Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

The latter would facilitate utterly capricious and unfair practices on the part of IP owners, and it would set a precedent which would be devastating to commerce of copyrighted material. If a case established that an IP owner could in fact provide a digitally distributed copy of a work with a proviso stating that they can withdraw services at any time and for any reason, thus depriving purchasers of any access to the product they paid for, it would spawn a brief period of rampant abuse and exploitation globally. Fly-by-night organizations selling units at ridiculously low prices would be opening like tulips in the spring, customers flocking to them and shoveling lucre at them; and once they had reaped what they deemed sufficient revenue, they would pull the plug and leave all those users high and dry.

I fear you are describing the present on fast-forward.
 

2 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

we would all have the unfettered capacity to "own" copies of those games with just as much (if not more) perpetuity than traditional corporal media-based distributions

Unfettered except for the fact in law that you did not own or have any further legal right to the software. The copy you possessed would effectively be unlicenced, i.e. pirateware.

[Deddly]

For those who are concerned about the "You're not allowed to copy it" clause, it was in the old EULA as well, but the FAQ on the main page says:

Quote

Can I install the game on more than one computer?

Certainly, you can download and play the game on all of your personal computers with the same license. Even if some are Windows and some are mac computers.

Other questions are answered there as well:

Quote

I uploaded a gameplay video to Youtube. Is it okay for me to monetize it?

Yes, by all means. If you are having many views and want to seize the opportunity, go ahead. We just ask to be given credit, a mention and a link to our website is enough. You must also make it perfectly clear that we are the copyright holders of KSP.

Source: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=19

[Eskandare]

2 minutes ago, Deddly said:

For those who are concerned about the "You're not allowed to copy it" clause, it was in the old EULA as well, but the FAQ on the main page says:

Quote

Can I install the game on more than one computer?

Certainly, you can download and play the game on all of your personal computers with the same license. Even if some are Windows and some are mac computers.

Other questions are answered there as well:

Quote

I uploaded a gameplay video to Youtube. Is it okay for me to monetize it?

Yes, by all means. If you are having many views and want to seize the opportunity, go ahead. We just ask to be given credit, a mention and a link to our website is enough. You must also make it perfectly clear that we are the copyright holders of KSP.

Source: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=19

Wow! Thank you @Deddly and @SQUAD for clarifying this. This should put at ease the worrywarts. 

[J.Random]

27 minutes ago, Deddly said:

For those who are concerned about the "You're not allowed to copy it" clause, it was in the old EULA as well, but the FAQ on the main page says:

Check again.

[Third_OfFive]

[MechBFP]

23 minutes ago, J.Random said:

Check again.

Lol that was fast. 

[Deddly]

OK I take it all back. We're all doomed.

 

[J.Random]

Wow, moderator [snip]. That's the new low since I visited forum last time.

Jokes aside, don't worry, mate, moderators don't represent the company and therefore can't give an official statement on any issue, so I wasn't taking your answer seriously anyway. However, quick disappearance of the quoted statement from the FAQ is an answer in and of itself, methinks.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Vanamonde
Mind the language, please.

[/not/pol/]

On 3/5/2018 at 10:36 PM, Starman4308 said:

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.

A bit of an old post, but you're failing to take into account that this EULA Does absolutely nothing for them, there are no loopholes they are covering nor are they protecting themselves. KSP And its community are an oddity in comparison to their usual Triple A Online DLC Ridden titles that they cover for, KSP Existed and moarover SQUAD Existed for a long time with its old EULA And ToS And was just fine. they need to rethink applying a boilerplate Eula to a very different game then what they usually handle.

[/not/pol/]

7 hours ago, J.Random said:

T2 now owns the rights to all the mods, regardless of initial license the mod was published under.

Are mods created inside KSP? No? Then no. T2 Does not own the rights.

[J.Random]

7 hours ago, /not/pol/ said:

Are mods created inside KSP? No? Then no. T2 Does not own the rights.

Does  it say that you have to use KSP to create mods? "Software may allow you to create content" may just mean that KSP supports mods. "Allow" as in "you can create custom content and the game will (try to) load it". The proper interpretation of this legalese should also be in the FAQ in a human-readable form. Also, are PartTools covered by the same license? Also also, random thought: while FAQ says you can monetize your videos of KSP gameplay, this EULA paragraph leaves T2 rights to DMCA you into oblivion if you say something they don't like in said videos (kinda like Wargaming incident, only worse because this time publisher actually has a leg to stand on).

[klgraham1013]

16 hours ago, Deddly said:

For those who are concerned about the "You're not allowed to copy it" clause, it was in the old EULA as well, but the FAQ on the main page says:

Other questions are answered there as well:

Source: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=19

Because, as we know, FAQ's supersede legal documents.

