Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

[Eskandare]

Since all mods are created using software outside of KSP, and the US Copyright Office states that format changes does not change the ownership of the material (ie: part tools); our mods are perfectly safe.

 

However, Missions and craft designs made inside KSP can be owned by Take 2... big whoop... take my crappy 20 engine jet and try to sell it to Lockheed...  They'll laugh till their morning coffee starts shooting out of their noses.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Ace in Space said:

And what exactly do you intend to "win"? What battle is being fought here? What exactly are you protesting? If it's just "the EULA is super scary and restrictive now!" I'm afraid I have to tell you that the EULA was scary and restrictive before. It was just worded slightly differently. The EULA is no more draconian than it was before. All EULAs are draconian. They're just covering their butts legally.

Actually the new EULA is better written then the old one. (I finally got through comparing the two). You are right, it is the exact same thing. In all reality, 

Take 2 is in the business of selling fake stuff made up of zeros and ones.  I am fairly sure that they want to be careful not to push away the people whom they are selling the zeros and ones.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Eskandare

[DoctorDavinci]

3 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

Since all mods are created using software outside of KSP, and the US Copyright Office states that format changes does not change the ownership of the material (ie: part tools); our mods are perfectly safe.

 

However, Missions and craft designs made inside KSP can be owned by Take 2... big whoop... take my crappy 20 engine jet and try to sell it to Lockheed...  They'll laugh till their morning coffee stats shooting out of their noses.

^^^^^ This

KSP Mods aren't made using KSP, they are made with the Unity game engine, 3D modelling software and computer code

Man ... this dumpster fire just keeps burning 

[Derb]

9 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

Since all mods are created using software outside of KSP, and the US Copyright Office states that format changes does not change the ownership of the material (ie: part tools); our mods are perfectly safe.

I've been saying this since the beginning and it felt like I was shouting into the void - half the time the people I reply to to explain this don't reply back, and continue to post about how the new EULA infringes on author's rights, instead of telling me what about the information I've posted they don't believe or question. Thank the gods i'm not alone.

[Eskandare]

1 minute ago, Derb said:

I've been saying this since the beginning and it felt like I was shouting into the void - half the time the people I reply to to explain this don't reply back, and continue to post about how the new EULA infringes on author's rights, instead of telling me what about the information I've posted they don't believe or question. Thank the gods i'm not alone.

Kids... what do you expect? 

[DoctorDavinci]

10 minutes ago, Derb said:

I've been saying this since the beginning and it felt like I was shouting into the void - half the time the people I reply to to explain this don't reply back, and continue to post about how the new EULA infringes on author's rights, instead of telling me what about the information I've posted they don't believe or question. Thank the gods i'm not alone.

That is the way of things round these parts ... Dumpster fires and conspiracy theories

Don't get me wrong, this is a great community but it's all par for the course ... get out your marshmallows and popcorn so you got some muchies to yam on as you watch the show 

Every 4 to 6 months there is some new conspiracy going around that will destroy KSP .... I'v been hearing that for over 4 years now and you wanna know something, contrary to the conspiracy theorists and google lawyers beliefs, KSP is still a thing 

Edited March 7, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[Eskandare]

6 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

That is the way of things round these parts ... Dumpster fires and conspiracy theories

Don't get me wrong, this is a great community but it's all par for the course ... get out your marshmallows and popcorn so you got some muchies to yam on as you watch the show 

Every 4 to 6 months there is some new conspiracy going around that will destroy KSP .... I'v been hearing that for over 4 years now and you wanna know something, contrary to the conspiracy theorists and google lawyers beliefs, KSP is still a thing 

I've been around.... I remember there being some big blow up about modders applying licences to their mods.  As this game gets popular, we're going to see more of it.

[scimas]

18 hours ago, Deddly said:

None of those are rules you must read and agree to in order to access the forums

Do tell where in my post I have said that these are the rules that we must agree to? And no I was not talking about either of those links. There are certain points within the rules itself that link to forum posts. Like others have pointed out, those are about addons and other topics. Since I don't know how to access that page agin, I can't take screenshots anymore. 

And anyway, how is your point relevant anyway? If you (read squad or t2)  are giving me links to elaborate on some points in an agreement that I must accept to access my forum account, I expect to be able to access those links. It's a major [snip] up as far as I'm  concerned that we can't even read those things without agreeing to the updated terms. Some circular system that is. 

