Azimech

Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

Recommended Posts

Lots of extreme reactions here, ones motivated by fear of what might happen.

Calm down. Step back a bit, let it sit for a day without getting wound up by the worst case scenarios. Then look at the pros and cons of what you might do, and take a look at what's happened in the past.

As has been pointed out in the past, companies have gone to draconian terms not because they want to, but because any time they leave a loophole or grey area, it gets exploited. Unfortunately, then, what must be looked at is not the text of the agreement, but rather what the company has tolerated in the past. It's not an ideal situation, but in the absence of a bilateral agreement with well known customers, they have to be very strict in their terms.

Instead of dealing with a few entities with business reputations to protect, they're dealing with millions of people, 99.9% of whom would live up to the spirit of a more generous contract, and 0.1% of whom the EULA is actually designed to handle.

If you're getting wound up, take a step back and reconsider things when you're less emotional about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested I translated the Terms of Service into English. Or at least tried to.

If you read that, it's important that you know this is what they could do, and is most likely designed to prevent actual infringement rather than to steal users' work. If TT stole a mission report and made it into a novel or movie or something without credit/payment, all we forumers have to do is complain to the press or post our outrage to reddit and it will probably explode. TT probably knows better than to do this, for the public backlash would be tremendous and they would become rather disliked.

So while it is what they could do, they most likely will not ever need to. I may attempt to translate the Privacy Policy as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several overlapping threads about the new EULA have been merged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starman4308 said:

As has been pointed out in the past, companies have gone to draconian terms not because they want to, but because any time they leave a loophole or grey area, it gets exploited. Unfortunately, then, what must be looked at is not the text of the agreement, but rather what the company has tolerated in the past. It's not an ideal situation, but in the absence of a bilateral agreement with well known customers, they have to be very strict in their terms.

Instead of dealing with a few entities with business reputations to protect, they're dealing with millions of people, 99.9% of whom would live up to the spirit of a more generous contract, and 0.1% of whom the EULA is actually designed to handle.

It is interesting, isn't it? Those poor innocent unprotected sweet darlings of companies and corporations should be given ample leeway and not be judged for the 0.1% risk that they may at some point in time abuse their unilaterally imposed terms to do 'bad things' out of malice (or simple stupidity).

Apparently, this is one of those fringe benefits that us lowly regular folk cannot possibly be accorded: since we consumers are in such incredibly untouchable power position compared to them, naturally, we instead should be judged by the lowest common denominator and slammed into thick iron-barred legalese prisons, because after all, there is that arch-evil 0.1% of us who are constantly causing them oh so 'terribly bad things' affecting their bottom line that requires impeccable containment. Oh Goliath, if only we had imposed a EULA on that scoundrel David, you might still be alive now.

Because maintaining a relationship on completely unbalanced terms has worked so well in the past, right? Let's see, how did that work out for the protection of our personally identifiable details? I mean, how stupid and paranoid and conspirational is it to worry about Big Responsible Corporations and Governments causing our data to fall into the wrong hands, haha, yes. Oh yes, of course, like, NOT. We are still trying to put that one back into the bottle... :mad:

But sure, let's keep giving those poor little innocent and defenseless companies alllll the benefits of the doubt, despite them continuing to make their terms worse with every iteration. After all, it's not like corporations are in it for the money or anything (unlike most modders and content creators, am I rite?).

Yes, call me the cynical paranoid unreasonable one. :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, it's all moot now. I am disappointed, but I'll live. It's a game. If they ever decide to go full-on stupid/evil, I have 1001 other games to waste my time on if I must, and I can spend my money elsewhere. Here's hoping (since we certainly aren't getting any assurances) that the work and effort of all the amazing community-created content and mods continues to be respected.

Oh and the terms can go where no Kerbal has gone before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

After all, it's not like corporations are in it for the money or anything (unlike most modders and content creators, am I rite?).

Do you have a day job?  Do you work for free?

No?

So you're only in it for the money, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PiezPiedPy said:

The only part of the new EULA that I have a problem with is this part:

Seems over the top and gives all rights to Take2 to do whatever they like with modders code including selling it and telling the original authors to suck eggs. The original EULA stated that the modders owned the rights to their own code, why Take2 feel they have to change that statement concerns me, Take2 have not taken a great step for the modding community but more a leap into a pit of dog shi.

