Azimech

Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 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

Yeah, I just logged on... and nothing happened...

hmmmmm... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

 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

 

34 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Yeah, I just logged on... and nothing happened...

hmmmmm... :huh:

You two actually thought you had to do anything to accept a legally binding contract?  That's cute.

By simply using this forum, you've agreed!  Seems reasonable, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

You two actually thought you had to do anything to accept a legally binding contract?  That's cute.

By simply using this forum, you've agreed!  Seems reasonable, right?

Even so, Emiko Station is right where it should be. Nothing seems to have changed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

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.

There are many situations where corporations can, as point of fact, be in a weaker position. When it comes to checking individual compliance with terms, for example, they basically... can't, not unless it's implemented in the software. There's no way they can afford to investigate each and every one of their customers: $40/customer does not stretch very far for the legal budget. For public opinion, people almost always side with the little guy even when the little guy is clearly in the wrong, because "evil corporations".

It's not ideal, but software companies selling to the general public are not dealing with a few customers they can trust, or at the very least fight an expensive legal battle with: they're dealing with millions of customers on a one-shot basis. Their customers have the protections of relative anonymity, being too small to practically sue, and being the innocent little lambs that have never done anything wrong in the public eye.

You also seem to be concerned they will "steal" your mods. This was discussed in one of the threads that got merged into this one. To the best of my knowledge, none of the new terms transfer ownership of your copyrighted mods to Take Two, and any EULA that tried would be illegal. If licensed under MIT/BSD, they could be incorporated into KSP... but only insofar as they obeyed the license terms, including a copy of the original license notice, and they could not prevent you from continuing to distribute the original mod.

 

52 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

 

You two actually thought you had to do anything to accept a legally binding contract?  That's cute.

By simply using this forum, you've agreed!  Seems reasonable, right?

The contract was agreed to when you registered for the forum. Continuing to use the forum indicates you continue to agree with the contract, as modified by the owners.

Edited by Starman4308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daishi said:

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.

Do you have any evidence of this?  Has T2, or any publisher, ever actually tried to do this?  How do you think trying to sell people a mod they already have for free would even work, from a business standpoint?  Why do you think they are so desperate for content that, instead of relying on the dudes at Squad they've already hired specifically to create more content for the game, they'd target random mods and try to steal them?  Do you think T2 is stupid enough to nuke the modding community for every game they own, including major franchises like Civ, by trying to steal mods from a game as niche as KSP?  Do you think T2 wants to be at the center of the giant PR firestorm that would definitely occur if they actually did try to do this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Punslinger said:

Do you have any evidence of this?  Has T2, or any publisher, ever actually tried to do this?  How do you think trying to sell people a mod they already have for free would even work, from a business standpoint?  Why do you think they are so desperate for content that, instead of relying on the dudes at Squad they've already hired specifically to create more content for the game, they'd target random mods and try to steal them?  Do you think T2 is stupid enough to nuke the modding community for every game they own, including major franchises like Civ, by trying to steal mods from a game as niche as KSP?  Do you think T2 wants to be at the center of the giant PR firestorm that would definitely occur if they actually did try to do this?

 

I agree with all your points - they'd be stupid to pull it off and kill the game they just bought. I'd just like to know why they've now suddenly given themselves very clear rights to do as you've said, at the expense of our own. Why is it so vague and seemingly untailored to how KSP is used? Why can't Squad comment and reassure us?

Bethesda's tried to get into paid modding for years as a business tactic, and the Creation Club is just taking off. It's an exploitable goldmine. Under this whitewash of a Take Two EULA I'm assuming the worst until I'm directly told otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Punslinger said:

Do you have any evidence of this? 

I think he was paraphrasing the gist of the EULA (in laymans reading terms), and half-sarcastic...
if you read further, he made this comment, which shows he wasnt stating a fact that needs to be cited or sourced... his comment was ust an interpretation of the EULA itself... and seems to sum up this whole issue... the EULA, taken literally, can probablly do away with KSP modding altogether... but will they actually do it?... thats what everyone wants clarification on

" 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. "

EDIT: ...  and, ninjad :P

Edited by Stone Blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh... there it is... and I clicked it... let's see if the world comes to an end...

