UPDATED 14/06/18 - *** Rules for User Made Mods and Edits of PDS games ***

[Castellon]

2 MB, the limit was considerably smaller than I thought. You're probably right on this, since I can't think of a whole lot of worthwhile Skyrim mods less than 2MB in size, but that's neither here nor there -- Nexus only requires you to register an account, it doesn't require an added step of registering your game.

Also, I am sure that EQOOE and myzael would like an answer.

I think entering a one time code that does not personally identify you and only unlocks additional features and access on the site and is readily accessible from the steam console is not that much of additional effort. Not for the vast majority at any rate.

And Answered in the post above this one.

 

[EOOQE]

If you can demonstrate that whatever you want to do that contravenes one of the rules was in place before the release of EU4 and is not related to EU4 or any Base game released after that, then you could ask me for it to be grandfathered and I would communicate that to my staff.

ähmmm , i dont get it anymore ...
Now talk straight : You said that EVERY mod before the rules came up is "Grandfathered"

-snip- Grandfathered ones are the ones that existed before the rule was codified. -snip-

Is this correct ? Yes or NO ? (13-08-2013 00:58)

Intentionally or not you appear to be misunderstanding what I am saying. You seam to want to drag this conversation into some kind of legal debate and we do not engage in legal debates on the forums, So I will politely say that expressing your legal opinion is off topic for this thread as mentioned somewhere around the first page I believe.

Ahh , now we come to a point !
Your "legal opinion" is the problem ! Its an opinion based on what ? Sure no EU LAW , and also not on Steam WS Law..
As EU company your are bound to EU LAW , whatever your so called opinion is.

But its ok ... i dont ask any more about Law and legals here ...its a waste of time to discuss with someone who had its opinion allready set into stone.

 

[tompalmer]

@Korbah I am sorry you feel that way, obviously we feel differently about what the benefits are. Also note you are free to host wherever you want including ModDb if you do not plan to Advertise your mod here or the workshop.
I would think you should be able to find a free hosting site, there are many out there.

That's a quick choice, as big as Paradox could be the rest of the internet is bigger.

What I am hearing is that your mod is too large to be hosted on the workshop, and you are paying for hosting. I am looking at how we might be able to host user mods with the new forum software, perhaps that would alleviate the issue.

That's the main thing with the workshop, I was clapping when it was announced but the system is crap in practice. That and the fact it updates automatically and breaks all past saves for people who asked nothing.

I also can't understand why gifts are prohibited, EOOQ's propositions overall where fine (also nice to see you back)

 

[myzael]

If you can demonstrate that whatever you want to do that contravenes one of the rules was in place before the release of EU4 and is not related to EU4 or any Base game released after that, then you could ask me for it to be grandfathered and I would communicate that to my staff.

Wait, so first you say that every mod started before the rules were defined is automatically grandfathered and next that one needs to apply for it. I am sure you see why such statements could introduce confusion. And its not a matter of what would a mod benefit from it, but a matter of principle. I don't imagine that anyone wishes to make mods in an environment where some mods are favored, for whatever reason it might be.

Note that I personally have no interest in acquiring special privileges for M&T. I am bothered by the details of these rules, not the general idea, with which I almost completely agree. As I said before, I believe that we deserve explanation of the reasons that each controversive rule. And saying "I wrote these rules" is definitely not a worthy explanation.

 

[Meneth]

TWCenter, ModDB, CivFanatics, Nexus (for smaller to medium sized mods -- very large mods, a gig or more IIRC, require registration), none of those require registration to download their mods, and they are fairly well known mod sites. At least two of those also utilize links to third party download sites for their mods (TWCenter and CivFanatics).

I do, however, recognize these are not official sites for the games in question.

Another great example of a community site that allows external mods is the official Minecraft forum. No doubt the vibrant Minecraft modding community is one of the many reasons for its enormous success, and I posit that the modding community wouldn't have been nearly as vibrant if they were trying to enforce the ridiculous rule on external downloads that the Paradox forums have.

