EULA changes and mod drama.

[BFT2020]

11 hours ago, SkyTheAvali said:

So this is less about Mischief Maker and more about the threat made to DCMA content creators for MM (Mischief Maker)  content,  and if you look at their statement they do threaten DMCA strikes and they HAVE wielded the DMCA against creators already..

 

Content is FAIR USE first and foremost so please Fun Pimps unless you really wanna @%$# off the creator community keep your @%$#ing contest with MM to just MM and not get creators involved.

 

It is apparent that you don't understand the issue.  TFP are not going after content creators, they are going after the MM modification.  Content creators can post all the videos and gameplay they want to in regards to 7 Days to Die, they just can't use the MM mod that was sending 20% cut back to MM.

 

But don't just take my word about it, this is from TFP themselves

 

https://7daystodie.com/news/

 

Anyone who streams through Twitch using the illegal Mischief Maker Extension will be risking a DMCA takedown as well.

The Fun Pimps have always welcomed Mods to 7 Days to Die that do not illegally monetize the game and will continue to permit streaming or video creation on any platform that does not violate our EULA.

[seven]

10 minutes ago, hotpoon said:

Am I correct in saying that TFP take a 20% cut of all the streamers bits whilst integration is running?  

 

Yes. It's twitch policy that the extension developer gets a 20% cut. And of course tfp is the developer of the extension.

 

Previously integration did not require this new extension, it now won't work without it, so you're forced to use it and give to tfp to stay legal.

 

What's more, even if I don't want to use any of the integration features as a viewer, you're stuck with giving tfp your twitch id, or you get a popup that keeps coming back. Well, I just blocked that crap and will never donate to a streamer through twitch integration.

[hotpoon]

6 minutes ago, seven said:

 

Yes. It's twitch policy that the extension developer gets a 20% cut. And of course tfp is the developer of the extension.

 

Previously integration did not require this new extension, it now won't work without it, so you're forced to use it and give to tfp to stay legal.

 

What's more, even if I don't want to use any of the integration features as a viewer, you're stuck with giving tfp your twitch id, or you get a popup that keeps coming back. Well, I just blocked that crap and will never donate to a streamer through twitch integration.

Thanks for the clarification. I think if that were made clear to streamers, none of them would use the integration. 20% cut of bits is nothing for TFP who are already multi millionaires, but it makes a big difference to streamers. Pretty unfair.

[canadianbluebeer]

what I just posted in the steam discussion:

 

 

"However, this authorization does not include monetization of video work using the Software if its gameplay has been altered or modified by a third-party code, and such third party requires financial compensation for the use of such code."

 

See that one little word. "requires"

 

MM didn't 'require' compensation to use the mod. You could use it for free.
The streamer paid NOTHING to use it.

Now, it did nothing unless a viewer interacted.

That could be by using bits or 'credits'.

Let's look at the credits first.

 

You could buy them with bits, OR, you could get a daily amount for free.
(when I used the mod, it was 100 credits each day. flat)

 

Any 'bits' used either directly or to buy credits, TWITCH gives
20% to the extension author, and 80% to the streamer.
(current twitch integration gets the same split)

 

If you used the FREE credits, well nobody got nuthin for compensation.

 

I've seen several posts (and on the forums) where how this works is either misunderstood, or being misstated.

 

Now, let's look at how this appears to me. The following is my opinion.
Opinions are like string. Every yo-yo has one.

 

MM existed for several years. ZERO complaints from TFP that we know of.
I used it. I posted on the official forums, that I used it.

 

Twitch Integration shows up. Version 1. No bits used, just points.
Ok, I used BOTH. Easy peasy stuff people could use/earn just by watching.
No money required. Wanna REALLY get silly, then bits and MM.

So far, still no complaints from TFP that I know of.

 

A21. Twitch integration becomes a full up mod AND extension.
Now it uses bits too. Requires the only overlay slot twitch has to use it all now.
(couldn't login to the twitch integration in the game without it active.)
Oh gee, MM was using this slot. Gotta pick one now.

 

THEN and only then does TFP change the EULA.

 

To me it appears that it's "WE can do this, You cannot.Stop"

 

KZ was out of line. Big time. Not gonna get into THAT discussion.

 

TFP can take mod/extension ideas and use them, no cost, no attribution, nada.
That was ALWAYS in the EULA. (pretty standard clause too)

 

It is the shutting down of MM, and the way it was done that stinks.
As I said, I saw too much of this back in the 90s by another company.
They did this repeatedly.

I worked for one of those companies where what we made was then put into said companies product.

