PC New EULA grants 7D2D all of your content?

I think Mischief Maker vs Twitch Integration is an existing scenario we can look at. Mischief Maker was monetized and was directly in competition with TFP's own native Twitch Integration and so TFP cited EULA violation and laid down a cease and desist.

Moving forward TFP is preparing DLC that they plan to sell and we have already heard whispers of people threatening to mod their own versions as a "take that" move against TFP. I see this more comprehensive language as TFP prepping for future DLCs that they want to sell but due to the modability of the game some may try to bootleg and circumvent which would again be a form of user content directly competing against TFP content.

 
That sucks.

Thank you for the straight talk. Roland

Well at least it explains the file structure change in 1.0.
I hope it can be resolved to the point of a partial return
for artistic creativity.

This is the only amorphous game that I can remember, but I
will still play it.

 
zztong said:
My interpretation is I do think I am in violation of the terms, as written, by distributing my modlet(s).
Click to expand...
There's also this gem in there:

You agree not to:

<snip>

Reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, prepare derivative works based on or otherwise modify the Software, in whole or in part;

Which seems a little rich for a supposed "mod-friendly" game. You're already in breach of the EULA by making your mods. Oddly enough the whole modding business isn't really in the EULA, the user generated content states examples of "a gameplay map, screenshot or a video", which sound like visual arts - other than the map which is not defined. What is that, a generated-worlds folder? I can't really say if the EULA even actually covers mods tbh.. well written 😛 

zztong said:
Please don't sue me.
Click to expand...
The key with that is ... trust and track record. Practically, TFP doesn't seem to go after simple mods, only some with competing monetization. But they have the right to .. What will that mean in the long run is a matter of trust. My trust in anything is remarkably low nowadays, but I'd guess TFP won't change their tune - unless sold to new owners.

 
zztong said:
I'm certainly not a lawyer.

Exclusive does seem out of place. I can't imaging TFP wanting exclusive rights to a video, else it would seem the video creator could not distribute the video. That would seem to defeat the purpose.

There does seem to be a legal distinction between exclusive rights and the assignment of rights. If I understand it, assignment is a transfer of ownership and exclusivity doesn't, but throw in the rest...

... and there's not a lot of limitations there. TFP clearly does not want to be limited.

My interpretation is I do think I am in violation of the terms, as written, by distributing my modlet(s). If I were to comply, I would only send my modlet to TFP because I granted them an exclusive license by agreeing to play the game. I'm in breach of contract and TFP isn't doing anything about it. I don't know for sure, but I wonder if this makes it an "Efficient Breach."

(Yep, that's me throwing around terms I don't fully understand.)

If I do understand it (unlikely), then TFP's pattern of not enforcing the contract makes it unlikely they'll win damages.

That said, there's no money in the modlets biz. Neither party will want to go to court because court is expensive. But a YouTube content creator who earns their living that way certainly has to protect their bottom line. If they're making good money, they might go to court. But if they're making money, then TFP probably wants their influence.

I don't know what to think. There's no money in it for me. Please don't sue me. That said, there's always the court of public opinion...
Click to expand...
FYI, copyright is nothing other than a bundle of exclusive rights. Transferring exclusive rights just is transferring ownership. If you grant me "exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right and license" to your car, you're transferring ownership of your car.

In the U.S. the exclusive rights are defined in 17 USC 106. Transfer of ownership is covered in 17 USC 201(d). For a human-readable summary, see the "Copyright Basics" circular put out by the U.S. Copyright Office. I would provide links, but doing so would hold up this post for moderation.

You and I only have the rights to distribute our modlets if TFP grants us those rights. If TFP doesn't grant us those rights, then yes, we are in violation of the EULA and in violation of copyright law. It might be shocking to us to realize that TFP own our Git repos, but according to the EULA, they do. They could take those down at any time - or take them over and lock us out.

Legally speaking, money has literally zero to do with it; the only thing money might affect is the amount of damages we owe TFP. Non-legally, it also might affect TFP's decision to take the mods down - or it might not. That's completely up to them since our mods are their property.

Speaking of TFP decisions, there is no "use it or lose it" provision in copyright law (like there is in trademark law). They could issue a takedown on my mods but not yours, and still be in compliance with copyright law and the EULA.