18 hours ago, Deddly said:

Also, just to confirm that the forum rules that you all just agreed to haven't changed - they just refer to TakeTwo instead of Squad.

Again, how is that relevant in any way to the point I was trying to state? 

I stand by what I said about squad handling this transition extremely poorly. Your reply (as a moderator) in fact supports that statement given that you couldn't even find any links within the terms that directed to forum posts, except for those at the very bottom. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Deddly
removed minor profanity

[Deddly]

@scimas, don't worry man, I'm on your side. Sorry if it appeared as though I was putting words in your mouth - it wasn't intentional. 

If you would like to see the terms again for screenshots etc, you can go to the top of the page and click "Guidelines". 

P. S. I made a small edit to your post to make it in line with those guidelines (PM me if you don't get what I mean) 

[scimas]

4 minutes ago, Deddly said:

P. S. I made a small edit to your post to make it in line with those guidelines

Understood, and fair enough.

6 minutes ago, Deddly said:

you can go to the top of the page and click "Guidelines"

Thank you. So, in particular, I was referring to 2.2.I and 5.1 in my original comment regarding use of links to forum pages in the terms that we must agree to.

[Deddly]

8 minutes ago, scimas said:

So, in particular, I was referring to 2.2.I and 5.1 in my original comment regarding use of links to forum pages in the terms that we must agree to.

Gotcha. Yes that was unfortunate indeed. 

[Just Jim]

9 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

- "Breakin' the law breakin' the law."

"Actually you're obeying the spirit, if not the letter of law." -

- "..."

- "!"

- "!!!"

- "Obeyin' the spirit if not the letter of the law, obeyin' the spirit if not the letter of the law."

OK... this just made my whole morning... hehehe

[J.Random]

Does the topic of this discussion include the new EULA shown by Steam when you try to start the game after update? If it does, then:

It's unenforceable.

It contains following:

Quote

PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. 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.

while the game is already downloaded and installed. Pretty sure it voids the whole thing.

Also,

Quote

You agree not to, and not to provide guidance or instruction to any other individual or entity on how to:

copy the Software onto a hard drive or other storage device in order to bypass the requirement to run the Software from the included CD-ROM or DVD-ROM (this prohibition does not apply to copies in whole or in part that may be made by the Software itself during installation in order to run more efficiently);

So having several copies with different sets of mods is "illegal" now.

Also also,

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.

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

Also also also,

Quote

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.

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM POSSESSION, USE, OR MALFUNCTION OF THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES TO PROPERTY, LOSS OF GOODWILL, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, AND, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR LOST PROFITS OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM ANY CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER ARISING IN TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR'S LIABILITY FOR ALL DAMAGES (EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL PRICE PAID BY YOU FOR USE OF THE SOFTWARE.

T2 isn't liable for anything, you're liable for everything (and I think it's stated somewhere in the ToS that they don't have to prove anything, so you're also liable for imaginary damages as well).

Also also also also, I have just clicked Cancel and started the game directly.

Yay?

[Diche Bach]

8 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Again, it's my understanding that the terms of sale (and the actual thing sold) differ substantially depending when you bought a product and in what medium. Licensing a song on iTunes and buying a vinyl record of the same song carry completely different entitlements. The difference is owning a copy that belongs to you, vs owning a licence to have copy that does not belong to you but that you are allowed to possess and use by the IP owner.

You might be right locally. You might even be right more generally, and I'm out of date, but you haven't put down any evidence yet that demonstrates this.

Of course not, but it does mean that they're not selling a product, and again as far as I'm aware product law and service law just ain't the same thing.

I suspect that the argument you are making is exactly the one which the publishers, distributors and IP owners who have devised EULAs along these lines would argue.

That doesn't make it "legal" per se. It represents a distinct departure in substantive commercial exchange (as claimed by the EULA writers) even though superficially it appears almost identical to traditional "own a physical copy of media on which a copy of IP has been transcribed." It is certainly true that physical media do not last forever; so the traditional dimensions of access to copyrighted material bear some similarity to these more contemporary assertions in so many EULAs. Meaning: CDs/DVDs/Vinyls/VHS tapes/even books WEAR OUT. No court in the world would ever argue that the IP owner was required to provide a replacement copy once the media itself wore out. But that is a rather different constraint than one in which the IP owner specifies in the EULA that they can cease to provide access at any time and for any reason. If book publishers or traditional vinyl producers included substances in their media which cause the ink to fade or the engravings to crumble after X period of time, I don't think that would have been deemed legal. It was understood: you purchased one copy and you get to keep it for as long as the media is intact, thus "collectors." That is a very different kettle of fish than "you get one copy for as long as we choose to provide it." 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.