 

[EOOQE]

Wait, so first you say that every mod started before the rules were defined is automatically grandfathered and next that one needs to apply for it. I am sure you see why such statements could introduce confusion. And its not a matter of what would a mod benefit from it, but a matter of principle. I don't imagine that anyone wishes to make mods in an environment where some mods are favored, for whatever reason it might be.

Note that I personally have no interest in acquiring special privileges for M&T. I am bothered by the details of these rules, not the general idea, with which I almost completely agree. As I said before, I believe that we deserve explanation of the reasons that each controversive rule. And saying "I wrote these rules" is definitely not a worthy explanation.

100% agree ... thats the problem here ..one day this statement , the other day an different statement ...
reminds me of one German Statesman Konrad Adenauer : "Was interessiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern" :wacko: (best english version : "what do I care about the balderdash I spouted yesterday")

 

[myzael]

Moreover, why shouldn't we discuss legal issues here? All the mentioned are definitely on topic, as rules concern license matters, which is definitely a legal issue. You said:

I do not see how asking about whether Workshop mods are view able if you do not own the game is relevant to whether we sought legal advice?
I have a developer account on steam, my permissions will not be the same as regular members. Also it is a third party site and believe me when I say Steam has its own lawyers.

Intentionally or not you appear to be misunderstanding what I am saying. You seam to want to drag this conversation into some kind of legal debate and we do not engage in legal debates on the forums, So I will politely say that expressing your legal opinion is off topic for this thread as mentioned somewhere around the first page I believe.

You reference you legal counsel frequently yet whenever someone raises a legitimate legal question you more or less ignore it. I admit I am not fluent in EU IP laws, but that you can forbid people from protecting their own work from lawless copying is beyond me. If I am not correct on this, please refer me to appropriate documents, or even better answer why I am wrong here.

I fully understand you wanting to have a shield against copyright claims from third parties. I also understand the desire of a similar shield against theoretical modder's claims for features that you release and might be similar to that introduced by mods. Yet blindly forbidding people from protecting their artistic work (music, graphics) simply doesn't sound fair - in my simple, not law-educated mind. Isn't some kind of a compromise possible, where both parties have their interests protected? Please, enlighten me.

 

[EOOQE]

We can remove anything from the Workshop that violates our TOS.

Maybe you should also better read what you are allowed !!

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/

6B :

Notwithstanding the license described in Section 6.A., Valve will only have the right to modify or create derivative works from your Workshop Contribution in the following cases: (a) Valve may make modifications necessary to make your Contribution compatible with Steam and the Workshop functionality or user interface, and (b) Valve or the applicable developer may make modifications to Workshop Contributions that are accepted for in-Application distribution as it deems necessary or desirable to enhance gameplay.

And dont come up now with : Yaya we know this , we do not "edit" your files , but we can edit your Mod description...
NO , only Valve is allowed to do this in terms of the "general" Agreement for things like Porn/Nazi Stuff/Harassment in Mod description or Forum/Posts etc etc

 

[MiltonS]

Why would you be interested in a mod for a game you do not own, other than maybe to know it exists and the basics, which you would have gotten from the page or article that referred you to this site.

Why would you be interested in a game you do not own? And so Paradox cuts its advertising budget and spirals into bankruptcy...

AKA that's a weak-sauce argument. What relevance is it WHY someone may be interested in a mod? And for that matter, even if they DON'T have the game, there's no harm to PI if they get the mod. If the game's pirated, it's pirated. The mod itself is irrelevant to discussions of piracy.

 

[Castellon]

ähmmm , i dont get it anymore ...
Now talk straight : You said that EVERY mod before the rules came up is "Grandfathered"


Is this correct ? Yes or NO ? (13-08-2013 00:58)



Ahh , now we come to a point !
Your "legal opinion" is the problem ! Its an opinion based on what ? Sure no EU LAW , and also not on Steam WS Law..
As EU company your are bound to EU LAW , whatever your so called opinion is.

But its ok ... i dont ask any more about Law and legals here ...its a waste of time to discuss with someone who had its opinion allready set into stone.

Again you try to twist what I say into trying to provoke me or something?
What I say is consistent and has not changed. What is grandfathered is existing infrastructures example if you had a forum, if you had a mod hosted on modDB ... BEFORE EU4 was released. Not that your Mod existed before then. See the difference you also had to have those things before that time.

