Slashdot Mirror
Bioware Release Neverwinter Nights Beta Toolset
Zed Pobre writes "Careful review of the EULA of the Neverwinter Nights Beta Toolset reveals the following clause:
Section 4(b):
"By distributing or permitting the distribution of any of your Modules, you hereby grant back to INFOGRAMES and BIOWARE an irrevocable royalty-free right to use and distribute them by any means. Infogrames or BIOWARE may at any time and in its sole discretion revoke your right to make your Modules publicly available."
This is more or less the same as if a company producing a compiler wrote into the EULA that by distributing any program compiled with that compiler, the company would permanently get the rights to do whatever they wanted with that program, including reselling it for profit and then forbidding you to publish it yourself.
Derek French, the Assistant Producer for Bioware, confirmed that this section of the EULA is not going to change for the final release. Although he noted in the same message that similar clauses have been used by other companies providing tools for users to create their own content, NWN has a much greater scope than any of them by far, and it's now a profoundly bad idea for someone who wants to keep control of their writing, characters, or game ideas , or use those elements elsewhere, to make a NWN module using those elements publically available.
This kind of clause falls just short of "Bioware Owns Anything You Make", since if they want to sell a module you created themselves, the clause even allows them to forbid you from distributing your original version for any reason. The sole comfort in this is that the clause apparantly does not allow them to make a derivative work of your module, so it would have to be distributed "as is" -- but if the module contained enough "objectionable" material that they wouldn't want to take it for themselves, they could still forbid the owner from distributing it.
Once again, it seems that companies are only against piracy as long as it's their material being pirated. If they can pirate some individual's material by throwing an unreadable EULA up for a second at install time, it's perfectly fine.
The full forum thread discussing this can be found here."
They give us an editor that can set up wonderful, wonderful things, but that won't let you experience any of them. This means that by the time NWN goes to replication, there's going to be 3x more content online than on the CDs and legions of mod-makers will stalk the malls, camping out in front of software stores, hoping against hope that their creations don't cause any spectacular windows errors when loaded up with the real thing. I'd be seething with anger if I wasn't bouncing off the walls waiting for the thing to finally download. Damnit, 40k/s is not fast enough!
:p )
( I know, I'll get moderated into obscurity when someone catches that one tomorrow, when they can't even connect to a server, let alone download.
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
At the point where I am reading this thread there are 55 replies. Of that, only ONE comments on the EULA. Everyone else is foaming all over themselves trying to download the thing.
If that were an EULA from Microsoft, everyone would be calling for a downloading boycott and legal action...
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Windows is certainly not the "best" gaming platform ever in terms of tech--hell, I even hung my WinXP the other day playing a game; let alone how many times I hang 98lite which is my primary gaming platform. However, it *is* the computer gaming platform with the largest number of quality released games available, and likely always will be thanks to the sheer numbers of quality legacy games out there that will never be ported to anything else.
Geeks love gaming. A lot of them may wish that all the greatest games came out for Linux too, but that's simply never going to happen--realistically, some of the best games will always be "bought" or developed by Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, or developers in an "exclusive relationship" with them. Consequently, as closed and proprietary as most consoles are, a lot of geeks will buy them. Likewise, as proprietary as Windows is, a lot of geeks will always keep a Win partition or gaming box. One can still dislike the reality while acknowledging it.
I for one will always have Windows for gaming. Even if every new title were to start shipping with Linux support, that wouldn't replace my library of great and classic titles which are Windows-only What I'd really like is to be able to run all my games under one single unified platform--a pipe dream, even with emulators getting more numerous and better. No version of Wine is ever likely to run all of our favorite PC games, unless by some miracle the Win9x source is opened--yeah, maybe in 50 years.Likewise, it will be a very, very long time until we can play *Luigi's Mansion* under a Gamecube emulator for our computers. So, until those days come, there is no hypocrisy in using Windows or another closed platform for gaming--just as I can advocate better and more humane treatment for cows and other animals while not completely denying myself meat; just as I can be a proponent of alternative fuel systems to replace current oil-based systems, without having to walk everywhere.