No EULAs, or DMCA things to get in the way or complicate things then.

 

I didn't and don't mind that TFP added the integration. The shutting down of the extension/mod that did it first? THAT really annoys me.

They CAN do it. No arguement there.

 

You can also shoot yourself in the foot.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

 

 

(apologies if the formatting is odd, copy/paste from steam to firefox.... umf)

 

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

6 hours ago, hotpoon said:

Am I correct in saying that TFP take a 20% cut of all the streamers bits whilst integration is running?  

 

From what i know, yes. But that´s how twitch works, wasn´t the decision from TFP. If you use it, twitch gives the developers 20%. Always. Without asking.

 

And that´s why MM is a propblem. It´s a mod. And the EULA from 7 days to die states that you must not make money from mods.

Edited July 25, 2023 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[FA_Q2]

On 7/23/2023 at 5:16 AM, Roland said:

In my experience, TFP draws a distinction between you being able to watch someone else playing their game and you being able to play the game yourself when it comes to monetizing. They don’t care that someone puts a video of themselves playing behind a paywall because that’s just watching and available to anyone on the planet whether they’ve purchased the game or not. But playable content is supposed to be free for everyone who purchased the game. TFP has put out many updates at no extra charge and they expect mods to be at no extra charge as well. They do allow authors to ask for donations, however. 
 

 

I don't understand this.

 

Why should someone be barred from charging for content they create.  TFP certainly wants to make money from their creation.  If modders want to do so then they should be able to as well, no matter what TFP thinks of it.  TFP certainly does not have to support such an action yet I do not really understand that either.  

 

I does not effect them in any negative way unless I am missing something.

[Riamus]

17 minutes ago, FA_Q2 said:

I don't understand this.

 

Why should someone be barred from charging for content they create.  TFP certainly wants to make money from their creation.  If modders want to do so then they should be able to as well, no matter what TFP thinks of it.  TFP certainly does not have to support such an action yet I do not really understand that either.  

 

I does not effect them in any negative way unless I am missing something.

It is not uncommon at all for a company to not allow you to profit off their work.  You can make money off something like a tutorial or video of gameplay but not something that uses the game itself to bring in money.  A mod isn't standalone and so requires the game and so is not allowed to be monetized.  The exception is donations (money that isn't in any way required).  This is pretty standard for any game developer and even most companies with intellectual property.

 

Now, I don't know the specifics of this and so can't comment on exactly what happened or why but it appears that they were using the game to make money.  It sounds fun this thread like it was partially optional (you didn't have to spend money) but that if you wanted to do certain things that required spending money, part of what you spent had to go to the modder and that isn't usually allowed.

[Jihh]

I don't know @%$# about those mods, twitch integration, overlays and whatever was mentioned here as well, so I won't pretend I do and am thankful for corrections. (Actually I even hate when streamers use integrations, because then it doesn't feel like they are playing the game as I do, with all the effects, random zeds and random loot they get every few seconds)
But I like to understand what's going on, because I'm curious.

So that's what I understand. Please correct me, if I'm wrong or confirm if I understand it right:

TFP doesn't allow mod developers to sell their mods, which is completely normal in the business.
TFP welcomes mod developers and supports them by releasing the game in a way that makes mod development easy (no reverse engineering necessary).
TFP at first doesn't provide Twitch integration, because of other features being more important.
MM devs release MM which provides Twitch integration, which is completely fine so far.
TFP later puts Twitch integration into the game, because they now have the time to do so.
Both integrations exist side by side and everything is fine.
Now Twitch changes their handling with Twitch integration by forcing streamers to use a certain overlay and giving 20% of payments to the developer of the integration.
The result is that MM now generates money for their developers independently on if it was their intent or not. Thus the mod now breaks EULA.
TFP now informs the MM devs about that fact and asks them to do anything about it.
TFP then waits several days for any action, but the MM devs don't comply.
Therefor TFP takes action by taking down infringing streams (only those who actively advertise MM) and releasing a statement on their website about it, where they also warn other streamers who use MM, but don't actively advertise it, to stop using it, or they will be taken down as well.

Did I get the events and timeline right? If so, then I don't understand what the problem is. What do people expect TFP should do differently? They encourage modders to do their thing. There are boundaries and those are clear. MM devs, wether intentionally or not, ignored them and TFP told them about it. They didn't react, so TFP had to act, that's how it works. Everyone who don't directly profit from it (streamers who use MM, but don't advertise it) now have the chance to drop it, if they don't want any consequences. Also since TFP provides Twitch integration as well they can just use that for future content creation.