This is not to say that, I expect any court of law would hold that Steam is bound to provide eternal access to all of us to our libraries. If they go out of business, or sell their business or experience any manner of other changes to their operations, it is of course reasonable that the nature of their services to us users might necessarily change. But again, that is also a different kettle of fish, and I reckon that if litigation ensued, most courts anywhere on Earth would recognize the precedent established by the pre-digital download age, and thus reach a finding which was at a middle-ground between the interests of consumers and the service providers. Many of us retain copies of some portion of our libraries on our own media, and were it not for "auto-update" and similar client-server handshake features (which btw, are completely optional it seems even within Steams terms with the publishers they serve,  Paradox titles acquired through Steam for example function normally once they are installed and undergo initial validation, whether Steam is installed in the games environment or not, or so I'm told by various websites I've perused . . .) 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. Steam would thus have an uphill battle with most reasonable courts (and definitely the more consumer-indulgent ones in the EU) to argue that they are justified to "pull the plug" either without warning, or without provisions for users to retain their own personal copies. Moreover it would be child's play for them to do so. They simply make it known that services will terminate at some point in the future (perhaps the most difficult part for them) and then the include in all subsequent Steam updates external files that disable the functionalities which prevent games from operating without the client-server handshake. I have to be slightly vague here because, I have not spent the time to fully understand how these functionalities work, but I am confident based on what investigation I have done, it would be perfectly simple for Steam to accomplish. They could do it RIGHT NOW and we could all download all of our games, delete our Steam accounts and "own copies" of all our games just as if we had purchased them on traditional DVDs. The technicalities are absolutely accessible. The only real challenges are: providing users with timely "alert" and allowing enough time for most users to attend to the impending changes.

[severedsolo]

10 minutes ago, J.Random said:

So having several copies with different sets of mods is "illegal" now.

Are we reading two different paragraphs? It says that is only the case if you intend to by-pass running it from a CD-Rom or DVD. This does not apply to KSP as KSP does not come on either of those mediums. (and the intention is clearly "don't copy it to bypass DRM" - KSP has no DRM.)

 

 

[J.Random]

7 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

Are we reading two different paragraphs? It says that is only the case if you intend to by-pass running it from a CD-Rom or DVD. This does not apply to KSP as KSP does not come on either of those mediums. (and the intention is clearly "don't copy it to bypass DRM" - KSP has no DRM.)

 

 

No problem, there's another one which was lost when I removed all the "exploit" stuff from the quote:

Quote

make a copy of the Software or any part thereof (other than as set forth herein);

Better? =)

[Starman4308]

Not at my computer to make a full reply, but the fear that they own mods is fallacious. Take Two does not arbitrarily assign to itself a license to copyrighted content made in Visual Studio, Blender, Mono, etc. It's only stuff made inside KSP itself (primarily Mission Builder missions) to which it grants Take Two a license... and a license is not ownership.

[Diche Bach]

I have not started KSP in online mode for a very long time. I don't even have the latest version of the game installed. I think I had version 1.28 or something along those lines? I have an enormous number of mods that I knew would break when 1.3 was released, so I simply "bypass" Steams client-handshake nonsense. Even if they were to make it more intrusive than it already is, it could still be bypassed. The files that control these functionalities are, if I understand correctly, not baked into the executables; this is why third-party launchers are able to "fool" the client-server handshake and launch the applications.

Most of the games in my Steam library which are installed on my local machine have "Auto-Update" set to "Disabled." I only leave this functionality active for games like Stellar Tactics or Freeman: Guerrilla Warfare, which are still in very early alpha, and consequently I generally will WANT any updates the publisher pushes through Steam. This combined with keeping Steam in Offline Mode 97.5% of the time, means that anything TT or Squad, Steam or any other party involved in the products I own say or do is largely irrelevant to me. I OWN copies of the software on which their IP is transcribed. I will NOT engage in any usage which would be deemed illegal by a 1990s court of law, but I'm not required to log in and update my software to their latest version simply because they expect me to do so.

