A statement made by CDPR regarding Keanu Reeves mod is concerning

[Myajha]

Your information is false. You obviously do not know the difference between criminal law and contractual law.

That's the problem. He's pulling random information off the internet, and spinning it to support his theory. It's disinformation and arm chair lawyering, pure and simple, which is why people shouldn't believe everything that's written on the internet.

 

[delicieuxz]

Your information is false. You obviously do not know the difference between criminal law and contractual law.

I do know the difference between criminal and contract law. But the difference is entirely irrelevant here. Also, EULAs are not legal contracts.

 

[Lexandro_Albion]

Lmao. You own a duplicate of the original works and a licence to use the product. You do not have ownership of the IP.

 

[MaxPrimal]

I find it rather refereshing to see a company enforcing their TOS. Also, it is their code. they dont have to allow modding at all.

 

[sullyman83]

CDPR asked Nexus Mods to remove the mod

Asking can hardly be considered an abuse of authority.

 

[delicieuxz]

Lmao. You own a duplicate of the original works and a licence to use the product. You do not have ownership of the IP.

Of course you don't own the IP but are licensed to use it - in the same way that you don't own the IP for the shoes you bought but own a license to use the paid of shoes you bought. But you own your pair of shoes, and you own your copy of a purchased game and have full property rights over your copy of that game.

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

All of that information is included in this post:

You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

Post automatically merged: Jan 28, 2021

I find it rather refereshing to see a company enforcing their TOS. Also, it is their code. they dont have to allow modding at all.

A ToS doesn't apply to any game you purchase. ToS means Terms of Service and applies to a service owned and operated by a party other than yourself.

CP 2077's action wasn't in support of a ToS, and no ToS applies to CP 2077 - though, one may apply for playing CP 2077 online once the multiplayer portion of the game releases.

 

[hulkman2456]

So Alt can fuck Silverhand. But V can't fuck Silverhand? The character is a sex maniac in lots of ways. Seems hypocritical. What about the voice actors in general? Because they aren't celebs like Reeves. It's okay for them to screw any other character? Don't put likenesses in games anymore. They should update the mod. So it features the NPC that looks like Silverhand. Than you got no grounds to remove it.

 

[delicieuxz]

That's the problem. He's pulling random information off the internet, and spinning it to support his theory. It's disinformation and arm chair lawyering, pure and simple, which is why people shouldn't believe everything that's written on the internet.

What you are saying is false. All of what I have said is correct and comes from a studied knowledge of the law. And all of what I've written in the post you are talking about is given the authoritative sources for it in that post. I have invited you to read that post, and I encourage you to do so if you want to have an informed idea about the topic:

You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

 

[Tofujunky]

No, they should have shut it down. It's disrespectful.

 

[Krul2k]

So Alt can fuck Silverhand. But V can't fuck Silverhand? The character is a sex maniac in lots of ways. Seems hypocritical. What about the voice actors in general? Because they aren't celebs like Reeves. It's okay for them to screw any other character?

You think it's incase they mod a not very impressive cock?

 

[delicieuxz]

Asking can hardly be considered an abuse of authority.

And I didn't say that asking for the removal of a mod is. I said a claim by CDPR that they have a rule which can prevent people from using a mod is.

 

[hulkman2456]

No, they should have shut it down. It's disrespectful.

How? Because he looks like a celeb? He fucked Alt in the game.

 

[Tofujunky]

How? Because he looks like a celeb? He fucked Alt in the game.

Do you understand what disrespectful means? Sorry that Polish companies have honor. They are doing it out of respect to Keanu.

 

[delicieuxz]

It's amazing where people pull links from and think that some rando site overrides the LEGALLY BINDING language you agreed to when you bought a LICENSE to use the software. READ THE EULA.

And actually try some Barrister oriented sites and blogs to get some better insights before relying on said rando sites.

Are End User License Agreements Enforceable? | TOS Lawyer

End user license agreements are enforceable as long as it is clear that it is a contract and both parties can understand the terms.

toslawyer.com

The general rule is that End User License Agreements are not always enforceable. However, there are instances where they are deemed enforceable as seen in the US court decisions in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg and Feldman v. Google, Inc. (2007). It is important to note that whether or not a EULA is enforceable, it is still a valid contract between the software owner and the user.

But by all means, feel free to contest it legally, in the courts. Hope you got deep pockets, because the opposing side does.

3 USING CYBERPUNK 2077

3.1 Licence. CD PROJEKT RED gives you a personal, limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-assignable licence to display, view, download, install, play and use Cyberpunk 2077 on your personal computer, games console and/or other devices/platforms that are explicitly authorised by CD PROJEKT RED (the list of which is available here), depending on the particular device/system/platform you purchased the game for. This licence is for your personal use only (so you cannot give, ‘sell’, lend, gift, assign, sub-license or otherwise transfer it to someone else) and does not give you any ownership rights in Cyberpunk 2077.

