Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[klgraham1013]

I wonder what protection the legal department is trying to provide by limiting installs to one.  Seems more like economic protection over IP protection.

My problem is, it's always about

1 hour ago, ble210 said:

the company's rights

...and never the consumer's rights.

Edited March 4, 2018 by klgraham1013

[ble210]

50 minutes ago, KSK said:

Perhaps this is better taken to private messages but as an honest question, motivated by professional curiosity, which strict and punishing IP laws did you have in mind? I ask as an IP manager for a tech transfer office but one who's more familiar with patent law (and European patent law at that) than copyright law. Hence, whilst I appreciate that you can only deal in generalities, I would be genuinely interested in your take on corporate risk perception in this context if you had the time to chat. 

It could be useful to me for future reference.

 

Yeah I'd be happy to talk sometime over message

Sadly I'm working today (at least in a cafe, allowing me to distract myself by surfing the KSP forums), but definitely sometime in the future.  I'll also try to find some good articles on the subject that might be helpful.

[The_Rocketeer]

5 hours ago, softweir said:

He's leaving the forums so he doesn't have to agree to the new T&C and EULA. I assume he will continue to maintain and develop mods, but will host them in GitHub and won't link to them here.

Maintaining and developing mods would require playing the game tho, wudn't it? Not reading the EULA doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities under it. The same rules apply to modding whether you use the forum or not.

[shdwlrd]

13 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Well, here's the thing.  Part Tools isn't third party.  It's produced by Squad.  Yes, it's a set of scripts for Unity.  But it's most definitely made by the KSP dev team, for KSP only, and is presumably owned by Squad/Take2.  Take note that similar sized script bundles for various tasks are available for Unity as paid software.  Unity is quite happy for you to license things based on Unity, it is after all, their business model.

Your missing the point, it would be like Microsoft claiming rights to your software because you used Visual Studio. Or Adobe claiming rights to the art you do because you used Photoshop. Or Autodesk claiming rights to the model you made because you used AutoCAD. Or Unity claiming rights to the game you just made. Or the authors for the tools use with the programs stated above claiming rights to your work. It's a poor business decision. Any company that was caught doing that (there were a few), either lost a ton of money and took a massive reputation hit, or was sued into oblivion. Part tools is a tool, that's it.

[Just Jim]

I need to say something, because I was sort of freaking out earlier.

I've had a chance to talk to a few people privately, and think about things carefully. And... well... something happened that I cannot and will not talk about, other than I think I know now how much some of the people at @SQUADactually trust me. I should have trusted them more as well.

I will sign this thing when it comes out, and keep writing Emiko like I have been.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Just Jim

[klgraham1013]

If they could go ahead and private message everyone else, that'd be fantastic.

[Gargamel]

5 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

I need to say something, because I was sort of freaking out earlier.

I've had a chance to talk to a few people privately, and think about things carefully. And... well... something happened that I cannot and will not talk about, other than I think I know now how much some of the people at @SQUADactually trust me. I should have trusted them more as well.

I will sign this thing when it comes out, and keep writing Emiko like I have been.

Told ya, publishing contract. 

But that is reassuring to hear.  I know you can't speak to specifics, but did you get the general feeling there will be some announcement forth coming?

[Cydonian Monk]

While I'm mildly disappointed by the lack of an official [public] response, I'm not entirely surprised. Were I the staff lawyer for either Squad or TTI, my only response would very likely be "no comment, please see the new Terms and EULA." Any comment beyond that could be viewed as a negotiation. Those documents _are_ the response, and were [hopefully] carefully prepared in advance; If you have legitimate concerns regarding them you should retain your own counsel. [This is not legal advice, I am not your internet lawyer, yada yada yada.]

That said, and repeating what I stated previously in this thread, I'm not concerned by these new contracts and don't view them as being fundamentally different from the previous ones. In the short-term I'm far more concerned as to the effect various pieces of upcoming international legislation will have on games and internet forums; such as the GDPR and its relatives. (And that's a discussion that REALLY doesn't belong here.)

I'll still be here come Tuesday, and will hopefully be enjoying the new Making History expansion in the not-too-distant future. I will miss those of you who choose to not accept the new terms, but at the end of the day it is your choice to make and there's nothing I can do about it. 

Cheers,

Edited March 5, 2018 by Cydonian Monk

[Just Jim]

13 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Told ya, publishing contract. 

But that is reassuring to hear.  I know you can't speak to specifics, but did you get the general feeling there will be some announcement forth coming?

No, it's not a publishing contract... Wait, didn't we just have this conversation? 

But as far as an announcement, I honestly don't know what they are planning or not. And I'm afraid I can't say anymore, sorry.

[Ultimate Steve]

2 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

No, it's not a publishing contract... Wait, didn't we just have this conversation? 

But as far as an announcement, I honestly don't know what they are planning or not. And I'm afraid I can't say anymore, sorry.

...A movie contract?

[airtrafficcontroller]

Heeyy, thats a nice idea, something like Armageddon but with green guys.