[zztong]

4 hours ago, Jihh said:

Did I get the events and timeline right?

 

I don't know if it is correct, or not, but as somebody sitting in the cheap seats and who hasn't really been able to figure out what was happening, I appreciate the effort.

[canadianbluebeer]

8 hours ago, Jihh said:

I don't know @%$# about those mods, twitch integration, overlays and whatever was mentioned here as well, so I won't pretend I do and am thankful for corrections. (Actually I even hate when streamers use integrations, because then it doesn't feel like they are playing the game as I do, with all the effects, random zeds and random loot they get every few seconds)
But I like to understand what's going on, because I'm curious.

So that's what I understand. Please correct me, if I'm wrong or confirm if I understand it right:

TFP doesn't allow mod developers to sell their mods, which is completely normal in the business.
TFP welcomes mod developers and supports them by releasing the game in a way that makes mod development easy (no reverse engineering necessary).
TFP at first doesn't provide Twitch integration, because of other features being more important.
MM devs release MM which provides Twitch integration, which is completely fine so far.
TFP later puts Twitch integration into the game, because they now have the time to do so.
Both integrations exist side by side and everything is fine.
Now Twitch changes their handling with Twitch integration by forcing streamers to use a certain overlay and giving 20% of payments to the developer of the integration.
The result is that MM now generates money for their developers independently on if it was their intent or not. Thus the mod now breaks EULA.
TFP now informs the MM devs about that fact and asks them to do anything about it.
TFP then waits several days for any action, but the MM devs don't comply.
Therefor TFP takes action by taking down infringing streams (only those who actively advertise MM) and releasing a statement on their website about it, where they also warn other streamers who use MM, but don't actively advertise it, to stop using it, or they will be taken down as well.

Did I get the events and timeline right? If so, then I don't understand what the problem is. What do people expect TFP should do differently? They encourage modders to do their thing. There are boundaries and those are clear. MM devs, wether intentionally or not, ignored them and TFP told them about it. They didn't react, so TFP had to act, that's how it works. Everyone who don't directly profit from it (streamers who use MM, but don't advertise it) now have the chance to drop it, if they don't want any consequences. Also since TFP provides Twitch integration as well they can just use that for future content creation.

 

MM was never "sold".  Having to pay for mods is a no-no.  Nobody arguing about that. (and I agree fully with that stance)

 

Twitch only has 1 overlay slot.  2 component, and 3 panel slots.  (I just double checked that)

Twitch did not change anything.   20% of all bits spent via an extension go to the author of the extension.

 

After v2 of the Twitch integration, and a major kerfluffle, the EULA was changed.

It was then that the rest of the events happened.

 

Personally I'd like to see some kind of compromise worked out.  I enjoyed using BOTH TI and MM.

 

Actually I think *I* goofed about the need for the overlay. Ooops.  

On PC, you could use the panel on the website to do actions.  The overlay was for mobile.

Why is there only ONE overlay slot?  Ask Twitch.   (there are multiple ones that could be fun to use, but... /shrug)

 

Oh, I have no idea on the timeline of when MM was informed about the changes.  zip zero nada.

(which is why I'm not commenting on it)

 

It was over a week though, from the EULA change to when Voided Pigeon  turned off MM. (he's the author)

Again, no clue on what kind of back and forth went on. zip. zero. nada.

 

 

TI still needs some work. (c'mon guys, it does. It is a WIP,  the overlay acts.. odd. at least it did for me)

Not saying it's bad, just it's a WIP.   I did use both.

 

 

 

 

[Jihh]

4 hours ago, canadianbluebeer said:

MM was never "sold".

My bad, I should've been more precise. They aren't allowed to directly make money, which is also quite common practice. Due to how Twitch integration works, they do make money, right?

 

4 hours ago, canadianbluebeer said:

Twitch did not change anything. 

So what changed that MM now makes money, or did it always?

 

4 hours ago, canadianbluebeer said:

the EULA was changed.

What exactly was changed?

 

4 hours ago, canadianbluebeer said:

20% of all bits spent via an extension go to the author of the extension.
[...]

Personally I'd like to see some kind of compromise worked out.

[...]

Why is there only ONE overlay slot?  Ask Twitch.  

So the way Twitch handles things is the reason MM makes money? I don't feel like a compromise is a reasonable expectation then, because TFP can't change how Twitch works.

[The_Great_Sephiroth]

My personal opinion is from the golden era of gaming. I never had to pay for a mod in my youth (80's and 90's) for any game. No, I didn't pirate mods, but that just wasn't a thing. Expansions and such by the devs? Yeah, we bought those. Skins, maps, sounds, weapons, etc? Community-made things were free, made by the fans, for the fans.