[Superfluous J]

The millisecond Squad or Take 2 inhibit my ability to mod the game or make copies for my own personal use I'll care. I swear I will. Until then, jeez this is a lot of kerfuffle over nothing.

[nascarlaser1]

5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

The millisecond Squad or Take 2 inhibit my ability to mod the game or make copies for my own personal use I'll care. I swear I will. Until then, jeez this is a lot of kerfuffle over nothing.

agreed

 

[Starman4308]

5 hours ago, J.Random said:

Does  it say that you have to use KSP to create mods? "Software may allow you to create content" may just mean that KSP supports mods. "Allow" as in "you can create custom content and the game will (try to) load it". The proper interpretation of this legalese should also be in the FAQ in a human-readable form. Also, are PartTools covered by the same license? Also also, random thought: while FAQ says you can monetize your videos of KSP gameplay, this EULA paragraph leaves T2 rights to DMCA you into oblivion if you say something they don't like in said videos (kinda like Wargaming incident, only worse because this time publisher actually has a leg to stand on).

A lot of your concerns have been previously addressed.

Again, mods are largely untouchable, since that content is not created by Squad/Take Two software. Take Two might or might not have a license to final products produced by PartTools, but some have suggested that's merely a format change, in which case that would be unenforceable.

Content created by the software is: screenshots, videos, etc. Not stuff you made in Visual Studio/Blender/what-have-you.

"Human-readable" answers would constitute legal advice, which could get Take Two into a heap of legal trouble due to conflicts of interest.

They never needed the license agreement to DMCA you into oblivion for gameplay videos. A gameplay video is clearly a work incorporating substantial elements of Take Two's IP, a plain and simple copyright violation. The only reason people haven't been sued is that, well, Take Two kinda likes having gameplay videos on YouTube; that helps get them more customers.

If there was a clause in the EULA/TOS explicitly permitting gameplay videos, only then would you be free from any possibility of getting sued... not that a game company is ever likely to include such a clause. They'd kinda like to keep the hammer of DMCA in their inventory just in case it's needed.

EDIT: Overall, I think a lot of people are panicking about what the license says, and forgetting to look into wee little things like "copyright law" that would establish that the video game owner could do that anyways. As I've posted before, I think they're just making sure it's iron-clad in the document specifically because they're turning a blind eye to a lot of these things, and they really don't want a judge saying "you've tolerated it all these times before; you've granted your users an implicit right to this".

Edited March 8, 2018 by Starman4308

[J.Random]

1 hour ago, Starman4308 said:

They never needed the license agreement to DMCA you into oblivion for gameplay videos. A gameplay video is clearly a work incorporating substantial elements of Take Two's IP, a plain and simple copyright violation. The only reason people haven't been sued is that, well, Take Two kinda likes having gameplay videos on YouTube; that helps get them more customers.

Yeah, well, there's this thing called "fair use" which also applies to critique. And this "clearly" of yours isn't that clear, really, as it requires a decision about how much transformative a specific gameplay/commentary/critique video is. It's a grey area and my understanding is that people aren't getting sued because nobody wants to change status quo because it may go both ways in court, creating an unpredictable precedent. As things are now, companies tend to look the other way but sometimes can't resist the temptation to strike someone. If this someone is an unimportant nobody, nobody cares; but if said someone manages to raise enough pitchforks, Big Bad Company may back off and even apologize sometimes, promising never to do it again and trying the "we listen and we care" routine. But nobody wants to go to court over DMCA vs Fair Use issue.

[scimas]

21 hours ago, J.Random said:

Check again.

I actually went to visit the website. It requires me to accept the new terms and conditions to access kerbalspaceprogram.com website.... I'm really lost right now.. So people have to agree to T2's terms even before they have bought KSP? On the website they sell said product? Like what...?

Just think about it.. I've just heard a lot of good things about KSP from my friend, so I decide to take a look at it myself. I'm a potential customer, I go to KSP's website to check out any features page, screenshot, perhaps even official trailers if any exist and I'm obstructed by a freaking "Accept our terms or you can't see this website" dialogue box. That's like a car dealership suddenly covering all their windows with black paint and telling everyone coming there to sign a legal document to even take peek at which cars are for sale.

Just what are you doing @SQUAD / T2??? That's some next level of dedication to turning away customers, especially when you're releasing new content to attract new ones.

[Van Disaster]

You can export from Blender to KSP bypassing parttools if you really don't want to use them.

[Diche Bach]

23 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Unfettered except for the fact in law that you did not own or have any further legal right to the software. The copy you possessed would effectively be unlicenced, i.e. pirateware.

