deepstrasz
Map Reviewer
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 20,263
Big deal.Besides. Even if Blizzard takes ownership over one of our mods, we, the people who actually play it, all know who really made it.
Big deal.Besides. Even if Blizzard takes ownership over one of our mods, we, the people who actually play it, all know who really made it.
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.Interesting. If you hate (recent) Blizzard patches, surely you would go back to 1.24 without the new natives and wide screen support.
Because if you think 1.28 or 1.30 is fine, then 1.35 or whatever patch is required to make reforged what it was meant to be.
That being said, I do understand that using 1.30 until shit is fixed is a good option.
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?Maps made under NO OFFICIAL Blizzard editor (100% 3rd party tools):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) Blizzard might update EULA to exclude this option in the future for no other reason than corporate greed/stupidity
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...
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.
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?
New EULA is not retroactive on old maps, yet.
Old EULA Maps(1.28- editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
That's all.
New EULA maps (1.32+ editor):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) The user agrees that he used the world editor lawfully (according to what Blizzard defines the "law")
3) Any original concepts and ideas are licensed (BY YOU) to blizzard to use it how they see fit, DEFACTO (no contract needed, you void all contract possibility or actions of law by uploading)
4) If you cannot assign license or claim copyright for any reason, Blizzard can just assume your stuff as copyright-free and use it as such
5) In an event 3rd party claims license, Blizzard either will negotiate with license owner (0.0001% chance), or remove map based on copyright laws (99.9999% chance)
1.31 editor is kinda in gray area since it uses 1.32 software, and is a "beta" phase of 1.32, but also technically not under new EULA.
And lastly,
Maps made under NO OFFICIAL Blizzard editor (100% 3rd party tools):
Once a user posts a map on bnet:
1) That specific map FILE is a property of Blizzard and they can do whatever they want with it
2) Blizzard might update EULA to exclude this option in the future for no other reason than corporate greed/stupidity
One question: Let's say that our association does not accept the new EULA, since we do not want to give any IPs to Blizzard. But if somebody else takes one of our maps and uploads it to Bnet 2.0, what happens? How does Blizzard know that it was uploaded there without our consent?
And how does Blizzard know that it is copyrighted? We do not have Reforged (they forced me to refund it for not accepting the EULA), so we cannot even know what is going on in bnet 2.0.This was answered already in this thread. TLDR if you have a legit copyrighted content and someone steals (or "steals" *wink* *wink*) it and puts it in a map, you should be able to submit a claim to Blizzard just like any big company like Nintendo can. If Blizzard ignores you, then its lawyer time.
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.
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.
This is actually a terrible argument. "if worst case scenario in fantasy where everything is how i say it is and people just believe X and Y then therefore my proposition is true".
And how does Blizzard know that it is copyrighted? We do not have Reforged (they forced me to refund it for not accepting the EULA), so we cannot even know what is going on in bnet 2.0.
A game contains a number of copyrightable works from Art and Music etc. The programming of the game or file is copyrightable as a "literary work". So a games assets will always follow under a "classical" head of copyrightable material. In the copyright world, games and programs do not present any new categories of material.
They may own my maps(I haven't uploaded it yet), but they cannot own my ideas. That is my INTELLECTUAL property.
I am aware of the precedence in US court regarding game mechanics and concepts, so you're right in calling me out on that.This is incorrect, at least in the United States you cannot copyright general ideas or concepts. The other examples you used are correct, though.
Mhm, make it racist and offensive gotchaNow this video actually gives some very good ideas about dealing with the new EULA: (watch from 6:20 mins)
And blizzard owns it, according to their own EULA. Thus, let people create all kinds of memes. Blizz can have a field day trying to take down all of those.Mhm, make it racist and offensive gotcha
Blizzard: Glad you could purchase fan.As if Blizzard would allow that, if they 'own' they can yeet it and/or ban the map creator.
fucking lol'ed so hard at thatBlizzard: Glad you could purchase fan.
Fan: Watch your tone with me, Blizzard. You may have Warcraft III rights but I am still your superior as a map creator.
Blizzard: As if I could forget. Listen fan, there's something about custom games you should know. Oh no. It's too late. These maps have all been memed. They may look fine now but it's only a matter of time before they get yeeted.
Fan: What?
Blizzard: This entire custom game movement must be banned.
Fan: How can you even consider that? There's got to be another way!
Blizzad: Dam it fan, as Activision I order you to delete these maps.
Fan: You are not Blizzard Entertainment anymore and nor would I obey that command even if you were.
Blizzard: Then I must consider this an act of illegality.
Fan: Illegality? Have you lost your mind Blizzard?
Blizzard: Have I? Fan, as your intellectual property owner, I relieve you of your creations and restrict your access to the server.
Game Developer: Blizzard, you can't just...
Blizzad: It is done. Those of you who have the will to ban, follow me. The rest of you, get out of my sight.
Fan: You've just crossed a terrible threshold, Blizzard.
Blizzad: Game Dev?
Game Developer: Sorry Blizzard but I can't watch you do this.
TL DL: Blizzard: as if I could forget (maps being memes).
Also
Can a lawyer answer, would this actually work and would my license have precedence over Blizzard's EULA?
I don't think anyone at Blizzard needs to check any checkboxes really, example:But by choosing to upload a map to bnet you "agree" to the EULA before Blizzard "reads" and "agrees" to your "agreement". Also I'm pretty sure any judge would throw this out on its ass, as no one at Blizzard actually signed anything or checked any checkboxes.