Also - I was wrong about the "exclusive" language not being standard in video game EULAs. I generally play indie games, and it is not standard in those. But it is standard in most AAA games. For example, the EULAs for Fallout and Borderlands both contain similar sections where the developers gain exclusive rights to user-generated content.

Roland said:
Moving forward TFP is preparing DLC that they plan to sell and we have already heard whispers of people threatening to mod their own versions as a "take that" move against TFP. I see this more comprehensive language as TFP prepping for future DLCs that they want to sell but due to the modability of the game some may try to bootleg and circumvent which would again be a form of user content directly competing against TFP content.
Click to expand...


TFP don't need to take away our copyrights in order to enforce this. Either the "DLC" is so simple that it can be done with some XPath (which I find unlikely), or the modders who make "their own versions" will be using TFP assets (Unity files, icons, sounds, etc.) that TFP still hold the rights to, and that's copyright infringement with or without a EULA.

If modders "compete" with the DLC by creating their own assets, then this is a bad move on TFP's part. For instance, in an ideal world, I should be able to distribute (for free) mods with the NPCs that I created, regardless of whether TFP eventually make their own paid DLC that has NPCs in it.

Not that it matters, I guess. TFP are going to do what they're going to do. We can't do anything about it, even if we uninstall the game and delete our mod repos, since the assignment of our copyrights survives the game license granted in the EULA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes yes. Uninstall the game. Remove all your mod repos. Prevent world war.

Of course you won't. 

No you won't.

But i recon some feel very important kicking against the UELA, but don't put money where the words are.

No you won't.

 
khzmusik said:
We can't do anything about it, even if we uninstall the game and delete our mod repos, since the assignment of our copyrights survives the game license granted in the EULA.
Click to expand...
Do you understand, that by removing your repos you're in violation of aforementioned TFPs rights? They already own all your assets, so removing your work is a direct damage to their property 😁.

As many here said -> I'm not a lawyer, not he US jurisdiction at least, but I certainly have some experience on the marketing and economics, so stripping the bloggers of the exclusive rights for the content they do leads to one and only result -> they stop filming, and as a result they stop marketing your own product, economically speaking "honey we're killing our child".

For the modders... well... Skyrim was a cool game, but it would not last a decade without community modding. This is why Skyrim is still on sold today, not the core game, but the wast worlds created by the community. Stripping the right to sell mods is ok, but stripping the right for ownership is way out o logic. For me if it was not for mods there are or I can write myself, this game would be of no interest long ago. So sorry, not sorry...

 
I re-read it again, if you ever need a copy to re read it is  in the 7 days to die folder,

under your user profile, as Rfs_eula_english.

In layman's terms for me it means that: I may use the software for the
purpose that it was provided "entertainment, and modding for entertainment,
and artistic creativity for entertainment, as long as I am not selling
reselling, bootlegging copies, or commissioning individual income and
presenting it as my own. I can submit an idea to TFP and if they agree and
feel it viable, they can give a license to sell that idea respectfully and
under their control.  Example BloodMoons.

Modding; not for personal financial profit and or competition but for the sake of
entertainment is allowed. The mods created belong to TFP because, I am using
their game to make it function. Without their game it would just be painted
abstract landscapes. If they like it enough then they can incorporate it, if
not then it is what it is, a preferred environment for entertainment. They are
not required to, but can if they decide, give a shout out and or any form of
recognition that they see fit.

It was intentionally created to be modded, shown by including harmony, the inclusion
of a mods folder, and a dedicated mod section in the forum. Just as long as the
resulting mod or overhaul is not created for sale, or sold, outside of TFP explicit
authorization. It was created to be easily understood with a bit of reading and self work.
This is shown in the non-obfuscation of included code, and the constant expansion and export
from code "the xml folder". And the Easter eggs in xml.txt.

It was created to inspire, which is shown by the attempted inclusion of every genre,
a beautiful impossibility in itself, also because a founder posted a few times that he would
like to see a game inspired by the template that they had laid out. This is as long as the
inspired game creator purchases an engine license, modules, plugins, licenses, models and writes
their own non-infringing independent code to support their resulting game.

In conclusion, The format reminds me of The original XBOX, Bill Gates built it intentionally
to be hacked and expanded upon, as long as legitimate copies of the games were bought, and in
order to hack the console you had to buy a console , genius marketing.