Now, I've played other T2 games like BioShock and GTA, didn't I already accepted those terms? Seems like the same text for me.

Edited March 5, 2018 by airtrafficcontroller
bad english

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Cydonian Monk said:

Any comment beyond that could be viewed as a negotiation.

I know.  What sort of contract has negotiations involved?

No.  I don't expect anything to change.  No.  I won't stop KSP.  ...but, as said earlier, something being common practice doesn't make it a good practice.  As long as game companies keep using these draconian, one-sided contracts, I will continue to be my snarky self about it.

Edited March 5, 2018 by klgraham1013

[Ygdrasill]

The problem with these EULA's and TOS's is they are written by lawyers for other lawyers and not to be understood by those they apply to. What they don't say is they need the rights to distribute user created content for the game and the language to allow them to do that looks pretty bad. In a perfect world, common sense would dictate if you wrote content for KSP and subitted it to be shared, that you would be ok with it actually being shared with others playing the game. Lawers don't deal in common sense, they deal in worst case scenarios and contingencies and always in the best interest of their client. DId the terms change? Yes. In practice is this likely to change interactions between the company and the players and mod creators in any significant way? Not really. The thing is, the executives in the company probably don't understand the legalese much better than most of us. They want to make sure they can't be sued or held liable in any concievable way while still being able to sell their video game.

[MaverickSawyer]

I've given this some thought over the last few days, and I think that people are reacting about the same way anyone would if they actually read the T&Cs they agree to on a regular basis. I don't think, however, that Take Two will change this simply because some forum users threatened to leave. Knowing what I do about lawyers, they'll probably see you leaving as a good thing. (Corporate lawyers are a special kind of evil, if you ask me, and are best greeted with a hefty splash of holy water and a wooden stake through the heart. )

 

Will  I keep playing KSP? Yep. I'll keep using the forums, too. But right now, I'm not simply because I've gotten bored with pretty much all my games right now.

[severedsolo]

I've been thinking about this for the last week, and I've come to a decision.

While I still don't like the wording, I agree with many of the points made that mods hosted on 3rd party websites (github etc) probably can't be held to the TOS.

Add to that the fact that Squad/T2 don't seem to be able to make up their minds whether we need to agree to the TOS to play the game, or just access our online accounts (on here it says the latter, on Steam the former) - I don't think it would stand up in court if it ever came to it. - I have no problem with the EULA, actually it's pretty clear, which makes the TOS even worse.

So, I will still be switching to an ARR license today on all my mods just in case but I see no reason to leave.

@SQUAD I will say this though: Your handling of this has been ATROCIOUS. To that end, you've lost a customer for any future DLC (including making history) . A really simple "hey it's ok we just need that to serve the forums" would have gone a really long way (and seriously, I do know that is the reason for the clause I pointed out in the TOS, but thats not what it says)

In short: not the end of the world, but Squad: your handling of this sucks.

Edited March 5, 2018 by severedsolo

[drhay53]

On one hand, I get why people are upset, but on the other hand, I wonder if people realize how many of these "contracts" they've explicitly or implicitly "signed", and what of their rights these "contracts" have explicitly said they've waived. 

[Daishi]

20 minutes ago, drhay53 said:

On one hand, I get why people are upset, but on the other hand, I wonder if people realize how many of these "contracts" they've explicitly or implicitly "signed", and what of their rights these "contracts" have explicitly said they've waived. 

True enough. But the majority of those people aren't content creators risking losing the rights to their work. Digital artists have their rights trampled all the time by big corps who think they're God's gift to the world, and I'm sick of it.

All I ask, if our community leaders even visit these forums again...

a) Does using Parttools constitute as "The licensed software", meaning anything parsed through it becomes the property of Take Two?

b) Do any of our All Rights Reserved licenses actually mean anything under this EULA? Do i own the .mu files that contain the assets i have created? Do i own my .dds files?

c) Should i purchase Making History and continue supporting this game?

@Darth Badie@SQUAD  

 

 

 

[Derb]

1 hour ago, Daishi said:

a) Does using Parttools constitute as "The licensed software", meaning anything parsed through it becomes the property of Take Two?

This is a false premise, as the EULA does not make any provision for the transfer of existing copyright to T2, and only reserves copyright interests that arise through the use of The Software. Since PartTools does not contribute material that is copyrightable in its own right to to your already copyrighted material, only changed the file format, the original copyright is the only copyright that exists for your work. Changing of format exclusively without the addition of copyrightable material does not give rise to a copyright interest as a derivative work.

TLDR: Because PartTools did nothing but change your file format, you retain the copyright that existed before you put your work into PartTools (you would even if it did do more because the EULA makes no provisions for existing copyright), and that copyright applies to the changed format - you hold the rights to the .mu and .dds files derived from your material.