You forgot this important part:

Quote

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including, but not limited to, a gameplay map, scenario, screenshot, car design, character, item, or video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions.

Any materials created outside the software belong entirely to you. Processing materials you already own through the software (PartTools, for example) does not give rise to a copyright interest because PartTools does not add material that is copyrightable in its own right to your already copyrighted material, being tantamount to changing the format of digital 3d models. The US Copyright office says that changes to format exclusively do not give rise to a new copyright interest in this situation. You retain the rights to your creations, even if you used PartTools to make is compatible with KSP. Missions made through the Mission Creator and ship designs are the things at issue with this clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Punslinger said:

So you're only in it for the money, then?

I am absolutely in 'it', my work contracts, for the money. Absolutely 100% without shame or remorse. If I didn't need or want that money, I would absolutely 100% be spending my time on entirely different ventures. Which is why I have zero shame or remorse at pointing out that the one main all-overriding concern and motivation corporations have in just about everything they do is exactly that - money. The only differences being that I only do it for me - I have no shareholders, market analysts or boards of directors to appease, and of course the sheer scale difference - my financials would be less than a petty cash entry on the average corporation's ledger.

You got yourself triggered into arguing a point absolutely no one in this thread has come anywhere near to questioning, least of all me in the part you quoted. No one has said that it's a bad thing to earn a living. That's ok though. I'll reword that last paragraph with a little less irony:

 

Of course corporations are in it for the money - making profit is rather the whole point of a corporation. So maybe, just maybe, that might also be somewhat of a significant motivator behind their actions and choices. Just maybe. On the other hand we have content/mod creators, a tiny subset of all consumers, who almost always do it without expectation or hope of any monetary profit. Even for those very few who do make or accept a bit of money, the scale of money they could ever hope to gain from it is... almost insignificantly small, compared to the financial streams of corporations.

Now, without even questioning whether profit is inherently evil, good, or something in between or above such qualifiers.... which one of the two do you think is most likely to plan and act with monetary profit in mind? Which one of the two is most likely to lose a legal battle even before it begins, simply due to being unable to pay for the required legal representation? Given this, does it seem realistic to consider the corporations the weaker party in a financial and legal context, to the point of justifying heavy-handed and unbalanced protections from the consumer? Let's ponder that.

 

Does my choice of words make a bit more sense now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, theonegalen said:

That goes back to "created through the Software." I use PartTools for every cockpit I make. I do configs and textures for individual gauges in Notepad++ and paint.net, but all the props are placed with PartTools. So the question I'm trying to get clarification on is whether or not that means that everything I make through hours and hours and days and weeks and months of work just belongs to TT now.

The TOS and privacy policy only are only valid when using online services of Take2. The mods are not submitted here, so they don't apply. (even screenshot are hosted on sites like imgur.com so that should be a non issue. 

The normal EULA of Take2:
1. It cannot be applied to old KSP versions retrospectively. So everything done until now is fine
2. Changing the old KSP EULA to the default Take2 EULA: Very difficult or next to impossible on existing installations (and would never hold up in curt ), because you cannot revoke a sold copy and say you now only own a license with this terms. 

3. If the Parttools get the default Take2 EULA with 1.4: (that would be the worst case) 

  • All mods that only dll are fine because they don't use Parttools
  • KSP 1.4 uses a new unity3d version which has improvements in the asset bundle management. I'm not even sure if we need the PartTools in the future for 3d models anymore. I'm very sure that we will find a way to load up the models in our own way so we will not be affected by this
  • KSPedia: I never created pages for it, but I guess it might be difficult not to use parttools for it. But maybe the pages can be inserted with pure c# code. 

 

From my perspective the sky is not falling, but It could bring some challenges. 
I did't found a license for the XCOM2 modding tools. The only license I found was the Steam Workshop license, which is OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading what is happening here, I don't even know, what is worse today: new ToS/EULA or the reaction of community. On one hand we have changes in terms for KSP, on other hand we have community changing their licensing/hosting/stopping doing anything. Are they different from T2 now? Doesn't look so. They harm their "customers" in same way. Still wish to see something official to calm down everybody, but nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

3. If the Parttools get the default Take2 EULA with 1.4: (that would be the worst case) 

  • All mods that only dll are fine because they don't use Parttools
  • KSP 1.4 uses a new unity3d version which has improvements in the asset bundle management. I'm not even sure if we need the PartTools in the future for 3d models anymore. I'm very sure that we will find a way to load up the models in our own way so we will not be affected by this
  • KSPedia: I never created pages for it, but I guess it might be difficult not to use parttools for it. But maybe the pages can be inserted with pure c# code.

