1. Find your way through the deepest dungeon in the 18th Mini Mapping Contest Poll.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. A brave new world lies beyond the seven seas. Join the 34th Modeling Contest today!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hive 3 Remoosed BETA - NOW LIVE. Go check it out at BETA Hive Workshop! Post your feedback in this new forum BETA Feedback.
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Reforged Dont make mods, boycott Reforged [EULA Update]

Discussion in 'Patch & Reforged Discussion' started by Nudl9, Jan 29, 2020.

  1. Blarto

    Blarto

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I don't think arguing about the EULA is productive. I think its a red herring and is just Blizzard lawyers covering themselves up. But here is what I meant by the comment about Vexorian:

    Vexorian could convince an employee of blizzard to "agree" (by tricking them to click "I agree") to a new vjass TOS that makes all IP owned by Blizzard retroactively belong to him (the emplyoee = blizzard therefore Blizzard "agreed" and subject to lawsuit). Since Warcraft 3 campaign is largely made out of the World Editor, and the new World Editor has Vjass support, it would take effect immediately and retroactively on all Warcraft3 IP & Derivatives, including WoW, HotS, and Hearthstone. Don't get me wrong, this is 101% absurd and ridiculous, but this is in essence what the new EULA is for us. Except in our case, we are the "employees" of our own business and our "IP" is tiny in comparison to Blizzard's. We don't agree to jack sheet even if we click 100 check boxes in some random half baked software. Its not enforceable because if it was, Blizzard would lose its own IP in nano seconds, as Blizzard's own employees would sell it on the black market with this "EULA trick".

    As I said before, the real problem here is Blizzard is showing intent to police bnet and is destroying the old bnet 1.0 platform that we had for 18 years. It is a sad month and I do not think they will revert back to old bnet standards. 18 years of gaming history, gone for less than nothing...
     
  2. Homor

    Homor

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    534
    Resources:
    6
    Maps:
    6
    Resources:
    6
    There's also the complication of playing Warcraft 3 on a low-spec machine, which was perfectly fine and possible all the way up until Reforged came out. Now classic users need to download 30gbs of data that my computer just doesn't have to spare. People like me who've been playing WC3 just fine for years have now had their game rendered totally unplayable.
     
  3. Chaosy

    Chaosy

    Tutorial Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Resources:
    18
    Icons:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    10
    Tutorials:
    6
    Resources:
    18
    Fair I guess.
    Still, you'll have to upgrade eventually ;P
     
  4. Homor

    Homor

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    534
    Resources:
    6
    Maps:
    6
    Resources:
    6
    Quite honestly, from everything I've seen of Blizzard's "new" version of the game, I think once I find a stable substitute I might never purposefully never "upgrade".
     
  5. Wark

    Wark

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    750
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    The bottom line is that the EULA does not matter in the slightest.
    If people want to go against it, then go against it and ignore it.

    What does matter:
    what's going to happen to this game itself? Are we destroying our community by over-inflating this?

    Tower defense, RTS, RPG, turn-based genre concepts etc. cannot be copyrighted. By definition, it's a style.
    So what if Blizzard has ownership over a character you make in a mod's story? Are you not creative enough to tweak it, or to change it for future use?
    I'm just going to name my next zombie survival map "Pony Venture Ups" or something stupid like that, and change the character names.
    For 3D and 2D modelers, whose to say this can't be part of your profile?
    Let's be honest, you'll probably be making much better stuff in the future if you're serious about the profession.

    Let's try to turn this around. We've been doing it for this long, right?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  6. DracoL1ch

    DracoL1ch

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,043
    Resources:
    2
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    pshh, we have libs to support widescreen at 1.26
    sure, being mad it's our fault, just like blizzard's fault is to release half-baked product for it's full price
     
  7. Wark

    Wark

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    750
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Well, that's the other side of the coin.
    It's also why I put everything on hold once the Reforged changes started happening, and didn't preorder.
    Those who don't have previous versions of the editor will have to wait until the patches come out. I'd put more pressure on when they come out.