Aside from which, if every Linux-using geek in the world never bought another Windows game again, it wouldn't make a dent in the sales figures. Almost all games are targeted, naturally, at a more general audience than "Linux evangelists, ages 12-36." What can be useful is buying the Linux versions of games that will have Linux versions--that way voices get heard, and game developers get encouraged to port to Linux. Not buying Windows-only games will not, however, encourage porting to Linux, since most end-users use Windows and a boycott by Linux users will be statistically insignificant.
Not that it matters, anyway, because I think NWN will have a Linux verion anyway if I'm not mistaken. So, go buy the Linux port when it comes out and stop whining. If I misread and a Linux port isn't planned, then write and politely ask for one, and enough letters may convince them.
In any event, stop trolling and go to bed. No soup for you!
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
What I don't understand is how the right to royalty-free distribution of modules protects Bioware and the end users. Can you give an example of where this provision would come in handy?
I understand that you may need to stop people from making Lord of the Rings modules and such, but there's a separate provision in the EULA for that.
Also, Sanuj's main concern on the BioWare thread doesn't seem to get addressed. I don't really care if Bioware distributes my module, but I would care if they used one of my characters in a spin-off novel. This isn't what the EULA is meant to allow, I gather.
Yogurt
First, read your EULAs for Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. (other games that allow you to create content). All of them say the same thing that we are saying. Our EULA is nothing new. They must be written this way to protect both the companies involved and the end users. I am serious. Read the EULAs of those other games.
Every time a new game comes out, someone actually reads the EULA and the spectres of corporate exploitation rears its head. Its just not happening. id, Blizzard, Valve, none of these companies have ripped off their fans. Why? Because its suicide. And we aren't doing it either.
What exactly does this protect the consumer from? The burden of receiving royalty cheques from the sale of successful modules they have written?
If you have no intention of using the powers granted by the EULA, then why do you include them? Perhaps they were included on the sly by your lawyers to encourage law suites and generate more income for the lawyers.
I have been looking forward to the release of NWN for some time, but clauses of this sor may make me think again.
I know! Brilliant idea! I'll develop the modules during busines hours, then your lawyers and my employers lawyers can fight it out between themselves to see who gets to own what I produced.
If you make something with it (in, say, a week), you owe them at least giving them unrestricted access to it - they put in 5 years X x Developers and you, a week and $50.00. right?
Hardly. That's like saying that because Apple has invested years into developing iMovie, I owe them unrestricted access to movies I make with it. Wrong. Their compensation from me came when I purchased their product. Why should I compensate them any further by giving them any rights to my creations?
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
First, read your EULAs for Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. (other games that allow you to create content). All of them say the same thing that we are saying. Our EULA is nothing new. They must be written this way to protect both the companies involved and the end users. I am serious. Read the EULAs of those other games.
<MOTHERLY TONE>So if everyone else were to go jump off a bridge, you would too?</MOTHERLY TONE> Seriously, just because other companies have done it before does not make it okay. Please, someone explain how this helps protect the end user.
Every time a new game comes out, someone actually reads the EULA and the spectres of corporate exploitation rears its head. Its just not happening. id, Blizzard, Valve, none of these companies have ripped off their fans. Why? Because its suicide. And we aren't doing it either.
This is like when the government says "sure, we have the ability to wiretap anything we feel like, but we would never do that because it would piss the citizenry off". A slippery slope, indeed... It begs the question: If you have absolutely no intention of ever using the power this clause gives you, why even bother to put it in there? Particularly when it garners this kind of reaction.
Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
Here's what the Starcraft EULA has to say:
C. You are entitled to use the Program for your own use, but you are not be entitled to:
(iii) use or allow third parties to use the Editor and the New Materials created thereby for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of New Materials on a stand alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware through any and all distribution channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution without the express written consent of Blizzard;
Aside from that, there is no other limitations on what you or Blizzard may do with any "New Materials" that you create. (It said earlier that "New Materials" refers to custom levels created with the editor.)