Your right I am not a lawyer, but clearly based on what you are saying neither are you, as such any debate would be pointless and I have already informed you that it is off-topic for this thread.

 

[Castellon]

That's a quick choice, as big as Paradox could be the rest of the internet is bigger.



That's the main thing with the workshop, I was clapping when it was announced but the system is crap in practice. That and the fact it updates automatically and breaks all past saves for people who asked nothing.

I also can't understand why gifts are prohibited, EOOQ's propositions overall where fine (also nice to see you back)

Obviously we would prefer that Modders do not do that, but a free for all essentially has the same result.
As for you guys getting some kind of revenue generation, we are looking at this.

 

[Castellon]

Wait, so first you say that every mod started before the rules were defined is automatically grandfathered and next that one needs to apply for it. I am sure you see why such statements could introduce confusion. And its not a matter of what would a mod benefit from it, but a matter of principle. I don't imagine that anyone wishes to make mods in an environment where some mods are favored, for whatever reason it might be.

Note that I personally have no interest in acquiring special privileges for M&T. I am bothered by the details of these rules, not the general idea, with which I almost completely agree. As I said before, I believe that we deserve explanation of the reasons that each controversive rule. And saying "I wrote these rules" is definitely not a worthy explanation.

Thank-you for your response, I believe I have explained the rational for grandfathering existing channels that were in use.
You may disagree, but I have explained the reasoning and why we felt it was fairer to go that way.

The reason why you would apply is that we would need to verify that the channel was in use before the EU4 release, and also so that I could let my staff know and avoid any misunderstandings. We have in the past been accused of acting precipitously when complaints are issued, I have heard that and am working to avoid an similar issues in the future. Codifying the rules, and interacting directly with the modders in this thread for example.

I get that everyone do not like every rule, I doubt there is a set of rules for anything that have unanimous agreement. I do very much listen to what is said here and try and find ways we can help out within our operating guidelines.

 

[EOOQE]

Again you try to twist what I say into trying to provoke me or something?
What I say is consistent and has not changed. What is grandfathered is existing infrastructures example if you had a forum, if you had a mod hosted on modDB ... BEFORE EU4 was released. Not that your Mod existed before then. See the difference you also had to have those things before that time.

Your right I am not a lawyer, but clearly based on what you are saying neither are you, as such any debate would be pointless and I have already informed you that it is off-topic for this thread.

Its ok, you won, i give up ...makes no sense to discuss any further with you as im to dump to read your sayings correct :

Grandfathered ones are the ones that existed before the rule was codified

No word of "existing infrastructures" ... but ok , if you think i provoke you with simple questions you bring up ...:wacko:

 

[Castellon]

Moreover, why shouldn't we discuss legal issues here? All the mentioned are definitely on topic, as rules concern license matters, which is definitely a legal issue. You said:



You reference you legal counsel frequently yet whenever someone raises a legitimate legal question you more or less ignore it. I admit I am not fluent in EU IP laws, but that you can forbid people from protecting their own work from lawless copying is beyond me. If I am not correct on this, please refer me to appropriate documents, or even better answer why I am wrong here.

I fully understand you wanting to have a shield against copyright claims from third parties. I also understand the desire of a similar shield against theoretical modder's claims for features that you release and might be similar to that introduced by mods. Yet blindly forbidding people from protecting their artistic work (music, graphics) simply doesn't sound fair - in my simple, not law-educated mind. Isn't some kind of a compromise possible, where both parties have their interests protected? Please, enlighten me.

I don't engage in legal debates because I am not a lawyer either, what use is it or what purpose does it serve to have 2 non lawyers debate the issue. We are not willing to have our legal department surf the forum to engage in these debates either.

 

[Castellon]

Maybe you should also better read what you are allowed !!

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/english/

6B :


And dont come up now with : Yaya we know this , we do not "edit" your files , but we can edit your Mod description...
NO , only Valve is allowed to do this in terms of the "general" Agreement for things like Porn/Nazi Stuff/Harassment in Mod description or Forum/Posts etc etc

I assure you we have control over content on our game workshops and have removed items when needed or reported to us.