 

If we look at it another way, we're using the games dev-kit (in most games, this one is a tad different with modlets) and by using the kit we agreed to the rules the game devs set. It was this way in the old Quake games, Doom, etc. With Unreal we got UnrealScript (boy I miss that) but there were rules in-place then too. If you agree to a set of rules for a game, any game, you have to adhere to them.

[SkyTheAvali]

On 7/22/2023 at 5:22 PM, BFT2020 said:

Are you talking about mod creators who charge people to use their mods?  If so, that isn’t new in the EULA and TFP are right to go after anyone that creates mods for 7D2D and charge others to use it.

 

 

 No this was regarding the weaponization and spurious use of DMCA against creators who were using MM and yes there was DMCA used by  TFP against at least 1 creator. 

[FA_Q2]

On 7/25/2023 at 5:33 PM, Riamus said:

It is not uncommon at all for a company to not allow you to profit off their work.  You can make money off something like a tutorial or video of gameplay but not something that uses the game itself to bring in money.  A mod isn't standalone and so requires the game and so is not allowed to be monetized.  The exception is donations (money that isn't in any way required).  This is pretty standard for any game developer and even most companies with intellectual property.

 

Now, I don't know the specifics of this and so can't comment on exactly what happened or why but it appears that they were using the game to make money.  It sounds fun this thread like it was partially optional (you didn't have to spend money) but that if you wanted to do certain things that required spending money, part of what you spent had to go to the modder and that isn't usually allowed.

I know it is not uncommon in THIS industry but I still do not understand the reasoning for it in a general sense.  I am not really commenting on this specific incident as I do not know enough about what has been targeted but in general it seems asinine that anyone tries to limit MODS making money off a product that the modders created.

 

I see no difference between a MOD being sold and an after market scoop for my car.  They are both third party additions to a product.  There are a LOT of absolutely asinine things in modern copyright/digital 'rights' that are simple nonsensical.  I have never been furnished with a single reason that makes this practice any different from the other nonsense thing you find in the 300 page long copyright 'agreement' that comes with most software these days.

 

What am I missing?

[theFlu]

19 minutes ago, FA_Q2 said:

What am I missing?

Just that in an insane world, being sane makes you want to check into a mental institute ...

[BFT2020]

11 hours ago, SkyTheAvali said:

No this was regarding the weaponization and spurious use of DMCA against creators who were using MM and yes there was DMCA used by  TFP against at least 1 creator. 

 

It was not a case of weaponization.   The MM mod was generating money to MM through the use of a game modification (twitch bits with 20% of those donated going to the mod creator) - which in the EULA (even before the recent one in 2023) was policy that creators were not allowed to monetize modifications to the game 

 

MM and content creators using the MM mod were legally notified first from TFP that use of the MM mod was illegal per the EULA.  Anyone that ignore those legal notifications were then escalated to the next step in the legal process.

[Arma Rex]

2 hours ago, FA_Q2 said:

I know it is not uncommon in THIS industry but I still do not understand the reasoning for it in a general sense.  I am not really commenting on this specific incident as I do not know enough about what has been targeted but in general it seems asinine that anyone tries to limit MODS making money off a product that the modders created.

 

I see no difference between a MOD being sold and an after market scoop for my car.  They are both third party additions to a product.  There are a LOT of absolutely asinine things in modern copyright/digital 'rights' that are simple nonsensical.  I have never been furnished with a single reason that makes this practice any different from the other nonsense thing you find in the 300 page long copyright 'agreement' that comes with most software these days.

 

What am I missing?

You'd be better off talking to a copyright lawyer than debating the veracity of monetizing mods for video games here. I doubt many people here are going to give you a solid explanation either way.

[canadianbluebeer]

A scoop for a car vs a mod for a game are really apples and oranges.

 

A mod that used its own assets (in essence an addon)  might have a legal leg to stand on but then again ...

 

You buy your car, not license it like a game.

 

Nobody has ever taken such a thing to court (a don't look at me, that's a can of worms best left buried!) 

 

As I said, flat out selling a mod/addon/extension is a no-no.  Has been from day one.

That clause I agree 100% with.

1 hour ago, BFT2020 said:

 

It was not a case of weaponization.   The MM mod was generating money to MM through the use of a game modification (twitch bits with 20% of those donated going to the mod creator) - which in the EULA (even before the recent one in 2023) was policy that creators were not allowed to monetize modifications to the game 

 

MM and content creators using the MM mod were legally notified first from TFP that use of the MM mod was illegal per the EULA.  Anyone that ignore those legal notifications were then escalated to the next step in the legal process.

