The new EULA and commercial add-ons

[jpetersjr]

......Well, it looks like I will have to be updating all my readme's in everything I built for Railworks 3. I have a feeling that this could take a while.

[ozinoz]

Having worked for 18 months in one of the largest corporate and commercial law firms in Australia (not one of the "undead" but a management accountant ), these things (EULA) do not materialise overnight, nor the 2012 - 2013 RW transition. While it may be true that the document (which you can neither read or agree to before updating) may be a standard Steam policy document in relation to content provided to the SteamWorkshop, it does not mitigate the fact that the management of RW or RSC or what ever they are called now days, should have been intimately familiar with its content and its intention.

Given Paul Jacksons reputation and experience I certainly don't think it was incompetence in not knowing the EULA contents, but more a fact that they have decided on a new business direction, reinforced by the fact that there hasn't been an immediate clarification from RW should the users interpretation of what the EULA is saying is differing from their intention. Other fora posts saying it has only been 5 or 7 days and to give RW a chance to make a clarification does not hold up. If you as a business know something you have said or done is wrong, even if it is just a perception, you take immediate steps to remedy; not sit and contemplate your navel allowing your customers (and income steam) to become miss-informed and agitated

If this truly is the case, it will mark the decline of RW. Part of the enjoyment is the anticipation of new assets, new routes etc. If we are now tied in to RW output only, then what is there to look froward to? I would put the detail and sheer enjoyment of Tori's freeware COA Alleghany against anything RW has created and likewise Mike Rennie's WIP freeware Consolidation, even in its wip state, against anything RW has put out. The acceptance and success or RW has been built on UGC in areas of limited interest or ability of those from RSC - multiple liveries, buildings etc. Users are not going to be content purely running the same default locos on the same default routes.

for what it is worth...

G

[thecanadianrail]

I think everyone just needs to take a week off x.x

You just don't get it, do you? The new EULA is really complicating things for developers, but you don't seem to care about that.
Maybe you should take a week off.

hawk, maby you need to take a little closer look at the first post on this page and you will see that rsc meant changing and redistribution of their products for profit is what there against, which most devs should realize that they dont change and reditribute rsc's stuff for profit. now the thing about what is default content has changed a bit so now it only is the basic stuff which dosent include things like the b-sb route...although all the rolling stock is still default....minus the f units and some of the other locos.

[hminky]

Why is there this "Pollyanna" approach to RSC? Because they come on and "schmooze" the forums every once in awhile.

They are a group out to make a profit and there is nothing wrong with that. Look what they did to the "core" assets, made them payware. It will cost at least $13.00 bucks to acquire them for a new person.

I will put on my "tin foil hat" and say the goal is to limit add-ons.

Harold

EDIT: If RSC goes real "multi-player" there can't be add-ons. If you are familiar with Trainz mulit-player it is a mess because of getting all the content to "match".

[philmoberg]

Why is there this "Pollyanna" approach to RSC? Because they come on and "schmooze" the forums every once in awhile. ...

I'm not sure that's what's going on here, although I s'pose could be read that way. I think the broader concern is the matter of both sides dealing in good faith. At least in my experience, RSC have been consistently courteous, substantive and generally prompt in their responses to my correspondence with them. Productive discussions tend to be more an exercise in light than in heat, as an old mentor of mine used to patiently remind me, a few decades back.

The repeated changes in the EULA suggest that RSC are concerned with some elements of their operating environment dealing in bad faith, and that they have at least some evidence that their concerns are valid, or they wouldn't be spending money revising the EULA repeatedly. In turn, there are many off us who see the repeated changes in the EULA and recall stories and/or experiences in which legalese has been interpreted to mean something different from its plain reading, and have some valid concerns about the unintended and/or unanticipated consequences for their own efforts. It speaks to me of RSC's good faith that they now have a staff member dedicated to third party relations: It's not like they don't recognise the question and it's importance to the future of their business.

I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in their lack of a response on the EULA within a week. I worked with lawyers in a very highly-charged and sensitive environment for nearly three and a half decades, and I never got a sound opinion on anything (no matter how trivial) that fast. At least from where I sit, I can't imagine why they would want to limit add-ons for any other reason than that they may have the same thing already in development, and want to protect that investment. If anything, I've seen them work to encourage third party suppliers, with resulting benefit to both RSC and the community alike.

I'm sure this matter will be clarified in the foreseeable future, at which point we will all be able to make an informed decision about what's going on and whether we, individually, are on board with it. In the meantime, there will be those who tread cautiously, and those who don't. For my part, I hope they continue to foster an environment in which a healthy third-party sector can grow and thrive: it's in everybody's best interest, long term.

[glenn68]

I'm still not going to burst out into tears on this forum and threaten to leave over things nobody is even sure about yet. What it sounds to me, RSC's legal team miss worded this part of the EULA. Not saying I'm right, because I have my doubts too. I am just trying to stay positive and keep high hopes

Well said. I figure, right now RSC has seen some of the posts and probably has had a few emails dealing with the new EULA and maybe are now scratching their heads and looking the situation over.


