I'm not the only Singaporean here. There's an old regular who is also my friend Lowyhong who is also Singaporean but erm he doesn't post much anymore. We're local born Chinese, so we don't understand Malay, just the basic words. :) There's a good number of PC gamers here but mostly the older gamers especially from the 80s. And yeah a good majority of SG gamers are just into dota, blizzard games, and CS.

Yep I am from the 80s' too. I like Blizzard games unitl I find myself keep disconnected from my single player games in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. Yep M1 wireless sucks, but I am not letting Blizzard off the hook to force AODRM on single player games. Hence I find GoG a perfect fit for me since all of their games can be played offline.

deleted

"He can't however tell Valve to not give the mod to the people Chesko already sold the mod to through Valve" as I quoted you. If fore tells Chesko not to distribute for profit it is the same thing as telling Valve not to- same as music licensors telling R* to pull songs from GTASA is the same as telling Valve to pull them. Valve cannot arbitrarily decide to keep offering 'Killing in the Name Of' even as an 'original GTASA' download just because people 'bought' it with GTASA once R* tells them they don't have the rights any more. Licensing works both ways, not just the way Valve wants it to or when it's 2k backed by RIAA doing the telling. Valve not checking that Chesko had permission is a defendable practice- but only until such time as they've been informed he didn't have permission, and Chesko can inform them himself. They're just betting that nobody will bother going the legal distance.

The only reason they aren't doing it is because they don't want to refund and want to keep the money, and because it will look extremely bad for something they obviously see as a cornerstone of a monetisation and lock in strategy they want to roll out generally. The creator has asked them to remove it and advised them that the guy he ripped off said no selling, Valve can do it but won't because they require to be legally compelled to do so- in your own words- which would be a monumentally shitty attitude even if it weren't a defence of copyright infringement.

(Of course, given Steam's rubbish support and it being the weekend still in the US for all we know they may yet roll out a withdrawal or have been sent a DCMA notice)

This is hardly the same as the licensor telling Rockstar to pull (which should be Fore telling Valve in this case). All we know is that he didn't want Chesko selling it, and after talking to Fore, Chesko pulled the game off sale, which Valve did. We do *not* know if Fore has any problems with the game still being offered to the people who had already purchased it. If he does he has the option of issuing a DMCA. If he doesn't do that then what basis is there exactly for Valve to pull content from their paying customers? Chesko agreed they'd get to keep it if he sold his mods to them. He's pulling his content of his own accord, and according to the agreement that means subscribers keep theirs. The only reason he brought it up as such a jarring thing is because apparently he was clueless that that was going to be the case, despite it being right there in the agreement.


Derivative works are irrelevant as they wouldn't be selling his mods but a derivative work. Nowhere does it mention the right to sell the original work there. Also the Subscriber in your last paragraph are the people who buy the mods.

How different has the derivative work has to be from the original to be considered something else?
Valve might even just go to the point of renaming and keep on selling it, this time without giving modders a cut.

It matters little aswell if many other mods already contain your mod inside them.
If you can't get Alfred's mod than use Ben's. He uses Alfred's mod on his mod.

Ignoring the notion that I highly doubt this qualifies as a 'derivative work', *if* they start doing that you may have a point, though I doubt they will.

How are derivative works irrelevant? That very statement gives them the right to make and sell something as derivative of the work I submitted. Simple repackaging for the purpose of keeping compatibility with new system could be used as 'derivative made for improving the experience'. From my point of view selling derivative is the same as selling original, we're simply arguing semantics now.

The last paragraph is more important in relation to wether someone can use or crosslink the free mod vs paid one, as it invalidates the statements in mod license towards the end user, than the Valve's ability to sell the free mod itself. Which is 'selling by proxy' in a way.

I've yet to catch up with the lawyer to figure out the details, but I doubt I'm wrong.

Hmmm... Shouldn't mods being sold be renamed to DLC?

OK. It's time to learn modding, create some useless sword and became multimillionaire :) Thanks Valve

I'm tempted to make a slew of OP weapons and sell 200+ mods for like $1 each...

edit: Nevermind you can use the console to give yourself the best weapon...

People actually buy this stuff, anyway. Just look around. It's depressing as f@#$.

Mod piracy... we need more DRM.

Fun...

I won't make such mods because i really don't want to be giving Valve more money, even if people are idiots. Seriously, if i get 25% and they get 30%+, then WTF!!!! they get a share and didn't do anything at all!

Uggg...