Unless Steam wishes to shift its position from "questionable distributor of intrusive software which some might argue borders on malware" into fullfledged "malware distributor," they have zero capacity to enforce anything beyond the terms of "traditional" pre-digital download EULAs, i.e., they CANNOT "take away" my access to their "service" nor can they impose new terms of service on my possession or use of services which were originally procured with a different set of ToS. That is the reality; and as I said in a preceding post, here we are, loyal, law-abiding, supportive customers and fans of the IP and its creators (if not also its publishers and distributors) and WE are the ones who are made to "jump through these hoops." Meanwhile the pirate sites continue to run business as usual.

When I contrast this with how small "cottage" industry outfits operate (take for example Mojang in its early days or John Tiller Software as it has always existed and right up to this day and a host of other small fry developer/publisher IP owners) the only conclusion I can reach is that: lawyers will barge in with fear mongering and gain a toehold in any organization that exceeds some minimal threshold in head count or total annual throughput of money. In confederation with managerial or even technical managers who understand how they might personally gain by saddling the organization with byzantine legalese wards of protection and strange click-wrap rituals of end user licensing these kinds of things are inevitable once a product gets "big" and the vultures in suits start circling. Meh. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Diche Bach
typos

[Eskandare]

9 hours ago, Eskandare said:

Since all mods are created using software outside of KSP, and the US Copyright Office states that format changes does not change the ownership of the material (ie: part tools); our mods are perfectly safe.

 

However, Missions and craft designs made inside KSP can be owned by Take 2... big whoop... take my crappy 20 engine jet and try to sell it to Lockheed...  They'll laugh till their morning coffee starts shooting out of their noses.

Repeating...  ^^^^^^

[severedsolo]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

No problem, there's another one which was lost when I removed all the "exploit" stuff from the quote:

Better? =)

That was in the old EULA too. It's been made clear on several occasions that this is allowed. It's more "one license, one user"

I get the concerns, I've had a few myself, but really what are they going to do? Scan your hard drive to see whether you have more than one install? (Also, here at least, it's perfectly legal to take a backup copy of a product you have bought, as long as you don't redistribute it)

[Eskandare]

4 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

That was in the old EULA too. It's been made clear on several occasions that this is allowed. It's more "one license, one user"

I get the concerns, I've had a few myself, but really what are they going to do? Scan your hard drive to see whether you have more than one install? (Also, here at least, it's perfectly legal to take a backup copy of a product you have bought, as long as you don't redistribute it)

after umteen thousand downloads... i doubt they have the computing resources to perform that, and good luck getting past my firewalls and server connection checking.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Eskandare

[severedsolo]

7 minutes ago, Eskandare said:

after umteen thousand downloads... i doubt they have the computing resources to perform that, and good luck getting past my firewalls and server connection checking.

I know you were agreeing with me, but just as an interesting hypothetical excercise:

If I were Take-Two, and I WAS going to do that, I would have the scan be done locally on the users own computer. Have KSP run a hidden service/something in the background to do the scan, and then just send a results file back. Use their resources, plus most Firewalls don't care about outgoing connections.

Of course I'd notice anyway, I am very "attuned" to my PC, I know whats normal, and when it's running a bit slow and usually pick up on it. I even notice if it takes more than a few seconds longer to boot.

And obviously even the computing/man power to wade through those results (even if it only ever sends back the "bad" results) is probably not worth it.

Edited March 7, 2018 by severedsolo

[Eskandare]

11 minutes ago, severedsolo said:

I know you were agreeing with me, but just as an interesting hypothetical excercise:

If I were Take-Two, and I WAS going to do that, I would have the scan be done locally on the users own computer. Have KSP run a hidden service/something in the background to do the scan, and then just send a results file back. Use their resources, plus most Firewalls don't care about outgoing connections.

Of course I'd notice anyway, I am very "attuned" to my PC, I know whats normal, and when it's running a bit slow and usually pick up on it. I even notice if it takes more than a few seconds longer to boot.

And obviously even the computing/man power to wade through those results (even if it only ever sends back the "bad" results) is probably not worth it.

I know of that, hence why I have custom in and out checking...  Although it becomes a pain when I have MWO start the VOIP...

[ManeTI]

Test

[Eskandare]

3 minutes ago, ManeTI said:

Test

Hello

[Van Disaster]

Small note of interest: GTAV was far from the first C&D - I can remember Papyrus/Sierra very apologetically sending a C&D to a mod team in 2004 or so explaining that they didn't actually want to stop the team but they were legally obligated to take action. Was a strange situation involving other people's copyright ( even though the mod team was most definitely not-profit, I guess it was some strange legal exposure issue - IANAL ) and live patching of the game.