Similarly, if you write a code mod, and put it in KSP, you retain the copyright. KSP does not contribute copyrightable material to your mod. Only difference is that you don't have to move files around as with the PartTools output to get it working in KSP.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Derb

[KSK]

12 hours ago, ble210 said:

Yeah I'd be happy to talk sometime over message

Sadly I'm working today (at least in a cafe, allowing me to distract myself by surfing the KSP forums), but definitely sometime in the future.  I'll also try to find some good articles on the subject that might be helpful.

Both of those would be much appreciated - thanks!

[severedsolo]

30 minutes ago, Derb said:

This is a false premise, as the EULA does not make any provision for the transfer of existing copyright to T2, and only reserves copyright interests that arise through the use of The Software.

The Eula doesn't, but the terms of service do state that by uploading any content whatsoever to the online services (which I'm taking to mean the forum) you grant them an irrevocable license to do what they like with said content.

I think the issue has been muddied a bit, people are getting hung up on the Eula, but that's actually very clear like you said. It's the TOS that is worrying (I quoted it back on page 2 or 3)

Edited March 5, 2018 by severedsolo

[Derb]

2 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

The Eula doesn't, but the terms of service do state that by uploading any content whatsoever to the online services (which I'm taking to mean the forum) you grant them an irrevocable license to do what they like with said content.

I think the issue has been muddied a bit, people are getting hung up on the Eula, but that's actually very clear like you said. It's the TOS that is worrying (I quoted it back on page 2 or 3)

Seems to me that the ToS doesn't really matter because no one hosts mods on the forum anyway. Is that even possible? They can redistribute your actual posts 'til the cows come home, but linking to outside copyrighted content gives them nothing but the link itself to distribute.

[severedsolo]

14 minutes ago, Derb said:

Seems to me that the ToS doesn't really matter because no one hosts mods on the forum anyway

That's pretty much my thoughts too. The ARR license is just in case, as technically my existing license allows anyone to distribute it freely anyway, making this whole thing moot. At the very least they would be on shaky grounds if they ever tried it.

I'm more annoyed by the wishy washy answer, and the complete lack of communication after that.

 

[Deddly]

27 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

That's pretty much my thoughts too. The ARR license is just in case, as technically my existing license allows anyone to distribute it freely anyway, making this whole thing moot. At the very least they would be on shaky grounds if they ever tried it.

To be fair, the MIT license you have chosen for Monthly Budgets allows for more than merely redistribution. It also allows anyone (Squad, Take Two, Microsoft, me - anyone at all) to take your mod , change it, modify it, keep it the same and sell it - pretty much anything. The new EULA/ToS doesn't affect that in any way. If you have concerns that someone will take your mods and make money from them, might I suggest a more restrictive license like GPL (which could force Squad to make KSP open source if they incorporated your mod into it) or CC BY-NC, which prevents commercial use? ARR works too, but it's very restrictive - it doesn't even allow a person to send a copy to a friend if the download link fails.

[swjr-swis]

50 minutes ago, Derb said:

Seems to me that the ToS doesn't really matter because no one hosts mods on the forum anyway. Is that even possible? They can redistribute your actual posts 'til the cows come home, but linking to outside copyrighted content gives them nothing but the link itself to distribute.

1. Many mods consist of MM patches, part cfg files, and/or code and are regularly quoted verbatim in forum posts. Think also of translation/localization text added by forum members. These are not linked, they literally reside in the forum posts when quoted, and so the content becomes governed by the terms.

2. The ToS is worded very ambiguously on the definition of 'Online Services' as governed by the terms:

Quote

DESCRIPTION OF ONLINE SERVICES

Subject to full compliance with this Agreement, the Company may offer to provide certain products, services, and websites accessed through internet-capable hardware platforms including gaming consoles, personal computers, mobile computers, or mobile devices, or in-game applications or software platforms including third-party hosts (collectively the "Online Services").

Are the two 'including' clauses applying to 'internet-capable hardware platforms' or to 'certain products, services and websites'? Based on the second interpretation, they could argue that it is irrelevant where the files are actually hosted, since the very last term is inclusive of everything that isn't even owned by them.

 

2 hours ago, Daishi said:

Does using Parttools constitute as "The licensed software", meaning anything parsed through it becomes the property of Take Two?

The new terms do not seem to have specific provision for it, but the old EULA does include them in the software in an indirect manner:

Quote

17. SUPPORT SERVICES.
DEPORTED may provide you with support services (e.g., KSP Software Development Kit) related to the Licensed Application (“Support Services”). Any supplemental software code or other materials provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the Licensed Application and subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by swjr-swis
letters go missing

[severedsolo]

Not going to quote the entire thing but you are of course entirely correct @Deddly

My initial thoughts about the MIT license were that the forum rules explicitly already forbade monetising the mods, and I really did not want to restrict youtubers / streamers etc. Plus, I might move on, and wanted to make it as easy as possible for someone to pick it up.

I've held off making the changes because I genuinely thought that a member of squad staff would come and sort this out. Clearly that's not happening, and I've got until tomorrow to get my ducks in a row. So for now it's ARR, and when I get time, I'll sit down and sort a new license.