 

Edited by Just Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Ahhh... there it is... and I clicked it... let's see if the world comes to an end...

I love how it linked to some pages on the forum as part of the Terms, which you couldn't view until after you accepted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accepted the new Terms and here I am. Have not decided yet whether I will complete my comic under the new Terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

When it comes to checking individual compliance with terms, for example, they basically... can't, not unless it's implemented in the software. There's no way they can afford to investigate each and every one of their customers: $40/customer does not stretch very far for the legal budget.

They don't need to, do they? Add one of the many rootkit/surveillance types of DRM they keep coming up with to a next 'patch', a right they explicitly assert for themselves in these terms, or change the game so it requires online activation/registration every time it is started, another right they grant themselves in these terms, and voilá.. absolutely no need to 'investigate each and every one of their customers'; the customer will simply be unable to use the software anymore when out of compliance (and regularly enough, even when in compliance, but that's another discussion). Yes, a very weak position indeed.

 

49 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

software companies selling to the general public are not dealing with a few customers they can trust, or at the very least fight an expensive legal battle with: they're dealing with millions of customers on a one-shot basis. Their customers have the protections of relative anonymity, being too small to practically sue,

Which are virtual non-issues from a legal cost/risk standpoint since only a handful of those customers will ever be willing or financially capable to do anything but begrudgingly abdicate as soon as they receive the first notice or threat of legal action. How many individuals, of all those millions, do you know that would actually cause a company to do more than just send a take-down notice or a legal threat letter? And as soon as a few cases of such action get into the media, how many would immediately cease and desist just to prevent being the next one?

I mean, just look at what's happened here in this forum, and not a single person has yet received a threatening letter. Without spending a dime more than what they needed to post a message in the forum, they've already preemptively caused several people to change their mode of operation just to avoid becoming a legal target. Now that's a pretty comprehensive show of power in my book, in any context.

 

49 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

You also seem to be concerned they will "steal" your mods.

I'm really not, for the simple reason that I have no mods. I don't even use them. I think I posted exactly one snippet of ModuleManager code in this forum in all these years, to which I promptly disavowed any ownership or rights.

Which does not stop me from considering what the effect of these new terms may be for those that have spent a lot of personal time and effort on various free game-enriching content.

But here's another position of power T2 has over the content creators: whereas mod authors are bound to terms that obligate them to publish source code of plugins, so that everyone can examine and see the code, allowing said code to be tested for copyright infringements... T2's product is closed-source, they do not publish the code or allow it to be examined for the same - they even expressly prohibit any attempt at reverse engineering. Which lays an additional burden on anyone suspecting their code to have somehow ended up in the product, something that many would not even attempt unless T2 was so stupid as to make the code visibly and functionally identical to what they 'stole'.

And the thing is, it's not even about whether this current incarnation of T2 would be so intrepid to enact their terms in those most doomtastic ways. It's about the fact that they already build in the potential for doing so if and when someone decides to do so later on. Corporate take-overs happen every now and then. CEOs are replaced sometimes. And for all the assurances that we may receive (or think we have) from the current representatives of this company, what keeps the next one in power from enacting those terms in another way? I can tell you about the only thing that would keep it from happening: not having such terms to begin with. But that would be too much to ask, right? No game company ever has worked without crazy boilerplate EULAs...

 

I was interrupted in this typing by an acceptance form. interestingly, this form does not in any way quote, refer to, or link the new EULA we were supposed to agree with - it is as far as I could tell the identical one this forum had before T2 ever came into the KSP scene. Which just makes me smash my head into my desk. Are you freggling kidding me? After all this, they manage to forget to link the actual new EULA itself in the acceptance form???

 

Share this post


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

I agree with all your points - they'd be stupid to pull it off and kill the game they just bought. I'd just like to know why they've now suddenly given themselves very clear rights to do as you've said, at the expense of our own. Why is it so vague and seemingly untailored to how KSP is used? Why can't Squad comment and reassure us?

Bethesda's tried to get into paid modding for years as a business tactic, and the Creation Club is just taking off. It's an exploitable goldmine. Under this whitewash of a Take Two EULA I'm assuming the worst until I'm directly told otherwise. 

