back to play 7 days 2 die i used my own player model i paid for as doe pretty much anyone that uses these mods if the mod doesn't come back because of what ever is happening with   mod drama i  likely wont return to the game i don't want to be a human on the internet when i am in real life  i want to play games to be my own  character with my own designs not a boring human that looks the same as every other human on the planet

Apples to oranges.  Craftopia got specific licensing to utilize that system in their game. The maker of the mod that got taken down would have had to procure similar licensing in order for it to be valid. If they did not acquire that license, then they would be in violation, and would be taken down as a result. 

And honestly, to think that TFP would have taken down a mod like that is a bit of a stretch. The mod author wasn't even selling the mod, and they were not making money off of the mod as near as I can tell. The Vroid templates were licensed though, and as are the templates that you purchase for yourself. The interface to utilize these templates is licensed and requires a paid subscription. If the mod author did not acquire the necessary rights for it, then it would be taken down. 

Whether you want to look like a human, or a common Vroid is your prerogative. Quitting a game just because the character interface doesn't support your decision is your loss. It is basically the equivalent of boycotting Mario Cart because you can't play it as a pecan pie.

In any case, your issue is completely unrelated to this thread, and does not need to be discussed here further.

 

[Rotor]

...Mario Cart because you can't play it as a pecan pie.

There go all of my dreams!

 

[Riamus]

There go all of my dreams!

I'd rather an apple pie, though pecan is good.

 

[FA_Q2]

You'd be better off talking to a copyright lawyer than debating the veracity of monetizing mods for video games here. I doubt many people here are going to give you a solid explanation either way.

I have a solid explanation, I already gave it.  I doubt a solid explanation even exists on the other side but I await one from anywhere.  A copyright lawyer certainly would not furnish one, they cost hundreds per hour and they get paid that to understand the law, not why a law exists.

I think the why is actually pretty simple, the monied interests in this field are all on the side of trying to limit the rights of customers as much as possible, the people writing these laws are utterly ignorant about what these laws mean and the voters that provide the counterbalance to the lobbyist interests don't really care and are equally ignorant.  Most people just want @%$# to work, they do not care about the details.  

Who do you know that has actually read an EULA?  I know exactly zero people that have read one.  The fact that it is a contract that you are functionally required to 'sign' before you even read it should turn a few heads at the onset but no one really cares.

Though this might be way beyond what people want to discuss on a video game board

 

[Anabella]

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

I don't think you have it right. I have heard nothing about a problem with the mod you are talking about.  Maybe you are confusing the mod name to the author of the MM mod since they are similar?

 

[BFT2020]

I have a solid explanation, I already gave it.  I doubt a solid explanation even exists on the other side but I await one from anywhere.  A copyright lawyer certainly would not furnish one, they cost hundreds per hour and they get paid that to understand the law, not why a law exists.

I think the why is actually pretty simple, the monied interests in this field are all on the side of trying to limit the rights of customers as much as possible, the people writing these laws are utterly ignorant about what these laws mean and the voters that provide the counterbalance to the lobbyist interests don't really care and are equally ignorant.  Most people just want @%$# to work, they do not care about the details.  

Who do you know that has actually read an EULA?  I know exactly zero people that have read one.  The fact that it is a contract that you are functionally required to 'sign' before you even read it should turn a few heads at the onset but no one really cares.

Though this might be way beyond what people want to discuss on a video game board

If you own copyright material, you don't want others to make money off of your work.  It's that simple.

As for the EULA, I have read it when it was first shown to me when I purchased the game and when it was updated, especially when I started modding the game and sharing those mods with others.  You are not functionally required to sign it before you read it, you are functionally required to sign it before you download / play / mod the game.  In every case that I have seen the EULA's, you are giving the chance of reading it before agreeing to it.  If you choose to not read it, that is your decision.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

I see no difference between a MOD being sold and an after market scoop for my car.  They are both third party additions to a product. 

What am I missing?

Industry is the keyword here. You miss the fact that your after market scoop for your car  is a prodcut made by a company with a lot of employees, wich needs a factory, an infrastructure to be able to sell it and is not made by a single guy in his garage or workshop at home.

Most mod authors don´t have a lot of time to work on their mods and if they start charging money for it, you need a lot more time to justify charging money for it, wich means they would need to charge enough to be able to make a living from it or at least enough to be able to hire someone part time.

When fans become customers, everything changes. And if i look at some overhaul mods, i am not sure if the modders actually want to change from having patreons that pay them monthly to having customers that pay them once.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you own copyright material, you don't want others to make money off of your work.  It's that simple.

Tough.  The car company owns the design of the car you bought too.  They still cannot tell me I cant sell after market products for it.

As for the EULA, I have read it when it was first shown to me when I purchased the game and when it was updated, especially when I started modding the game and sharing those mods with others.  You are not functionally required to sign it before you read it, you are functionally required to sign it before you download / play / mod the game.  In every case that I have seen the EULA's, you are giving the chance of reading it before agreeing to it.  If you choose to not read it, that is your decision.

Nope, you buy the product and THEN on installation you get the EULA.  That is how things generally work.

And an EULA on update is worthless, I already own the product at that point and there is noting I can do about changes to the EULA in any manner shape or form.

 

[FA_Q2]

Industry is the keyword here. You miss the fact that your after market scoop for your car  is a prodcut made by a company with a lot of employees, wich needs a factory, an infrastructure to be able to sell it and is not made by a single guy in his garage or workshop at home.

Not really relevant.  That does not change the way ownership works.  Only in the example of digital media do your ownership rights get removed when you purchase a product. 

Not that some of these MODS do not have teams larger than TFP anyway.  There are quite a few people involved in the Skyrim Requiem and that product is easily worth more than the base game to me.  

Most mod authors don´t have a lot of time to work on their mods and if they start charging money for it, you need a lot more time to justify charging money for it, wich means they would need to charge enough to be able to make a living from it or at least enough to be able to hire someone part time.

That is for the customer of the after market product to decide.  It has nothing to do with the originating company.  And no, they would not need to charge enough to make a living from it... what would make you say something like that?  All of these people have jobs and this is just a passion.  It would sure be nice if the best ones were able to make a living though - you would see a massive increase in the quality of such mods as the people would have the time as well as the obligation that comes with having customers.

When fans become customers, everything changes. And if i look at some overhaul mods, i am not sure if the modders actually want to change from having patreons that pay them monthly to having customers that pay them once.

Then they do not have to change.  I don't understand your point here.  No one has to charge for anything.  The point is that the option to charge for hard work, the exact same type of work the creators of the original product have done, has been removed for no reason whatsoever.  I still do not see a single reason other than you stating that they do not have large operations.  A point that is rather irrelevant, it is not as though TFP themselves are a large operation or that there are not single game developers out there.  Rise to Ruin has one single developer.  That has changed nothing in how that game was monetized or the rights that individuals have.  That extends to physical product as well, there are people that create their own products without employees.  Does not mean others cannot make additions to them and sell those as well.