Dont make mods, boycott Reforged [EULA Update]

[deepstrasz]

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.

 

[Wark]

Laws are made to be broken, especially unjust laws.

 

[Amigoltu]

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.

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.

 

[Drake53]

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'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?

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

 

[Blarto]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Devalut]

Is reforged a mobile game?

 

[disruptive_]

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

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.

 

[Blarto]

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).

 

[disruptive_]

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.

 

[Tommi Gustafsson]

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?

 

[Blarto]

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?

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.

 

[Tommi Gustafsson]

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.

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.

 

[disruptive_]

Copyright exists not because Blizzards says it exists or not. If you say you have a copyrighted work and Blizzard says you don't, then a court will determine the outcome. You still must protect your interests, as if you already know you have copyrights implicated. For example, Blizzard assumes they already have all your IP, but in this case i already said that this is not entirely true and they are just anticipating themselves. So why are you so timid?

In your case you can make a claim to Blizzard AND (if you know who is uploading the map with copyrighted material) you can sue the injust uploader by copyright infringenment (unauthorized distribution principally). You can even threaten to sue Blizzard as they are publicly displaying your material without authorization. Saying that you are not binded to the EULA but somehow you made a custom wc3 map is dubious though.

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

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".

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.

(1) -> its not that legal treatment of files is a mess, you are just trying to ratioanlize it from logic rather than subscribing to the massive legal fiction that underlies it.

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.



@Tommi the old EULA already said it owned your file just not the copyrightabel materials behind it neccessarily. So Blizzard is free to host your map as they see fit, just that is where their rights end. They cannot make a new game based on that map if that game itself is infringing on your copyright.

 

[Blarto]

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".

Argument about what exactly? From my point of view this EULA doesn't affect me (and probably no one else who is a member of this website), so I'm writing my opinions here for other people's benefit, not to argue or boss you around. Calling my opinions terrible arguments will not benefit you in any way, nor it will convince me that I am in danger from Blizzard's nonsensical EULA.

I'm not here to argue or debate. If you think I'm arguing (i.e trying to convince you to change your mind and do something with regards to wc3:re), then good luck to you. Just don't hurt yourself.

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.

If they haven't done due diligence and/or research, then they will know its copyrighted when you submit a C&D or DMCA to them in their mail box (or email). It has to be properly formatted (legally speaking) or else they will ignore it. After that, its a matter of dispute resolution (aka lawyers, courts, and lots of money), or they can just comply and remove all traces of the IP from their business.

Consider it this way: You made a nice painting and have proof you did it (somewhat of a de-facto copyright). Then someone took a picture of it and made a nice sculpture of it, putting it in their business building's lobby, and using it in their promotional materials etc. You, the original author of the painting, might have a case there, or might not have a case there. It depends on the court battle & settlements.

 

[disruptive_]

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.

Please explain what act falls upon a computer file you download on the internet.
Also explain what act falls upon the CD of a program you buy on a store.
Finally explain what act can fall upon a copyright right, like the right to reproduce the code of a computer program.

You will, most likely, answer only the last two.

 

[Xecutor_ShamanX]

They may own my maps(I haven't uploaded it yet), but they cannot own my ideas. That is my INTELLECTUAL property.

 

[Blarto]

They may own my maps(I haven't uploaded it yet), but they cannot own my ideas. That is my INTELLECTUAL property.

For the sake of clarifying so people don't get wrong impressions. Your IP is only "yours", if you can prove it in a court of law (or can liquidate any "thieves" mafia style). You can have one thousand EULAS wrapped around it, but ultimately it all comes down to "what's it worth" for you to defend your IP (and what country you are trying to defend it at).

 

[Hazop]

Honestly I think the Anti-Reforged shit storm was soooo over blown, EULA was slightly reworded and now everyone's up in arms and calling a quit to mod making. Personally I doubt my maps would ever even reach industry standards and even if they did, I wouldn't care, I'd still make new maps. And even then, its not like I can't go to court over it. I ain't giving up mapping or 'boycotting' an entire game from my childhood for the sake of 'morality' or other nonsense. Though that's just me, of course there are some valid points as to do so, but I feel like they're minor issues that have been overblown for the sake of being overblown.

 

[Cespie]

This is incorrect, at least in the United States you cannot copyright general ideas or concepts. The other examples you used are correct, though.

I am aware of the precedence in US court regarding game mechanics and concepts, so you're right in calling me out on that.
That being said, "where there's a will, there's a way". I'm sure that the right team of lawyers could find some angle to push this.