I disagree. The EULAs may claim as much, but until there is a legal precedent at at least a Federal level, if not an International Treaty level, I'd say that the assertion that any digitally-downloaded software is a "new" type of product better conceived as a "service" than a "product," implicitly BECAUSE it is being distributed without corporal media, is speculative at best.

It is in fact, insane. Imagine if such a precedent were actually established in major court cases. Microsoft could sell its OS with an ACTUAL timer: Oh sorry you only paid for a 6 month edition, fork over another $99.99 to extend your service contract.

That might be a perfectly legit model for game software commerce in some Harry Turtledove Bizarro World, but except for specialty applications with narrow market penetration (e.g., Autodesk, Systat, ESET Nod32): singleplayer gaming software has generally (more often than not I would speculate) been sold with a buy once, own forever model. Moreover, in MANY cases where a "subscription" service model is explicit, and accepted as the de facto and de jure standard, the additional commerce is NOT to retain ownership nor usage of the existing installation; it is to continue to receive, "support." When I was an academic, I kept my Systat installs up to date because I wanted to be able to get customer support. The application still ran fine long after I stopped keeping up my subscription to the software. The firm who bought the IP and provided support would never have been in their rights to gain access to my property (my hd) to determine if I still had a functioning copy of the application and somehow try to force me to relinquish it. They could of course attempt to configure the software so that its continued functionality was dependent on timestamps in interaction with the machines clock, but the user is always free to circumvent those and there is frankly nothing they can do about it.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Diche Bach
clarification

[Wardstone111]

30 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

You can export from Blender to KSP bypassing parttools if you really don't want to use them.

I must say I somewhat disagree with the new EULA, although if there was a matter of copyright, I think the mod-maker would probably win, at least where I live, as they have the rights to the configs and code even if Part Tools is used to make the model. However, wasn't it someone at squad who made the Blender Part Tools alternative. If so it will probably be under the EULA.

[severedsolo]

10 hours ago, J.Random said:

Does  it say that you have to use KSP to create mods? "Software may allow you to create content" may just mean that KSP supports mods.

Only in the same way that Windows allows me to create mods. KSP is effectively just the Operating System - especially in the case of partless plugins.

If anything, Microsoft have more of a claim on my stuff than T2 do. I create them in Visual Studio using the .Net framework, on a machine running Windows 10. KSP doesn't even come into it until I'm ready to test.

Edited March 8, 2018 by severedsolo

[Van Disaster]

9 minutes ago, Wardstone111 said:

I must say I somewhat disagree with the new EULA, although if there was a matter of copyright, I think the mod-maker would probably win, at least where I live, as they have the rights to the configs and code even if Part Tools is used to make the model. However, wasn't it someone at squad who made the Blender Part Tools alternative. If so it will probably be under the EULA.

Not when he was a Squad contractor, no. I guess if someone tried hard enough they might get a sting on some reverse engineering issue, but that sounds more like it'd get the plugin itself than any resultant exported product.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Van Disaster

[Wardstone111]

1 minute ago, Van Disaster said:

Not when he was a Squad contractor, no.

In which case, with my very limited knowledge of copyright laws and EULAs, if a claim by Squad or Take Two were made, they would be clutching at straws seeing as no software they own is being used to make the modifications. The configs are made in a text editor, the models made in Blender or some other 3D editor and made compatible with third party software, plugins are made in Visual Studio or MonoDevelop with only reference to the KSP files (nothing included) and the makers of the mods are third parties and not Take Two or Squad. I think, although am by no means sure, that mods cannot be legally claimed by Take Two or Squad. Fan Fiction images probably could be, seeing as they are in game but the community would probably get a bit irritated after a while.

[Crillion]

I haven't found a bypass for the forums, but you can easily bypass agreeing to the KSP EULA on Steam by just opening the game folder and launching the .exe manually the first time around. Then steam thinks you agreed and doesn't bother you again when you never physically clicked the accept button on the EULA. Since you never clicked agree on the EULA, they can't hold you to it.

[Van Disaster]

8 minutes ago, Wardstone111 said:

In which case, with my very limited knowledge of copyright laws and EULAs, if a claim by Squad or Take Two were made, they would be clutching at straws seeing as no software they own is being used to make the modifications. The configs are made in a text editor, the models made in Blender or some other 3D editor and made compatible with third party software, plugins are made in Visual Studio or MonoDevelop with only reference to the KSP files (nothing included) and the makers of the mods are third parties and not Take Two or Squad. I think, although am by no means sure, that mods cannot be legally claimed by Take Two or Squad. Fan Fiction images probably could be, seeing as they are in game but the community would probably get a bit irritated after a while.

It's been already made clear that at least in some countries that a mere change of format ( ie, exporting from Unity to KSP ) would not be enough for TTI to claim anything. Regardless I can't see any way in which they could feasably claim source, and without that nothing is maintainable.