The original Xbox sold 24 million units worldwide: 299.99 that is 506.00 today

    North America: 1.5 million units sold before the end of 2001
    Worldwide: 24 million units sold, including 16 million in North America
    
So re-reading it does look like it is to make sure that it is a written protection against someone
with nefariously scrupulous intent to ruin the game for others and TFP. Is that close, or am I still

misunderstanding something.

 
khzmusik said:
TFP don't need to take away our copyrights in order to enforce this. Either the "DLC" is so simple that it can be done with some XPath (which I find unlikely), or the modders who make "their own versions" will be using TFP assets (Unity files, icons, sounds, etc.) that TFP still hold the rights to, and that's copyright infringement with or without a EULA.

If modders "compete" with the DLC by creating their own assets, then this is a bad move on TFP's part. For instance, in an ideal world, I should be able to distribute (for free) mods with the NPCs that I created, regardless of whether TFP eventually make their own paid DLC that has NPCs in it.

Not that it matters, I guess. TFP are going to do what they're going to do. We can't do anything about it, even if we uninstall the game and delete our mod repos, since the assignment of our copyrights survives the game license granted in the EULA.
Click to expand...


It all depends on how they enforce it and who they go after and why. The language is there for preemptive protection and as a deterrent. In terms of enforcement and acquisition TFP's track record has been pretty well established as "hands-off". Enforcement to the degree that people here are worrying about where all their hard work is canceled by a cease and desist order has only happened one time and the reaction of the community in that case was mostly one of understanding and acceptance of TFP's position. TFP's track record on acquisition is also pretty good. Rather than just taking the work of certain talented and popular POI creators as their own...they hired them. So the language is pretty draconian but the implementation for over a decade has not been-- and hopefully won't be in the future.

 
4sheetzngeegles said:
So re-reading it does look like it is to make sure that it is a written protection against someone
with nefariously scrupulous intent to ruin the game for others and TFP. Is that close, or am I still

misunderstanding something.
Click to expand...


I think that sums up TFP's intentions. I think the EULA speaks with a heavier hand. I don't anticipate any actual litigation when there's no significant money involved. I'm not sure the EULA comes through intact if there was litigation.

 
zztong said:
I think that sums up TFP's intentions. I think the EULA speaks with a heavier hand. I don't anticipate any actual litigation when there's no significant money involved. I'm not sure the EULA comes through intact if there was litigation.
Click to expand...
From TFP? Probably not. They are maybe going overboard to cover their own asses in any eventuality.

Can't really blame them though, because the minute some lawyer somewhere finds a way to make money, it will be game on.

Look at all the patent trolls in Texas.

 
Honestly, my whole point is that TFP should replace the word "exclusive" with "non-exclusive."

TFP would literally lose nothing. They would still have a license to use anyone else's copyrighted material, in any way they like, without compensation or credit.

The only thing they would "lose" is the ability to prevent everyone else (including the creator) from using that same content, so long as those other uses don't involve TFP assets or code (which obviously TFP own, EULA or not). EDIT: But see my previous post about whether that's intended or not. They might only want exclusive rights to use the creators' content in connection with the game, but if so, that should be made absolutely explicit in the EULA.

Why they even want that ability is a mystery to me. You all are right that they have deliberately encouraged modding, even going so far as to include a version of Harmony to support C# mods without distributing modified game code. They have also explicitly encouraged gameplay videos in their EULA.

The fact that they feel the need to own everyone else's content through acceptance of the EULA, even if they then allow some limited rights to your own content through that EULA, just seems really out of character. I expect that kind of thing from Bethesda or Gearbox, but not TFP.

That's why I think it was probably an error, and I am hoping they will fix it.

EDIT: Also, if the past decade has taught us anything, it's that the phrase "Maybe they could do that, but they won't" will eventually be proven wrong, no matter who you're talking about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
Honestly, my whole point is that TFP should replace the word "exclusive" with "non-exclusive."

TFP would literally lose nothing. They would still have a license to use anyone else's copyrighted material, in any way they like, without compensation or credit.

The only thing they would "lose" is the ability to prevent everyone else (including the creator) from using that same content, so long as those other uses don't involve TFP assets or code (which obviously TFP own, EULA or not). EDIT: But see my previous post about whether that's intended or not. They might only want exclusive rights to use the creators' content in connection with the game, but if so, that should be made absolutely explicit in the EULA.