 

[Amigoltu]

Now this video actually gives some very good ideas about dealing with the new EULA: (watch from 6:20 mins)

 

[Hazop]

Now this video actually gives some very good ideas about dealing with the new EULA: (watch from 6:20 mins)

Mhm, make it racist and offensive gotcha

 

[Amigoltu]

Mhm, make it racist and offensive gotcha

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.

Btw, have a sense of humour

 

[Hazop]

As if Blizzard would allow that, if they 'own' they can yeet it and/or ban the map creator.

So basically, GL hf

 

[deepstrasz]

As if Blizzard would allow that, if they 'own' they can yeet it and/or ban the map creator.

Blizzard: 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

 

[Hazop]

Blizzard: 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

fucking lol'ed so hard at that

 

[Drake53]

I was thinking about ways to circumvent the EULA, since I refuse to waive my moral rights, and just thought of a very obvious solution: just put a license file in the map lol.

Can a lawyer answer, would this actually work and would my license have precedence over Blizzard's EULA? I'm guessing for it to take effect, Blizzard would first have to be notified of the presence of the license in the map, so that if they reject the terms, they can ban the map from their platform.

Also,

Spoiler

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

 

[Blarto]

Can a lawyer answer, would this actually work and would my license have precedence over Blizzard's EULA?

Not a lawyer. 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.

The easiest way to protect yourself is to open-source your project under GPL (strict GPL, not LGPL or derivatives), that way you got the FSF backing you if Blizzard tries to do anything funny. If Blizzard tries to appropriate GPL code without adhering to GPL license, they are breaching FSF guidelines and that organisation might back you in your lawsuit (or it might not, but its better than nothing). I'm pretty sure you cannot waive GPL rights as GPL is a license that is given to the "public" as a whole, by the FSF (a 3rd party), on YOUR behalf (you don't technically fully own your code/art at that point, the public does).

Edit: there is a legal argument here on validity of GPL-ing code written in proprietary language (i.e jass). I'm not aware of any legal cases involving that edge case. In this case, my page 2 advice about not using LUA might be counter-productive (you can GPL lua easily, not sure about jass).

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.

 

[Drake53]

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.

I don't think anyone at Blizzard needs to check any checkboxes really, example:

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.

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:

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'm pretty sure a link to the source code is also allowed, so you can still optimize your map.

 

[Blarto]

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.

Well we need an actual lawyer or judge here. 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.

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.

Chinese law is different. If you live in Asia, you can pretty much steal entire wc3 source code and no one would care (see Netease). I mean Activision-Blizzard can send ninjas to remove you I guess.

 

[Drake53]

Well we need an actual lawyer or judge here.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

 

[kovadarra]

They couldn't take down policy-infringing maps in the past because they were peer-hosted, that is, the players downloaded the map off the hosting player, right? When they host the downloads on their servers, only then can they curate the maps.

I want to use copyrighted music or whatever content in my map, so I can't develop for Reforged. I can make single player maps and refer players to 1.31 installation (or do single-player maps in 1.32 bypass curation?). Then, if some community 1.31 server surfaces, I could even make multiplayer maps.

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.

 

[catlover47]

yo man i just like makin maps

 

[Blarto]

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.

This is why ultimately this EULA doesn't matter. Sure copyright your music/art if you wanna feel safe. But its Blizzard effectively laying claim to a dumpster bin and telling everyone they own it now. They don't need to steal anything, as they easily just replicate your art/code with their own internal staff. I mean Warcraft/Starcraft is "stolen" from Warhammer/Warhammer40k. They can easily do the same for this "next DOTA" or w/e.

So yeah. GJ Blizzard you own it now. Enjoy evicting the "hobos".

Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure the Copyright-stealing Chinese Netease Wc3 has a better and safer modding scene now. People are even making money off it.

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

These arguments are complete ass because they all rely on Blizzard unintentionally agreeing to something through backwords wording in the contract you are writing. You cannot unintentionally agree to something. For a contract to exist there much be clear intentions to create a legal relationship between both parties.

 

[Drake53]

unintentionally agreeing

Just like their EULA then.

 

[disruptive_]

When you use the term license, unless you want to contribute to the terminologic mess, always specify if you are refering to a the license of an intellectual property right (ie. copyright) or to information as a whole ("software license"). On this last case, maybe there is information that is protected by copyright or other IP. But maybe not. Or not all of it.
When you use it to identify composite agreements like the Blizzard's EULA you are kissing corporations asses every time.