This doesn't matter because PartTools doesn't "create" the models and textures used in a mod. As I understand it, you could make the same part models in Unity without PartTools, it just wouldn't work in KSP. PartTool functions only make the material a modder already created compatible with KSP - changes to format only do not give rise to copyright interests. The US Copyright office says so - look into the definitions for derivative works. No provision in the EULA for the transfer of existing copyright, only that which arises in using the software - the modder's original copyright is intact. The KSPedia thing is questionable, only because I don't actually know how that works with PT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

Reading what is happening here, I don't even know, what is worse today: new ToS/EULA or the reaction of community. On one hand we have changes in terms for KSP, on other hand we have community changing their licensing/hosting/stopping doing anything. Are they different from T2 now? Doesn't look so. They harm their "customers" in same way. Still wish to see something official to calm down everybody, but nope.

The difference is the modding community has every right to the work they make. Work they give to these "customers" free of charge, and maintain it with little thanks alongside full time jobs and family lives. 

Take two wants to take it, strip it of attribution, and sell it to you with not a breath of thanks, or a shred of work themselves. This is the same thing to you? We're on the same level? 

That is, if you take their EULA literally. Who knows what they really mean. I don't think working under "good faith" is enough to satisfy most of the modders here.

Please don't paint us as the bad guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

Are they different from T2 now? Doesn't look so. They harm their "customers" in same way.

Seeing as the actions of the latter wouldn't have been triggered had the former not decided to impose new terms unilaterally and refused to answer the expressed concerns before the deadline, it's a bit of a limp comparison, no?

That's even completely beside the fact that content creators have never been paid for the work they volunteered, and as such had literally zero support/maintenance responsibility towards anyone at any point in time.

If there are players that have enough invested in a mod to feel 'harmed' if the mod ceases to exist or be maintained for any reason, they only have themselves to blame. They should've made backups, downloaded the source, learned to code/model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daishi said:

The difference is the modding community has every right to the work they make. Work they give to these "customers" free of charge, and maintain it with little thanks alongside full time jobs and family lives. 

Take two wants to take it, strip it of attribution, and sell it to you with not a breath of thanks, or a shred of work themselves. This is the same thing to you? We're on the same level? 

That is, if you take their EULA literally. Who knows what they really mean. I don't think working under "good faith" is enough to satisfy most of the modders here.

Please don't paint us as the bad guys. 

I'll quote "older" ToS we had, which, literally, allows doing same things:

Quote

7.4 Your Grant of Rights
If you submit Content to the Service, you acknowledge that you are the owner of any Intellectual Property rights in such Content, or have sufficient rights to submit the Content to the Service without infringing any third-party rights. DEPORTED does not claim any ownership rights in the Content that you submit or offer through the Service. However, to the extent you submit any Content you acknowledge and agree that you automatically grant (and represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to DEPORTED to:
use, reproduce, distribute, remove, and analyze any of your Content as DEPORTED may deem necessary or desirable for any purpose in connection with the operation of the Service, and
copy, modify, and reproduce your Content for marketing, promotional and/or other purposes in connection with DEPORTED or the Service in any media, and
use, edit, modify, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, post or otherwise make available to any other user in connection with any feature of the Service, and
• delete any or all of your Content from the Service, whether intentionally or unintentionally, for any reason or no reason, without any liability of any kind to you or to any other party, and
• enable users of the Service to share or post your Content on third party sites, such as, without limitation, on social networking sites.

And new...

Quote

USER CREATED CONTENT: The Software may allow you to create content, including, but not limited to, a gameplay map, scenario, screenshot, car design, character, item, or video of your game play. In exchange for use of the Software, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Software give rise to any copyright interest, you hereby grant Licensor an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, fully transferable, and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose in connection with the Software and related goods and services, including, but not limited to, the rights to reproduce, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions. You hereby waive and agree never to assert any moral rights of paternity, publication, reputation, or attribution with respect to Licensor's and other players' use and enjoyment of such assets in connection with the Software and related goods and services under applicable law. This license grant to Licensor, and terms above regarding any applicable moral rights, will survive any termination of this Agreement.