Why they even want that ability is a mystery to me. You all are right that they have deliberately encouraged modding, even going so far as to include a version of Harmony to support C# mods without distributing modified game code. They have also explicitly encouraged gameplay videos in their EULA.

The fact that they feel the need to own everyone else's content through acceptance of the EULA, even if they then allow some limited rights to your own content through that EULA, just seems really out of character. I expect that kind of thing from Bethesda or Gearbox, but not TFP.

That's why I think it was probably an error, and I am hoping they will fix it.

EDIT: Also, if the past decade has taught us anything, it's that the phrase "Maybe they could do that, but they won't" will eventually be proven wrong, no matter who you're talking about.
Click to expand...
You don't have to pass ownership when you don't share your mods. 

 
Zipcore said:
You don't have to pass ownership when you don't share your mods.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true; the structure of the EULA is basically that "In exchange for playing the game, you give TFP all related copyright interests, exclusively." Even if you don't publish TFP's property, it's still TFP's property - from the moment it's created. At the very least, the act of publishing it (sharing) has nothing to do with the rights assignment in the agreement.

 
Zipcore said:
You don't have to pass ownership when you don't share your mods. 
Click to expand...
True. But the introverted modder who is only changing the game for their own private satisfaction isn't the type of person the EULA is targeting anyway. ;)

 
Roland said:
True.
Click to expand...
I get that you guys are being lighthearted about it; but I'm curious about the details. What in the EULA would make that true; as I read it, any "future ownership" is essentially transferred at the moment of clicking the "Go Away" -button below the EULA pop-up; is there something there that would defer it to the moment of first publication, or are you just rolling with the funny? :)

 
Hey, hey, hey, now, Roland, I resemble that remark.😜

I never posted my mods, because what I do doesn't seem to be
interesting enough compared to others I've experienced, and usually
by the time i got it really right a new alpha had dropped, changing
the parameters.

I'm quite possibly wrong, as usual, but if you look at past
conversations and events outside of the forum. It seems to be a blanket
coverage written to cover a few or even one person and or company
that may be pushing the limits financially, "causality".

The wording reminds me of situations in every job I've had. There was
always that one individual that was a legend in their own mind, and
placed themselves entitled and above the rules, ethics and everyone else.
For whatever reason, logical or illogical real or imagined, they would break
the rules as a dare to anyone. Just to prove they could.

The company response was always the same, a rule needing to be signed would
come down that covered everyone. Basically it couldn't single a person or
group out, or the company would face a political, public relations, and financial nightmare.
This way if the person signed it, then irrefutable legal action could be taken
if they did it again, or they refused to sign and were removed from concern.
At least it's not an outright (IP)Clause.

Unfortunately, everyone else emotionally felt the aftermath. But, that's how
business runs. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I think it means, you don't have
the right to use the base program 7DTD to make money. You do have the right buy
an engine license, write a game, and publish it, using your mods, as long as they
don't have 7DTD code in it. But, if in the future you see influences from you mod
in 7DTD, then legally they can use it also.

I look at the use of "exclusive" the same  as an airtight prenuptial agreement. Like

a person seeking to circumvent the agreement or find a loop hole. Would state with

clear conscience, I never slept with anyone else. That's because they were always awake

at the time.

 
theFlu said:
I get that you guys are being lighthearted about it; but I'm curious about the details. What in the EULA would make that true; as I read it, any "future ownership" is essentially transferred at the moment of clicking the "Go Away" -button below the EULA pop-up; is there something there that would defer it to the moment of first publication, or are you just rolling with the funny? :)
Click to expand...
Effectively true if not literally true. If I make a mod and keep it private and never post or share it then TFP doesn’t know that it exists and therefore can’t pursue it or take it— the same result as if they didn’t own it. 
 

As soon as I put it out into the public space there is the potential they might come to know about it and the potential they would exert their claim on it. If I go further and directly compete in some way or put up a pay wall which they view as damaging then the potential of their exclusive ownership of the content would become reality.

Anyone who creates content for strictly personal use need never worry about this EULA in the least since they are unobserved by the potential claimant. 
 

We can call them Schrödinger Mods :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top