STEAMing Pile...

[Silent_Buddha]

What defines a derived work in this context?

Does it mean: we can package it in ways we want it. Similar to Amazon being allowed to sell a book either in paper or electronic form.
Or does it mean: we can do anything we please, as in the example of Totz, where Valve can rip the thing apart, reuse it in their own games etc.

If, as you claim, they only meant the right to redistribute it, then the language certainly isn't clear about that. And they never made that clear to their non-lawyer audience. And if they didn't intend it to be the second interpretation, they were stupid to assume that everyone would have the legal chops to understand it correctly. (I certainly don't have those skills.)

No and no. As a store front, they must retain the right to redistribute the work and assign ownership license even if the owner of the IP revokes the right for Valve to sell licenses to that work.

As software isn't a physical product all legal verbiage regarding software is as "Licenses." Unlike physical products, you never "own" the software product you purchase, even when it is distributed on physical medium (like optical disks). You own a license to use the software.

Normal a software publisher or developer are the sole entities with the right to grant or revoke licenses.

So... Traditionally...

You buy a game from a physical store. You have a license to use that software that is contingent on you owning package with which it was distributed. If you lose that, the physical store cannot just give you a downloaded copy because they do not have the right to grant a license for the software. Your only recourse is to buy it again.

That doesn't work so well with an online store. There is nothing that represents your license to use a piece of software.

As such, online vendors must have the ability to grant the license (there is no physical product which represents your license to use the software). As such this also allows them to redistribute the product to you multiple times (unlike a physical store) as they are the caretaker's of whether you have actually purchased a license to use said software.

Without the verbiage. Once a developer/publisher removes the right for the storefront to sell/distribute a license for said software, then that storefront would no longer be able to allow the download of the game (as that is an act of granting license). People that had purchased the game would then no longer be able to download it from the storefront if they deleted it or lost it or whatever. They could go to the developer/publisher of the game, but good luck with that in proving your have a license to run the game.

What it doesn't allow a storefront to do is to continue to sell or grant licenses to a game to people who did not legally purchase the game. If they attempted to do that, they would quickly get sued by the developer/publisher of said game. A great example of this as I posted previously, is Crysis 2. Valve were required by law to remove it from their Storefront as they no longer had a license to sell the game. However, due to the legal verbiage quoted previously, they retained the right to grant license to the game...to owners of the game. As such they did not have to remove it from a user's Steam Library.

That is especially important WRT Steam as Steam is also the online storehouse of the games.

Also realize that these are terms that have been worked out between Steam and the Publishers/Developers of games. Both sides are aware of the rights and limitation of rights that are granted.

Because of the above, it also must be applied to mods. If a user installs a mod through Steam Workshop, if a mod author were to request removal of said mod from Steam, then Valve would be required, by law, to remove it from all users who have installed the mod. At least they would if that legal verbiage did not exist. Imagine if you started up your Steam version of Skyrim one day, only to find out that multiple mods were missing because the mod author requested its removal from the Steam Workshop.

That verbiage is there not just to protect Valve, but to protect user rights to software purchased and mods installed.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Boogie gives some good hindsight on why the paying mods appeared now and will definitely be present in future Bethesda titles:

No one wants to leave money on the table. He got it 100% right.


Regardless, as soon as Fallout 4 is announced, the world+dog will care 10x more if the mods will paywall-able than whatever they have to say about the story, graphics, gameplay, etc.
It'll be terrible. And it'll be their fault.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Free mods will always exist if enough people want to mod a game. There are plenty of games with absolutely NO support of modding what-so-ever, that still get mods. There is nothing to prevent modding a game even if a game doesn't provide a way to mod the game.

That said, Mod authors should, IMO, have a way to materially benefit from their mods other than through donations. This is impossible without the original game maker's consent. That consent is never going to happen without a structured way for it to happen.

Mod author's will never be able to negotiate terms with a large publisher in order to gain the right to directly materially profit from making mods for a game. Even the act of asking for donations for a mod is legally ground for a publisher to take action against said mod author. Bethesda thankfully, appreciates the mod scene enough not to do so.

It remains to be seen whether "gamers" are willing to allow mod authors to make a living off of making mods. I'm willing to bet that's going to be a HUGE resounding NO. There's a very very very small minority of gamers who use mods that actually bother to donate money to mod authors.

That minority will absolutely be drowned out by the majority of entitled gamers whenever an attempt is made to allow mod authors to materially benefit from their mods. Because then it won't be free for those entitled gamers.