    On that note, if anyone wants version 1.28 of the world editor, hit me up. Just keep it on a USB backup and a separate folder,
    and try not to use exploits in your triggers and such.
    I never liked the 24 player limit from 1.29 onwards anyways. The only issue will be changing Player 13 to Neutral Passive or Neutral Hostile for post 1.29 support, which can be done with an initialization trigger.
     
  8. MaoLi

    MaoLi

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Who says this? You?

    Here's what I say:
    Is the eula unenforceable? Possibly.
    Is it completely devoid of any legal effect against the user/modder whatsoever? Likely not.

    If it's harmless as you say, why don't they change the wording (for example reverting to the old one)?

    I think you (and me both) have some limited understanding of the legal repercussions of this contract, but Activision-Blizzard has an army of professional lawyers who sat down and wrote this. They know the IP protection law better than you or me. They chose this wording for a reason, is what I think. If it really were useless for the company, the lawyers wouldn't have been paid and the eula would have stayed the same.
     
  9. Wark

    Wark

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    750
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    It is what I say, and for good reasoning.
    It's definitely harmless if you can circumvent it. I have confidence in people's creativity to do so, and potential to grow past it.
    I'd laugh up a storm if Blizzard tries to make a mint off something coined "Pony Venture Ups" if it became popular.

    My main point is what we're doing to our community.
    This game's community still has the power over what happens to it.
    If people stop playing, no lawyer or company can ever bring that back, and we might as well move on.

    Besides. Even if Blizzard takes ownership over one of our mods, we, the people who actually play it, all know who really made it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  10. MaoLi

    MaoLi

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    with all due respect, there's no good reasoning to be found in your answer. It may be possible to circumvent the eula (when not to completely breach it) without consequences, but it's not certain nor to be taken for granted. Your faith should be directed to something more grounded in reality than some abstract and unclear "creativity". We're talking law here.

    Me too :peasant-grin:

    That's false. I argue it's more what THEY are doing to this community, with all the idiotic "new features", of which the eula changes are just one minority.
     
  11. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    15,083
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Big deal.
     
  12. Wark

    Wark

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    750
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Laws are made to be broken, especially unjust laws.
     
  13. Amigoltu

    Amigoltu

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    297
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Why would we go back that far? People are mostly pissed about new EULA and problems with latest patches. Both of which came with reforged, mostly. Patch 1.29 or even 1.30 are still decent, and 1.29 actually has SharpCraft still working with it.
     
  14. Drake53

    Drake53

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    475
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'd like to know, since nobody seems to talk about this case but it affects me, what part of the EULA makes you come to this conclusion?
     
  15. Brambleclaw

    Brambleclaw

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    944
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    The employee does not represent Blizzard in a legal capacity in that way. You would need at least a Director or someone with apparent authority. Moreover, the description you present is a "mistake" unilateral mistake at best and fraud at worst, rather than an agreement.
     
  16. Blarto

    Blarto

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Blizzard CEO is an employee of Blizzard as well. Similarly, I could have "agreed" to the editor TOS by "mistake" or argue that Blizzard defrauded me. It works both ways. Just whoever has most money for lawyers wins. It's a shitty system but the alternative is literal gang war.

    Blizzard owns the battle.net platform. Before the maps were peer2peer distributed so Blizzard could afford to be 100% hands-off. Now Blizzard uses stolen/borrowed/adapted GHost bot code as a central server. Once you upload the file to battle.net hostbot, it is in their database, and they have rights to do with it as they wish, within the reasonable framework of the law. By using warcraft3, you "agree" (bullshit but still "agree") to the general license+EULA, which encompasses all of it. Using 3rd parties merely protects you from the Editor-related clauses of EULA as a creator. 3rd parties do not protect you or your map as a User of battle.net.

    Edit: Technically they can retroactively try to force you to not use the 3rd parties, but they have to have proof (spyware) that you are actively doing this. Typically the way this is resolved is companies wait until something becomes popular so they can C&D it (otherwise its a never-ending hamster-bashing whack-a-mole game).