Except the terms don't give them clear rights to take mods for themselves. The terms do not provide for the transfer of existing copyright. The terms reserve the ability to redistribute your submissions to their online services, which was already in the old terms and necessary to host a forum - but mods are not hosted on the forum. They reserve the rights to material created with the software - Mission Creator and craft designs - but these would be reserved ordinarily under copyright law as derivative works of the base game, to which the author retains the right to publish derivatives. What about PartTools? PartTools doesn't add copyrightable material to a modder's already copyrighted material (which was created outside the software) - its use is tantamount to changing the file format of the already copyrighted material to be compatible with KSP. Because no copyrightable material is added through its use, no copyright interest arises through its use - the original, creator held, copyright to the models and whatnot used to create the final product is the only copyright that exists for the final product - look into copyright law on derivative works. There is no mention of transferring existing copyright in the terms at all - the creator keeps the copyright.

They can't comment because it is bad practice, and likely unethical, to give what amounts to legal advice to an outside party who could have a dispute with who you represent.

Share this post


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

They don't need to, do they? Add one of the many rootkit/surveillance types of DRM they keep coming up with to a next 'patch', a right they explicitly assert for themselves in these terms, or change the game so it requires online activation/registration every time it is started, another right they grant themselves in these terms, and voilá.. absolutely no need to 'investigate each and every one of their customers'; the customer will simply be unable to use the software anymore when out of compliance (and regularly enough, even when in compliance, but that's another discussion). Yes, a very weak position indeed.

 

Which are virtual non-issues from a legal cost/risk standpoint since only a handful of those customers will ever be willing or financially capable to do anything but begrudgingly abdicate as soon as they receive the first notice or threat of legal action. How many individuals, of all those millions, do you know that would actually cause a company to do more than just send a take-down notice or a legal threat letter? And as soon as a few cases of such action get into the media, how many would immediately cease and desist just to prevent being the next one?

I mean, just look at what's happened here in this forum, and not a single person has yet received a threatening letter. Without spending a dime more than what they needed to post a message in the forum, they've already preemptively caused several people to change their mode of operation just to avoid becoming a legal target. Now that's a pretty comprehensive show of power in my book, in any context.

Yes. The paranoia of a few whipped up by fears of legalese is totally a show of power on Take Two's part.

You're also describing things that haven't happened with KSP, such as any sort of DRM.

This is a panic based on changing a few lines of the EULA to make the Mission Builder legally possible, without any evidence that Take Two will be actually changing its practices with respect to KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @SQUAD (in lieu of Take Two, since we don't seem to have anyone from them to address here),

You forgot to add a link, referral, or the actual text of the new EULA you warned us we would need to accept to keep using this forum and the game.

Sincerely,

Someone with zero legal sense but whose common sense is screaming that the new EULA may not have any legal power whatsoever unless actually referred to in some way in said acceptance form...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

I love how it linked to some pages on the forum as part of the Terms, which you couldn't view until after you accepted it.

Which technically makes the agreement void in most jurisdictions I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that EULA. (I'm a software developer who's read many of those, and even written a couple.)

Most of it boilerplate these days. Them claiming ownership of your content is no worse than facebook or youtube.  They're trying to use one EULA for all their products so parts of it don't apply, and other parts are self-contradictory. At the top they forbid modding of any kind and later claim ownership of you mods.

This part is offensive:

Quote

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.

So while I give them the copyright to my work, I'm not even allowed to say "hey, I wrote that."

and this:
 

Quote

YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LICENSOR

To the fullest extent of applicable law, you agree to be responsible and liable to Licensor, its partners, licensors, affiliates, contractors, officers, directors, employees, and agents in respect of all damages, losses, and expenses arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions to act in using the Software pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 

According to that, you are liable to everyone from their CEO to their janitor for any damages indirectly related to your omission to act?! What the hell does that mean? 

and this:

Quote

MISCELLANEOUS

If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected.

So if any of this is illegal, it will be automatically changed to make it legal (in some as yet undetermined way) and you're agreeing to that.