I'm willing to bet that even if the mod author had gotten 75% and Valve 25% and Bethesda 0%, there would have been a HUGE outrage similar in scope to the current one...because paid mods. There would have been slightly more support for it, but ultimately it would have been drowned out by the vast majority of gamers that just want their free stuff.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Free mods will always exist if enough people want to mod a game.

Unless mod thieves come along to steal their free content and put it up in the store for the uneducated customer to purchase.
Mod thieves as an occupation is a relatively new thing. It started last week, actually.
Fortunately, it ended yesterday.


What I'm saying is: next time, Valve and/or Bethesda had better spend a very big chunk of those 75% with actual Curators, people whose jobs are to go the extra mile to assure modders don't put low-quality or stolen content in the store.
And tech support. They either give more money to the people doing the mods to do tech support, or they assume that responsibility.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm going to guess you also consider every software developer that makes a profit on open source software or a fork of it a thief as well? Even when there's a free version available?

It was entirely up to that mod author whether he'd also have a freely downloaded version on the Nexus as well as a paid version the Steam workshop. Guess what? I'm sure there'd be people that would have bought the paid version over the free version given the choice just for the convenience.

BTW - it's easy to prevent the rather hysterical and exaggerated case you propose. The authors just have to prohibit their works for use in for profit packages. There, problem solved in a legally binding manner.

Of course, they can't prohibit end users from using their mods in conjunction with for profit mods, that would be illegal but they could prevent it from being packaged with for profit mods.

Now if a for profit mod didn't package it but required it for full functionality? Not illegal. But it's up to the end user to then determine if they wish to pay for it the paid mod. You know similar to how most MP3 and DVD ripper's operated in the late 90's and most of the 2000's? Either they illegally packaged an MP3 codec/encoder (illegal) or required the user to get it themselves (absolutely legal) as there were no legal unlicensed ways to get an MP3 coded/encoder. Similar things applied to DVD ripping.

There's also lots of PAID web content creation and hosting software that requires the user to get other applications in order for it to work. Like a SQL database/server. In many cases FREE applications are used.

Why are mods held to a different standard? Just to ensure that entitled gamers can prevent mod authors from attempting to make some money?

Regards,
SB

 

[aaronspink]

Now if a for profit mod didn't package it but required it for full functionality? Not illegal. But it's up to the end user to then determine if they wish to pay for it the paid mod.

Not just not illegal, its fully resolved law. And happens on a daily basis. This is no different than a paid closed source application using a free open source dynamic link library or requiring that some other open source software is installed in order to work. There are plenty of examples out there including things like ZFS on Linux.

 

[aaronspink]

What defines a derived work in this context?

Does it mean: we can package it in ways we want it. Similar to Amazon being allowed to sell a book either in paper or electronic form.
Or does it mean: we can do anything we please, as in the example of Totz, where Valve can rip the thing apart, reuse it in their own games etc.

Legally, every installed copy off of steam is a derived work. The very process of packaging the content for steam download constitutes a derived work.

If, as you claim, they only meant the right to redistribute it, then the language certainly isn't clear about that. And they never made that clear to their non-lawyer audience. And if they didn't intend it to be the second interpretation, they were stupid to assume that everyone would have the legal chops to understand it correctly. (I certainly don't have those skills.)

I doubt they expect everyone to be a copyright lawyer or intimately familiar with copyright law. But that doesn't change what is legally required under copyright law for a DD service like steam to work. And no, the legal verbiage around copyright law generally isn't crystal clear, and there are lots of gray areas legally. Such is the world we live in.

 

[aaronspink]

Boogie gives some good hindsight on why the paying mods appeared now and will definitely be present in future Bethesda titles:

No one wants to leave money on the table. He got it 100% right.


Regardless, as soon as Fallout 4 is announced, the world+dog will care 10x more if the mods will paywall-able than whatever they have to say about the story, graphics, gameplay, etc.
It'll be terrible. And it'll be their fault.

No, boogie is as usual high on his own fame and completely wrong.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It's really fun seeing people sticking to the "entitled gamers do hysteria" narrative after watching so many modders and mod groups here in this thread, in reddit, in youtube, in nexus, etc. being against the paywall implementation of last week and properly supporting their ideas.
I'm pretty sure these people never made a mod in their life, and I wonder if they ever played Oblivion or Skyrim in the PC, let alone install a single mod.

Haters gonna hate, I guess.

Regardless, this thread has run its course.