 

Eula changed July 13.  I never got a notice about that.  Never got word 1 about using MM for the years that I did use it. zip. zero. zilch. nada.

 

The EULA itself says any changes  go  into effect after 30 days.  (well, continuing to use the software after 30 days means you accept the new terms)

 

Whole other issue over getting a popup or not when it changes. Not going there.  (not lawyer so not even gonna offer an opinion, silly or otherwise)

 

Perhaps it WAS a no-no to have something like MM prior to Jul 13.  Could say the previous EULA was ambiguous enough (or not specific enough), that it slipped through the cracks, and the change was a clarification.  Dunno.

 

I've done tech support for over 30 years, and have had to defend company actions that sometimes were um "questionable".  (let's just leave some of those decisions at that, mkay?)  Having to explain to customers why said decision was done, and how:

 

Companies exist to make money. (no, really?  yes, really! d'oh!!) 

(some customers just never ever could grasp that  "no ma'am, you have to go and buy your own replacement batteries for your remote. I'm not sending a tech to replace them")

(no kidding, I actually had to explain that.  "When your car runs out of gas, you think the dealership is going to send someone to refill your tank, for FREE?"  /headdesk)

 

So TFP see an area where then can make some more money off THEIR game.   

They decide to do so.  All good.   No problems.

 

As I've repeatedly said, my issues with the whole mess is 

 

1) HOW it was presented/handled,

2) How many people are mis-stating things,

3) How many people don't seem to understand how extensions using bits work on Twitch.

 

(it's the techy in me.  /shrug)

 

Do I think TFP are going to change their minds, or that *I* can convince them to do so?

 

<insert The_Look(tm) here>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[theFlu]

9 minutes ago, canadianbluebeer said:

A scoop for a car vs a mod for a game are really apples and oranges.

It's not that bad a comparison, a physical addition to a physical property vs a licensed addition to a licensed .. item. If the first case is crystal clear, manufacturer of the addon is able to sell the addon, then I don't see how the reasoning would differ for the license versions .. other than "that's what the situation de facto is".

[Riamus]

29 minutes ago, theFlu said:

It's not that bad a comparison, a physical addition to a physical property vs a licensed addition to a licensed .. item. If the first case is crystal clear, manufacturer of the addon is able to sell the addon, then I don't see how the reasoning would differ for the license versions .. other than "that's what the situation de facto is".

Well, technically something licensed has to abide by rules through the entire use of the item.  Something sold does not.  It would be closer to compare it to a lease, though still not quite accurate because you can still buy the leased vehicle.

 

I'm not going to get into the idea of software being licensed instead of sold as I have never thought that was good practice but as long as it is licensed, of they have rules for using it, they have the right to enforce those rules.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Riamus (see edit history)

[hiemfire]

3 minutes ago, Riamus said:

they have the right to enforce those rules.

And change them as long as they notify users of the licensed product, which TFP did.

[theFlu]

15 minutes ago, Riamus said:

idea of software being licensed instead of sold as I have never thought that was good practice

Yeh, I get the system de facto, but the logic in it is lacking. It all derives from copyright, where we try to commoditize data, trying to make "data products" behave like real world objects. And then we've ended up to a place where the "data products" have worse buyer rights than real objects. Sure, unraveling any of it would be quite the business earthquake by now, but that doesn't make it make any more sense ...

[Desmoulins]

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

 

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Desmoulins (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

57 minutes ago, Desmoulins said:

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

 

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

 

I doubt that your favorite mod was taken down as part of MM's issue.  However, if they were removed, it was likely for two reasons - one they were charging people for the mod or two, they were using unlicensed copyright material in the mod.

[SylenThunder]

2 hours ago, Desmoulins said:

So do i get that right.

My favorite mod, that took a year to make and pop up (VRoid Player Models) got shot down via DMCA request from the devs as part of this giant drama. An innocent mod, that was already hard to make for the dev was shot down by the very game's devs because they are after some other mod that is trying to make money off of it?

 

This mod single handedly made me reinstall and play the game again, made me actually have some fun again with the game and it may now be gone forever because the devs wildly shot DMCA's around. I have absolutely zero tolerance when it comes to shooting against the modding community, i don't care what the devs say and if they "support" mods, if they cared about their modding community they should have made sure they target the right people.

 

I'll be honest, looking at the data for this mod, it could have been shut down by someone other than TFP quite easily. Especially if that "innocent mod" was using assets from a number of sources where those models are available.