As you can see, the licensee (Blizzard) accepts the license simply by redistributing the work (by hosting the map on their platform).European Union Public License 1.2 said:10. Acceptance of the Licence
The provisions of this Licence can be accepted by clicking on an icon ‘I
agree’ placed under the bottom of a window displaying the text of this Licence
or by affirming consent in any other similar way, in accordance with the rules
of applicable law. Clicking on that icon indicates your clear and irrevocable
acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions.
Similarly, you irrevocably accept this Licence and all of its terms and
conditions by exercising any rights granted to You by Article 2 of this
Licence, such as the use of the Work, the creation by You of a Derivative Work
or the Distribution or Communication by You of the Work or copies thereof.
I'm pretty sure a link to the source code is also allowed, so you can still optimize your map.Edit: 2, the flipside of GPL is you cannot "protect" your own map anymore, as you'll be breaching your own license terms. So yeah. You'll have to contain all "un-optimized" source code for your map in the map.
I don't think anyone at Blizzard needs to check any checkboxes really, example:
As you can see, the licensee (Blizzard) accepts the license simply by redistributing the work (by hosting the map on their platform).
Either way, with the current EULA, I can't see myself "choosing to upload a map to bnet". If I were to distribute it, it would be on github, epicwar, maybe here on hive, but not bnet.
Agreed.Well we need an actual lawyer or judge here.
I think if Blizzard rejects the license, this should be treated similarly as a map that contains copyrighted 3rd party content. For this, their shiny new 'report map' button could be used.Technically, Blizzard doesn't consciously choose what to distribute, its users do. And lets assume there's no proof the original author uploads the map to bnet, but its some random user instead. There's no staff at blizzard approving it what to publish on battle.net (yet), let alone a para-legal officer that knows the law, so I'm not sure what EU judge would say about this.
For me it's not about the money, only for Blizzard it is, otherwise their EULA would've been similar to that of sites like youtube:If you distribute via github under some license (GPL or otherwise), and never use new bnet/wc3 (in a capacity a legal-discovery-action or judge can't prove), then I'm pretty sure that license takes precedence 100% of the time. How much money will you win? who knows. Blizzard can just comply and delete the maps instead, and pay some minor Fine to the EU/USA or whatever country fined them for breach.
Google Terms of Service said:Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
I've noticed people deplore waiving one's work to Blizzard. All my code is useless outside of WC3 any way so I don't care about Blizzard claiming my code, whatever that even means. I do acknowledge this is different for those making visual assets.
I don't think anyone at Blizzard needs to check any checkboxes really, example:
As you can see, the licensee (Blizzard) accepts the license simply by redistributing the work (by hosting the map on their platform).
Either way, with the current EULA, I can't see myself "choosing to upload a map to bnet". If I were to distribute it, it would be on github, epicwar, maybe here on hive, but not bnet.
EDIT:
I'm pretty sure a link to the source code is also allowed, so you can still optimize your map.
Just like their EULA then.unintentionally agreeing
Oh, no problem whatsoever. I only spent a few thousand hours making my Warhammer mod over the last 10 years, it's totally okay if now it becomes unplayable.
Additionally, everyone can play it in the old Warcraft 3 client, just launch the classic and pretend reforged doesn't exist, that's an entirely valid option!
Long live Warcraft III Unforged!
The reddit post below sums it up, more or less:It has been a couple of months. Are there any updates on Blizzard's policies?
Specifically I'm interested if they enforce the part about all maps with 3rd party copyrighted content being banned. Has anyone's map got banned? Are 'copyrighted' games being hosted and played?
A bit of context:
Their very own fucking damn fault for lacking the acumen to discern that this venture's doomed from the get-go.[ ... ]
Honestly, I am starting to feel bit sorry for blizz devs. The execs deserved this 100%, but the poor devs man...
Their very own fucking damn fault for lacking the acumen to discern that this venture's doomed from the get-go.
If you sign up for a cruise on a ship that's fucking leaking everywhere, don't complain about the inevitable, ensuing shipwreck.
I think most devs in AAA companies have less rights and freedom in their own creative work that we are lead to believe...
Hiveworkshop is a place for creating and sharing mods for WC3.
Their new EULA affects everyone on Hive and you should not be make any mods for WC3.
The conditions in the EULA are not acceptable for our community and i recommend everyone boycott the game for the sake of this community.
I don't expect their rules to hold under court, but you should be careful anyway.
Take your time to read it, it's not that long.
The short version is in the picture.
so if @Ralle update his WC3, blizzard can shut down hive workshop? wtfBlizzard reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to remove Custom Games from its systems and/or require that a Custom Game developer cease any and/or all development and distribution of a Custom Game.
Where do you get such unthoughtful ideas from?so if @Ralle update his WC3, blizzard can shut down hive workshop? wtf
they can ask development of any map to cease!!!Where do you get such unthoughtful ideas from?
You're referring to maps now, before it was about the site...they can ask development of any map to cease!!!
thats non-sense lol
Edit: ah my bad,
they cant shut down my maps becuz I still didnt update from 1.26
Edit: not that I think this should hold for those who updated. such conditions are non conditions in my eye. I guess the law is the same too, but I cant be 100% sure.