 

[myzael]

Thank-you for your response, I believe I have explained the rational for grandfathering existing channels that were in use.
You may disagree, but I have explained the reasoning and why we felt it was fairer to go that way.

The reason why you would apply is that we would need to verify that the channel was in use before the EU4 release, and also so that I could let my staff know and avoid any misunderstandings. We have in the past been accused of acting precipitously when complaints are issued, I have heard that and am working to avoid an similar issues in the future. Codifying the rules, and interacting directly with the modders in this thread for example.

I get that everyone do not like every rule, I doubt there is a set of rules for anything that have unanimous agreement. I do very much listen to what is said here and try and find ways we can help out within our operating guidelines.

Thanks for response, sounds fair enough for me. Though I'd like to have this explanation at the very beginning of this case (preferably the moment grandfathering issue was raised)

I'd suggest that you expand the rule to contain a clear definition of grandfathering and explanation what granfathered stuff is entitled to. That would cut off such discussions in the future. I feel most of the arguing here comes from the fact that the rules can be interpreted differently by various people. Rewriting them to be unambiguous would solve the vast majority of complaints I think.

I am eagerly waiting for your responses on the other matters I've raised.

Edit:

I don't engage in legal debates because I am not a lawyer either, what use is it or what purpose does it serve to have 2 non lawyers debate the issue. We are not willing to have our legal department surf the forum to engage in these debates either.

I suppose when you state legal matters in the rules you should be prepared to consult your legal department. If you do not wish to discuss this issue here, please provide an alternative place to do so.

 

[Castellon]

Why would you be interested in a game you do not own? And so Paradox cuts its advertising budget and spirals into bankruptcy...

AKA that's a weak-sauce argument. What relevance is it WHY someone may be interested in a mod? And for that matter, even if they DON'T have the game, there's no harm to PI if they get the mod. If the game's pirated, it's pirated. The mod itself is irrelevant to discussions of piracy.

I do appreciate the first part of this argument, I tend to play games vanilla and then move to mods, but I can allow that a mod someone hears about could lead them to a game. As for the later point I never mentioned Pirated games, I used "own" in the sense of "have in your possession", but I could see how it is read that way, presumably if you pirate a game you also have illegal means to get mods as well.

 

[Castellon]

Its ok, you won, i give up ...makes no sense to discuss any further with you as im to dump to read your sayings correct :


No word of "existing infrastructures" ... but ok , if you think i provoke you with simple questions you bring up ...:wacko:

I am sorry if I do not give a complete and exhaustive responses every time I answer a post, I deal with a lot of issues in a day and try to get to as many as I can. my apologies for any misunderstandings.

 

[Castellon]

Thanks for response, sounds fair enough for me. Though I'd like to have this explanation at the very beginning of this case (preferably the moment grandfathering issue was raised)

I'd suggest that you expand the rule to contain a clear definition of grandfathering and explanation what granfathered stuff is entitled to. That would cut off such discussions in the future. I feel most of the arguing here comes from the fact that the rules can be interpreted differently by various people. Rewriting them to be unambiguous would solve the vast majority of complaints I think.

I am eagerly waiting for your responses on the other matters I've raised.

Edit:



I suppose when you state legal matters in the rules you should be prepared to consult your legal department. If you do not wish to discuss this issue here, please provide an alternative place to do so.

The rules were kind of posted to CK2 forums when I was away, I do not want to shift blame, but I think some misunderstandings happened for example the thread had been going on for a while in EU4 sub-forum before it was moved, I feel it could have been handled better and disseminated that these were going to be applied as written For all mods going forward. Better communication would have been, well, better. I except responsibility for that.

I will review that text for CK2 over the next couple of days and see if I can expand on it.

 

[satyrlord]

The User Mod may not claim ANY kind of license or copyright of any kind (You can still have Credits).

Sorry to butt-in for my own interests, but I have a question with regarding to copyrighted material. I made a lot of music in my time and all of it is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. I granted VeF my permission to use my music under the terms of the said license, however the rights to my music are legally mine, at least for those countries that respect the Creative Commons system. Does this breach the quoted rule or only the User Mod is under the quoted rule and not its other components like original graphics, original music and so on?