Speaking of copyright, don't fear the Custom Game Use policy so much but rather fear the fact that, as the WorldEditor is indeed a game editor and not a Game Engine, most of your works will be an enormous catalog of loose modifications (not even protected by copyright) and derivative works (protected if you have a copyright license to do derivative works).
The status of derivative works, the gross of modding, got more precarious with the update of the Custom Game Use Policy on a clause that nobody speaked of yet. I wrote an enormous wall just here but erased it.
There could be rare cases of original works. The line between a derivative work and an original work is perhaps one of the most debatable topics of copyright law ever and on the case of wc3 modding has some complex aspects. Here the hammer must fall. I also wrote a fucking wall just here but i erased it too. Who cares.
If all of you really want to escape any power play of Blizzard then you must first purge all your assets and maps from their material (ie. custom models with custom textures). I saw on the map section a handful examples of entire maps with not a single asset of Blizzard (direct or indirectly) and with a game experience completely different, so maybe we actually have cases of complete original works. Some use copyrighted material from a third party which is even more dangerous though. Only these authors can reasonably worry about their copyrights. And on these cases, as i said, there are key aspects you could just know of your copyright law or consumer law so you don't worry too much about the EULA.

 

[Nightmare2077]

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:

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!

 

[Amigoltu]

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:

The reddit post below sums it up, more or less:

Hidden

Blizzard makes various small changes, but nothing substantial. Not even basic functionality for either multiplayer (ladder, tournaments, chat), or singleplayer (custom games & campaigns). For two months now. Just as you pointed out. Just look at comments from new patch notes page.

Honestly, I am starting to feel bit sorry for blizz devs. The execs deserved this 100%, but the poor devs man...

 

[DracoL1ch]

this one is intended to cover blizz on any kind of court, its not like they're haunting for those maps willingly. If somebody complains they will act, but otherwise - it's extra work with no money included, so they wont give a fuck

 

[Selaya]

[ ... ]
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.

 

[InsaneMonster]

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...

 

[Blarto]

I think most devs in AAA companies have less rights and freedom in their own creative work that we are lead to believe...

That is correct. The video game industry as a whole has been on a steady decline (some might go as far as to say it's a crash) since the 2009-2012 period. Some critics even say Golden age of gaming was from the late 1990s to 2010.

As a result, there is less profit to go around, which means the devs will make concessions, as they gotta make money somehow. Those concessions include losing creative rights and flat out submission to more ruthless business practices and the people who promote them. I've seen many a-good-game ruined by trashy business practices such as ruthless monatization of base features. But that's life. We gotta wait for this garbage to blow over and the industry to start-a-new.

One can only hope AB leaves Wc3 alone and doesn't shove Microtransaction garbage down our throats, but it seems the intent to push "modern" monatization practices is there already.

 

[Jahjahbinks]

Morally--this makes me want to not make maps.
Logically--I realize it doesnt matter, I'm not going to make dota3, even so, who knows if the eula would stand
Realistically--Reforged has demoralized me and near routed my love for Wc3. Love makes you see things that arent there yet. So I have lost fucks to give to creating maps.

 

[Lothar1994]

i was going to make some lord of the rings style melee siges from the Shadow of War (Minas Ithil), Amol Sul, Fornost, Carn Dum Battle for Middle Earth II Rise of the Which King, Minas Tirith, Helms Deep, Edoras, and Dol Guldur. i guessing these would get demanded to be taken down or what not?

I feel like making a similar shirt like the gun owner shirt of "I will not comply" but for the Eula. having the Warcraft 3 Reforged logo in the back with the letters EULA in a Red circle with a line through it and the words the words " I Will not Comply". maybe i will now that i think about it.

Edit: just made a 1920x1080 wallpaper. I used to love making maps. i just tried to import and edit the texture paths and the import manager seems broken. so long as this game's EULA remains this way and the map editor remain broken like this (only from what i could find) i not playing or making anything. I probably go back to making SWTOR and Warcraft based Skyrim Followers. if anyone here plays Skyrim and would like some followers made from warcraft just look up Arturios on Nexusmods thats me. can't do anything too advanced just yet but i am getting there.

here my new wallpaper for my pc

Spoiler: Image

 

[Map Designer]

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.

isnt that self-contradictory statement? is it written by blizzard? how can someone else own MY map? ; nevermind that wasnt written by blizzard

Blizzard 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.

so if @Ralle update his WC3, blizzard can shut down hive workshop? wtf

 

[deepstrasz]

so if @Ralle update his WC3, blizzard can shut down hive workshop? wtf

Where do you get such unthoughtful ideas from?

 

[Map Designer]

Where do you get such unthoughtful ideas from?

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.

 

[deepstrasz]

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.

You're referring to maps now, before it was about the site...
Make up your mind.