So, yeah, I think he's full of crap when he says that these other EULAs contain the same control freakiness as Bioware's EULA. In fact, I'm going to send him an email and a link to this thread and maybe he can come back and explain himself.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The EULA is an outright licence to steal.
BioWare can take my creative labors, sell it themselves, and yank my rights to to my intellectual property. Not just comercial rights, but the right to distribute it at all.
Because its suicide.
This seems to admit that the EULA grants BioWare powers that "shock the sensibilities". The EULA is disgusting and you know it.
Pardon me for not trusting BioWare not to actually USE the disgusting aspects of the EULA. We've all seen companies commit suicide. They also try to get away with as much as possible just short of commiting suicide. And companies get bought out. If you really have no plans to use the licence in a suicidal manner, just REWRITE it.
Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. All of them say the same thing that we are saying.
I'll take your word for it. I never bought those particular games. NeverwinterNights sounded cool, but I can tell you there's no way I'm going to buy it, much less make content for it, so long as that EULA clause exists.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It might be a good idea to at least consider modifying the license so that commercially viable products aren't discouraged. Pre-existing ownership (not license, but ownership) of someone else's creative effort is an inequitable agreement, legal concerns notwithstanding.
Surely Bioware wouldn't exercise their rights under this license to acquire and then profit commercially from someone else's work? If Bioware would compensate a particularly good module team, then the license should state that, or at least allow for it. Id, for example, has always included commercial terms for their products.
I completely understand people being negative about an EULA like this, given the abuse we've seen by other major companies in the past. OTOH, witness the following (posted by Derek French of Bioware to the forum thread):
So back on the first hand again, you gotta admit, he's got a point. Bad PR is more damaging than the fighting the best lawyers in the world, any way.
But back on the other hand, the thing I think is bizarre is that they're sticking by their position, even in the fact of reasoned criticism from informed but non-hostile observers. Their licence agreement does appear to be considerably more strongly worded than the cited previous EULAs for other games, after all, and whatever Derek says and however faithfully, they do still seem to have the legal right to take your stuff, sell it without credit, and forbid you from distributing it on the whim of a management weenie.
If Bioware genuinely believe the claims Derek makes above, there would be no harm in rewriting the EULA slightly to clarify the position. Then they'd be raved about on one of the most popular boards on the 'net, instead of having their motives questioned. Good PR beats the lawyers any day, too. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So this EULA says that anything you create is basically theirs? Yes, it sucks. But that's the conditions and you have two choices. Either you agree to it, or you don't.
It's not exactly a tough decision. However cool the thing is, you do have the option to not agree to the licence and therefore not use it.
Of course, it may mean you can't create your own Neverwinter Night scenarios, but that is what comes of not agreeing to their terms and conditions.
Put it another way. You can come into my house if you take your shoes off. That's the conditions, you either do it, or you don't and go elsewhere. And if you miss my party (and the copious amounts of beer that was there) because you didn't want to take your shoes off, then that is your decision and can't go blaming me for not letting you abide by my rules (however silly or pointless you felt they were).
I fail to see the issue here. Yes, the licence does suck. But they're not a monopoly, they're not forcing you to agree to the EULA and you certainly can continue to happly live in the world without agreeing to it.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Yes. Try getting together for a gaming session when your DM and one player live 2 hours away at a college, the other one has a strict curfew and the third has "more important" things to do. If the toolset pans out like we all hope it will, it will be a godsend for our gaming sessions
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Just like "war against terrorism" is a polite way of saying "kills 30 thousand afghan people who don't even have a clue why they're being bombed" or "gives the israelis free weapons so they can drive people out of their own land". Or, for example, "achieved a quick end to the war" is a polite way of saying "killed 500.000 civilians with two atom bombs".
At least the nazis didn't pretend to be nice guys.