Does it seem different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

Reading what is happening here, I don't even know, what is worse today: new ToS/EULA or the reaction of community. On one hand we have changes in terms for KSP, on other hand we have community changing their licensing/hosting/stopping doing anything. Are they different from T2 now? Doesn't look so.

First of all, you're talking about one particular section of 'the community', which is the section that generously donates its free time, skills and labour to create content for the rest of us to enjoy. As far as I'm aware they don't get paid for any of that except on a  purely voluntary basis, by an even smaller section of the community.

They don't even get a great deal of thanks for their time - indeed the general attitude on the forums is that 'there's a mod for that'. The 'community' just seems to take it for granted that there will be a continuous stream of free content available. Judging by the way the new EULA has been handled and the fact that a signature feature of the Expansion is another content creation tool, I think that Squad / Take Two were also taking that free content for granted to some extent. 

Here's the thing though. If you're consistently taking the goodwill and free time of others for granted, you really shouldn't be surprised if some of them get fed up and decide they've got better ways of spending their time. 

I don't know if you're a content creator @ThirdOfSeven. If you are then fair enough - I can respect your opinion but I don't think it's reasonable to criticise content creators that don't share it.

If you're not a content creator then go right ahead and dive in. Nobody is stopping you from getting involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

Does it seem different?

Yes, very different, because you are leaving out one key change between the two: the part where the old terms specifically recognised and granted content creators rights, whereas the new ones are conspicuously silent about it all and only discuss the rights of the company over said content.

It's been quoted before, but for you once more:

Quote

DEPORTED grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and display any material that you design, author or create through or in connection with the Service, including, but not limited to, any files, codes, audio or images incorporated in or generated by the Service (collectively the “Game Content”) and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your noncommercial and personal use.

(...)

Alternatively, if you want to make any commercial use of the Game Content (or any other Content, as defined below), you must obtain the prior written authorization and consent for such specific use from DEPORTED. Such requests may be sent to DEPORTED at the address listed in Section 17.

(...)

DEPORTED does not claim any ownership rights in the Content that you submit or offer through the Service.

(How generous to grant us rights over our own created content! But that's beside the point.)

Can you find something even remotely similar in the new terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Seeing as the actions of the latter wouldn't have been triggered had the former not decided to impose new terms unilaterally and refused to answer the expressed concerns before the deadline, it's a bit of a limp comparison, no?

Absolutely agree, lack of communication is the evil.

24 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

That's even completely beside the fact that content creators have never been paid for the work they volunteered, and as such had literally zero support/maintenance responsibility towards anyone at any point in time.

If there are players that have enough invested in a mod to feel 'harmed' if the mod ceases to exist or be maintained for any reason, they only have themselves to blame. They should've made backups, downloaded the source, learned to code/model.

That true also. But it is also fact that, even if paid, Squad or Take Two has same zero support/maintenance responsibility towards anyone, as we can see. Even if you get donations, you are also free from any further obligations, as listed in almost any license. In both cases it is willingness to continue you work for whatever reason, will it be material profit or spiritual motivation. Of course volunteered work is honorable and should get more attention and must be protected, but I don't see positive or negative movements in this field with new EULA and ToS.

5 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

(How generous to grant us rights over our own created content! But that's beside the point.)

Can you find something even remotely similar in the new terms?

Good point. Here I made mistake. So the last sentence in the above text (before quote) is not correct anymore.

Edited by ThirdOfSeven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

But it is also fact that, even if paid, Squad or Take Two has same zero support/maintenance responsibility towards anyone, as we can see.

Again, a key difference being that content creators do not state in their terms that they can completely revoke your license to use their work at any point in time, leaving you as only recourse to completely delete it from your system; in fact, many of the licenses used by mod creators specifically protects the user from such a thing.

Whereas the other party says things like:

Quote

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO OPEN, DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE.

(...)