Glenn

[KCJones]

Can I add my 5 eggs or penny's worth?
As a small time 3rd party developer I can't see the problem. The email I got back says much the same as the one posted here.
Firstly they THANK me for "letting them know my concerns" and then explain that they were trying to protect THEIR assets and finally they are getting MORE (Expensive) legal advice. They appear to be as worried about the wording of their new EULA as others are.

I have no problem with adding ther new disclaimer to my models. It is true after all. I handle things slightly differently, offering free models for you guys to try out first, but then I'm only here for the beer.

The only complaint I have is that I still haven't finished upgading my stuff from the 2012 improvements!!!!! Now not being able to rely on aliasing to core files, sound and figures, means I will have to produce my own sounds, crew and passengers!!!!! Does anyone know a good source of railway sounds and some good model people!!!!

Dick

[MontanaRails]

Based on everything I've read on the various threads here, I don't acknowledge RSC's EULA to be legal.

I think they need to get their act together. If they really want to enforce this ridiculous EULA, as it reads, they will go bankrupt from employing the number of people it will take to police and enforce it. IF they do manage to enforce it, they will lose their entire customer base.

[MontanaRails]

By the way, when did we 'accept' the new EULA? It states:

1.2 By clicking on the "Yes" or “Install” button, or by downloading or using the Software in any way,
you confirm your agreement to this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA,
please click the "No" or “Exit” button and do not use the Software.

But, I was never made aware of this new EULA prior to automatic updating, nor was I prompted, or ever click "I Agree" or "I acknowledge" on anything. If we weren't made aware of the new EULA prior to steam updating our game, how is it legal, how can they enforce it? Its like selling someone a Cheeseburger and after the exchange is made, the customer finds a note inside the bun that states previously undisclosed limitations on eating it. That's not legal. EULA's have to be agreed upon to to use the software, and to be able to agree or disagree, you have to present the material prior to installation. In my mind, this voids EULA in its entirety. The argument could be made, and won, right?

[alanch]

This is my latest email to RSC - no reply as yet.

Comment on the forums about the new EULA ranges from conspiracy - RSC is trying to drive out commercial competition - to cock-up - the EULA is badly written, and doesn't mean what it says. Either way, RSC is being criticised, and you are losing a lot of goodwill. Your communications are perceived as poor - referring me in your earlier reply to guidance to the TS2012 EULA was not helpful, as this has clearly been superseded by the TS2013 EULA.

I, and many others, still believe that whole of Clause 9.2, as written, appears to apply to all User Generated Content, not just to UGC based on assets owned by RSC. The immediate outcome of this is that at least four commercial producers of add-ons have publicly declared that they are withdrawing their assets from sale, and that they will not be producing any more - two of them have sold assets through Steam. If this clause is only meant to apply to UGC based on assets owned by RSC, then section 9.2 (a) probably should be incorporated into the header of 9.2 to make this clear - I am sure that your lawyers can advise on this.

A second issue that is being widely discussed is whether this new EULA can legally be applied to those users who upgraded from TS2012 to TS2013 - there was no prior notification of the changes, and at no time during the upgrade were we asked to read and agree to the EULA. I would suggest that you, or your legal advisers, read the 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999' from the OFT http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/report ... oft311.pdf - in particular Groups 9 and 10 which deal with 'Binding consumers to hidden terms' and 'Supplier's rights to vary terms generally'.

I assume that RSC are operating under English law, in which case the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' should apply - Groups 9 and 10 in the Guidance make interesting reading for anyone who has updated from TS2012.

[MontanaRails]

This is my latest email to RSC - no reply as yet.

/TEXT/

I assume that RSC are operating under English law, in which case the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' should apply - Groups 9 and 10 in the Guidance make interesting reading fro anyone who has updated from TS2012.

Looks good to me. I hope they take this seriously, because it is.

[MontanaRails]

Also, considering the upgrade from TS2012 to TS2013 was publicized by RSC as being "FREE", as in, no charge, no exchange of money...that adds to the equation, and not in favor of them.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Adn what about the intellectual property rights? There was an EU clause mentioned in another thread. Do these EU regulations apply to the UK since it is not a full fledged EU member?
Is there an even higher level international law/regulation on intellectual property? Given all the concerns over copyright in our digital age, there must be.

I understand the freeware developers are concerned about their intellectual property rights, though the chance of RSC appropriating any freeware "intellectual property" seem pretty slim to me. The Steam workshop approves only of stock assets which are already owned by RSC.

How do the commercial UK houses like IHH, Oovee, AP etc. deal with this issue? Is RSC appropriating their intellectual property as well?

[hertsbob]

Do these EU regulations apply to the UK since it is not a full fledged EU member?

Don't worry, we've been fully sold down the river. We're not in the Euro of course, but they're not the same thing.

Cheers

Bob

[MontanaRails]

Its probably not a bad idea to disable auto updates and take steam offline while this discussion is live and hot, so IF RSC decides to 'show us whos boss' they cant reach in to our computers and remove it.

The only thing I can think of that would save them legally is if the previous EULA versions stated something to the effect of "I agree to this and every future EULA", but I dont see that anywhere.