    Edit2: The way I would resolve this if I was a suit wearing asshole at Blizz HQ, is I would make battlenet2.0 not accept any map not saved in 1.32 editor, and have a special certification process (only bnet2.0 platform can certify maps to be hostable). This is in effect what happens in SC2, BTW. Until this, or something similar to this happens, this EULA does not affect you at all (even if you use 1.32 editor), in my opinion. But I'm just some random guy on the internet, so its up to you. I already gave my advice on page 2 and I can't really say more about this at this time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  17. Devalut

    Devalut

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,491
    Resources:
    3
    Spells:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Is reforged a mobile game?
    Warcraftreforged mobile game.png
     
  18. disruptive_

    disruptive_

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    248
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0

    Things are not so black and white. About your 1.32 observations, regaring only 1), 3), 4) and 5):
    1) I'm pretty sure that Blizzard doesn't care about the computer file, but rather the contents of such file.
    "Ownership of files", akin to the ownership of ie. books, is not clear on most systems that rely on anacronous definition of things. We are speaking here about civil property and contract systems, not intellectual property. Some IP systems treat the concept of "copy of a program" not as a file, but as the hardware that contains the file whose contents are indeed a copyrightable program. This makes sense on retail software that is not a thing right now. On downloaded software this interpretation is complete madness, as the "copy of a program" becomes my entire hard drive.
    TL,DR: legal treatments of files is a mess.
    3) When Blizzard says that they own possible IP rights we could have, they are not even talking about a license, they are talking about a complete assignment of those rights. Still, these kinds of clauses are contractual provisions, so Blizzard must enforce the contract first, until then, we are clear. They are the ones interested in acquiring IP rights that they don't contribute to create anyway. Also, assignment of copyrights in most systems is a solemn act that recquires some kind of registration or special form (my system for example). Even, Blizzard doesn't mention that the assignment must be free of charge also, and forcing or contemplating a free IP assignment is abusive and maybe even be directly or implicitely prohibited on copyright systems that grant authors the right to gain a remuneration.
    DE FACTO assignment don't exist. This is because we acquire copyrights the moment we create an eligible work (original expresion, fixated). If Blizzard or any other person that is not the original author or titular of the copyrights wants to acquire them, an act of assignment must be made first (with all solemnities needed). Blizzard can do that because of the contract, but they must exercise the clause first (No DE FACTO). The enforceability of that clause might be doubious as most of you already said. Some of you might be protected by your consumer law systems, as the EULA is an adhesion contract on a massive comercialization context.
    This clause was already on the Custom Game Acceptable Use Policy also.
    4) Since your DE FACTO interpretation is not true, then in a practical case, i would say that if Blizzard contacts a modder to materialize an IP assignment you can just assume the contrary: there are copyrights or other IP's (ie. trademarks) implicated.
    5) If you assign your copyrights or other IP (ie. a trademark, like DOTA) to a third party (ie. Valve) , then Blizzard can sue you for CONTRACTUAL BREACH. But they are the ones that must make the move. Here you can also atempt the unenforceability of the clause as a defense.




    TL;DR: Guys you all have your IP, especially copyrights as these are granted automatically. Blizzard can only potentially acquire them (most likely paying you). Still, remember you are all using "peasant" and "peon" models and their icons.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  19. Blarto

    Blarto

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Resources:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    As I said before, I think it's just Blizzard lawyers covering their asses to protect Blizzard from lawsuits involving them hosting some maps. For example I could make my own IP, upload it to bnet, and sue Blizzard for copyright infringement. That's why they want a de-facto license in the EULA.

    There's no point of arguing about the legalities of it. Find a lawyer and pay him 1000-10000 bucks to do research for you. Its not worth it for random wc3 maps. Push comes to shove, you were working for free before the 28th Jan 2020, and you will continue working for free after.

    The rest of the crap in the EULA is not enforceable by any sane law in any sane country, in my opinion. Because if it was, people might as well forget about civilisation and just torch the place and go back to living in huts (See case of a manga studio in Japan as an example of what can happen when there's a glitch in copyright dispute resolution which hits a crazy person with crazy ideas).
     
  20. disruptive_

    disruptive_

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    248
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I posted because if people read your post, then they might be completely discouraged to doing things they love. Not to just discuss the legalities for its own sake.

    I'm pretty sure the IP transfer clause is related to the DOTA - DOTA 2 (trademark) case but it can also function as you suggest (a defensive use).

    Covering asses is what we do to be fair, so you are right about that.