Upon any termination of this Agreement, you must destroy or return the physical copy of Software to Licensor, as well as permanently destroy all copies of the Software, accompanying documentation, associated materials, and all of its component parts in your possession or control, including from any client server, computer, gaming unit, or mobile device on which it has been installed. Upon termination of this Agreement, your rights to use the Software, including any VC or VG associated with your User Account, will terminate immediately, and you must cease all use of the Software.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThirdOfSeven said:

I'll quote "older" ToS we had, which, literally, allows doing same things:

And new...

Does it seem different?

read the scope of the ToS. (very first paragraph) Its for online services, not Software. Its irrelevant for KSP modding, as the mods are not submitted to any of their websites. (only links to mods and links to images are submitted to their online services) 
the T2 EULA is a different beast, but completely incompatible with 1.3.1, so I'm going to be curious how this will be handled by Squad. They cannot revoke my current ownership of the software and turn it into a granted license. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

 
..the T2 EULA is a different beast, but completely incompatible with 1.3.1, so I'm going to be curious how this will be handled by Squad. They cannot revoke my current ownership of the software and turn it into a granted license. 

 

Wasn't there a retroactive clause for this EULA to cover older versions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Wasn't there a retroactive clause for this EULA to cover older versions? 

But then I must have agreed to it first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

the T2 EULA is a different beast, but completely incompatible with 1.3.1

Can you elaborate on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, swjr-swis said:

Can you elaborate on this?

the old Squad license makes you own the Software. This ownership cannot be revoked into a "here you have only our permission to use the software" license, that the T2 EULA states. That way you must be able to keep 1.3.1 forever. 
They can relicense KSP 1.4 under T2 EULA, but they cannot push this though a automatic steam update and its completly legal to keep a copy of 1.3.1 even you don't agree with the T2 Terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

read the scope of the ToS. (very first paragraph) Its for online services, not Software. Its irrelevant for KSP modding, as the mods are not submitted to any of their websites. (only links to mods and links to images are submitted to their online services) 
the T2 EULA is a different beast, but completely incompatible with 1.3.1, so I'm going to be curious how this will be handled by Squad. They cannot revoke my current ownership of the software and turn it into a granted license. 

 

Yes, if we go for old KSP EULA, then it has scary things too (but...):

Quote


You acknowledge that DEPORTED owns all rights in and to the Licensed Application, including, but not limited to worldwide statutory and common law rights associated with (a) patents and patent applications; (b) works of authorship, including copyrights, copyright applications, copyright registrations and “moral rights;” (c) the protection of trade and industrial secrets and confidential information; (d) Trademarks; and (e) divisions, continuations, renewals, derivative works, and re-issuances of any of the foregoing, now existing or acquired in the future.

...

7. YOU SHALL NOT:

...

7.7 Reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, in whole or in part.

 

But according to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf, I'm not a layer, but it seems to me modifications should not fall to "derivative work" category at all (until you make your own altered distribution of KSP with intent to distribute it, probably). It should bother me more after translating some material or filming gameplay than modders, since it is more likely a derivative work.

So new T2 EULA is rights-greedy for sure, and I'm wrong talking about their similarity, since they don't care and seize rights for everything falling under "User-created conteint" as it seems to me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

the old Squad license makes you own the Software. This ownership cannot be revoked into a "here you have only our permission to use the software" license, that the T2 EULA states. That way you must be able to keep 1.3.1 forever. 
They can relicense KSP 1.4 under T2 EULA, but they cannot push this though a automatic steam update and its completly legal to keep a copy of 1.3.1 even you don't agree with the T2 Terms.

 

This sounds interesting and I would love it to be true, but reading the old EULA I don't see where it states that. On the contrary, it seems very similarly worded to the T2 EULA on that aspect:

Quote

The application is licensed not sold, to you for use only under the terms of this license.

(...)

YOU ARE PERMITTED TO COPY, DOWNLOAD, INSTALL AND/OR USE THE LICENSED APPLICATION ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Licensed Application and should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Licensed Application. This Agreement shall also apply to any patches or updates you may obtain for the Licensed Application.

That last statement is interesting in a whole different way: it seems valid to interpret that as granting us the right to apply the old EULA to any future versions or patches of KSP.. So now we have two agreements that apply, and we get to pick which one we apply to our convenience?

Edited by swjr-swis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Hmm... I thought I was going to have to agree to new ToS and privacy policy in order to access the forum. Apparently not...

Best,
-Slashy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.