DEAD FOG RolePlay

Discord - https://discord.gg/m68cHS7kUq IP - 212.22.93.164:2302 Repack/unpack not allowed

Thank you for helping me create this mod pack for the DEAD FOG server. - ProTraction by psyopgirl https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3656437172 - NIGHTIK & brnz https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3704205776 - https://discord.gg/8MMMtfaRX2 - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3747178068 - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3747178680 - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3601774845

🔗Bohemia

Workshop Contributions are Subscriptions, and therefore you agree that any Subscriber receiving distribution of your Workshop Contribution will have the same rights to use your Workshop Contribution (and will be subject to the same restrictions) as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions.

User-created Content If You create any content ("content") using the game or make it available through the game, You may do so, but there are rules. This content must not infringe anyone's copyrights or author rights, it must not be offensive to people or illegal in any other way. For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt anything You create using Our game and share with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download (including but not limited to in-game objects or terrain composition). You also agree that We allow other people to use, copy, modify and adapt Your content under the terms of this license.

www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/dayz-end-user-license 🔗Steam/Valve

In steam workshop TOS it is stated that the developer of the game must give permission to sell mods, In Bohemia's tools policy it is stated that it is forbidden to charge for mods and is also breaking direct TOS from the game developer thus breaking steam workshop TOS as stated you need direct permission from the developer and Bohemia has made the stance clear.

Specific Workshop-Enabled Apps or Workshop web pages may contain special terms (“App-Specific Terms”) that supplement or change the terms set out in this Section. In particular, where Workshop Contributions are distributed for a fee, App-Specific Terms will address how revenue may be shared. Unless otherwise specified in App-Specific Terms (if any), the following general rules apply to Workshop Contributions.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ In 1998, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (the “DMCA”), to provide a framework for addressing claims of online copyright infringement.

Congress also recognized that these “takedown notices” could be used maliciously to secure the removal of content that was not legitimately claimed to be infringing. Accordingly, it included a provision in the DMCA authorizing those aggrieved by fraudulent notices to bring an action against the sender for damages.

Section 512(f) of the DMCA creates liability for knowingly making false claims in a DMCA takedown notice or counter-notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 If someone claims in a takedown notice that you are infringing their copyrighted material while knowing this to be false, then you can win damages from them in a lawsuit. In recent years, the targets of wrongful takedowns have fought back and won damages and favorable settlements from individuals and companies sending bogus takedown notices. For instance, in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit. For another example, see Crook v. 10 Zen Monkeys in our legal threats database. Someone who has sent a baseless takedown notice about your content may be more inclined to back off if you remind him or her about section 512(f) of the DMCA, in addition to sending a counter-notice.