 

Other than that, they're telling you that they're going to spy on you, gathering any information they want, and doing with it anything they want:

Quote

(from the Orwellianly named "Privacy" Policy)

The information we collect may include personal information such as your first and/or last name, e-mail address, phone number, photo, mailing address, geolocation, or payment information. In addition, we may collect your age, gender, date of birth, zip code, hardware configuration, console ID, software products played, survey data, purchases, IP address and the systems you have played on. We may combine the information with your personal information and across other computers or devices that you may use.


Its really disappointing that KSP, which was for me the last bastion of good clean computer fun, has become another piece of malware spying on me,  produced by another company that doesn't think of me as customer, but as their property to do with as they see fit and if I don't like that, then; Get out!

 

There's been a lot of talk in this thread that if you don't agree to the new terms ("I've altered our agreement, pray I don't alter it further") you have to stop playing you current build of KSP. Well, perhaps. But what are they going to do? Sue you? For personal use of a single outdated copy of a $25 game?

 

Edited by Brainlord Mesomorph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the link for the Addon Posting Rules thread in section 5.something, is broken, until *AFTER*, you accept the ToS... that seems kinda shady, if not even voiding the agreement in most places

Edited by Stone Blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think a lot of new players don’t realize either is that mods have already been ripped and put into the stock game. Rovers, space planes, a simplified remote-tech, etc. My point being is that they don’t have to claim our mods via a EULA for them to implement the idea into the stock game. It’s already been done over and over.

The rest, I have no idea what to think about. I see some very well written pieces by people that clearly understand more than I do and so far, their words are comforting. I guess we will need to just wait it out. I personally don’t expect much change from what we have come to know and expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

without any evidence that Take Two will be actually changing its practices with respect to KSP.

And similarly without any evidence that they won't change their practices. Leaving us to interpret and fear, or not, as we will, based on the fact that the new and improved terms have dropped some of the wording that actually offered content authors some modicum of trust.

People have asked very simple questions, from the very moment the announcement was made. No one deemed the community worthy of response (* not discounting @JPLRepo's posts, which were courteous but essentially a redirect to /dev/null). The community reacted by speculating and making decisions based on said speculation. How surprising and unexpected.

 

1 hour ago, Punslinger said:

Do you think T2 wants to be at the center of the giant PR firestorm that would definitely occur if they actually did try to do this?

Because historically speaking, T2 is not known for doing things that put them 'at the center of a giant PR firestorm'... right?

Edited by swjr-swis
forum auto-merging posts messed up things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepted, because it seems pretty harsh, but realistically they probably won't do anything.

And we technically still own our mission reports (which I was confused about earlier) but TT can technically do what they want with them although they almost certainly won't.

 

So, well... Yeah. I'm back. Let's hope this doesn't blow up in our faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk just wanted to contribute to the spam. Felt this deserved its own thread. Carry on.

Share this post


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

People have asked very simple questions, from the very moment the announcement was made. No one deemed the community worthy of response.

I think that's a bit harsh. Ultimately, this is a legal document, and Squad/T2 are not your lawyer. When you need legal answers, that's who you ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time and time again the courts have proven that these EULAs are essentially useless if they violate the users rights.

When it comes to mods, unless you upload a mod to a service they maintain, they have 0% claim to the mod or it’s copyright.

As such for anyone worried about them stealing your code/mod, simply maintain it on a third party site like git hub and you are good to go. 

Now they could still steal the idea, and unless you plan on suing them (which would be fairly pointless since you would be hard pressed to actually prove “damages”), there isn’t much you can do about that. 

Share this post


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

I think that's a bit harsh. Ultimately, this is a legal document, and Squad/T2 are not your lawyer. When you need legal answers, that's who you ask.

That's the thing though: what people are asking for are decidedly not legal answers - that would just result in more of that unintelligible vague and overarching legalese the terms are already filled with and cause of all the questions and speculation.

What we are asking for is plain text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swjr-swis said:

That's the thing though: what people are asking for are decidedly not legal answers - that would just result in more of that unintelligible vague and overarching legalese the terms are already filled with and cause of all the questions and speculation.

What we are asking for is plain text.

A plain text translation is a legal answer. Lawyers don't communicate to clients solely in legalese.

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.