Rather, it's amazing when someone, after already being shown more authoritative sources, pulls an outdated opinion-piece from the internet and thinks it disproves the actual legal fact established by the highest courts in various countries including the entire EU, Australia, the Federal Court of Canada, and an assertion made by the US Supreme Court.

EULAs are not legal contracts and they aren't legally binding. Canada, Australia, the EU all have rulings on that. And the US Supreme Court asserted in 2013 that the first-sale doctrine applies to software. The First-Sale Doctrine applies to goods (and everywhere, including in the US, software is classified as a good) means that ownership of a copy of a work transfers to a person who purchases the copy of the work. The transfer of ownership of an item invalidates any claim of authority the seller has over the item they sold.

CURIA - Documents

web.archive.org

EU Court of Justice: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer".

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

All of that information is included in this post:

You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

Also, the CDPR EULA you quoted claims the license to use CP 2077 is revocable. A contract where one party can unilaterally cancel the terms for any reason isn't a valid contract because that's what's called an Illusory Promise. And an illusory promise renders any contract invalid / null and void:

Illusory Promise

Definition of Illusory Promise in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

"Illusory Promise
A statement that appears to assure a performance and form a contract but, when scrutinized, leaves to the speaker the choice of performance or non-performance, which means that the speaker does not legally bind himself or herself to act."

An EULA isn't a legal contract. But even a would-be legal contract which contains an illusory promise isn't a legal contract but is disqualified from being a contract due to the illusory promise.

 

[Tofujunky]

Rather, it's amazing when someone pulls an outdated opinion-piece from the internet and think it disproves the actual legal fact established by the highest courts in various countries including the entire EU, Australia, the Federal Court of Canada, and an assertion made by the US Supreme Court.

EULAs are not legal contracts and they aren't legally binding. Canada, Australia, the EU all have rulings on that. And the US Supreme Court asserted in 2013 that the first-sale doctrine applies to software. The First-Sale Doctrine applies to goods (and everywhere, including in the US, software is classified as a good) means that ownership of a copy of a work transfers to a person who purchases the copy of the work. The transfer of ownership of an item invalidates any claim of authority the seller has over the item they sold.

CURIA - Documents

web.archive.org

EU Court of Justice: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer".

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

All of that information is included in this post:

You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

CDPR has the right to disable modding in their game, it's a perk that we can mod. I don't know how this is so difficult for you to understand and why you want to do creepy sex mods with Keanu.

 

[Myajha]

What you are saying is false. All of what I have said is correct and comes from a studied knowledge of the law. And all of what I've written in the post you are talking about is given the authoritative sources for it in that post. I have invited you to read that post, and I encourage you to do so if you want to have an informed idea about the topic:

You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda

See now we're getting somewhere. So are we talking a first year law undergrad, Better Call Saul, or a High Powered Corporate Lawyer. Just because I studied archeology in college doesn't make me Indiana Jones.

Again I've read it, and it's crap. It's pulled a bunch of loose items off the internet to support an incorrect assumption at best, at worst a conspiracy theory or an outright lie. Sure you have some pretty links in there, but it doesn't support who you are or what you know about. My take is if it was accurate, and you were a lawyer as you said, and this theory was actually correct, it would be published in any number of places, and you'd have taken this to court already over a number of other games and won big in court.

The fact that no court in the world has supported this tripe, and in fact supports the EULAs and such says a lot about what you're trying to falsely push.

The fact that it's only posted on some no name reddit, and it's gone no where past conspiracy level means its junk and you being "a student of the law" means you went online and studied a bunch of law that flat earthers have published to support your anti-government and anti-establishment theories.

 

[hulkman2456]

Do you understand what disrespectful means? Sorry that Polish companies have honor. They are doing it out of respect to Keanu.

Why is a celeb special over other actors.

Post automatically merged: Jan 28, 2021

CDPR has the right to disable modding in their game, it's a perk that we can mod. I don't know how this is so difficult for you to understand and why you want to do creepy sex mods with Keanu.

It's the double standards. Johnny is okay to take over V's body, fuck Rouge. But we can't mod Silverhand to do whatever. Because he looks like a celeb?

 

[Gorance]

Oh man.. i dont wanna see jonny silverhand again in another DLCs or expansions...

 

[Lexandro_Albion]

He is conflating personal usage with distribution and publication. We the end user have zero rights to publish ANY data from the game period. We can alter it as much as we want, but cannot share it legaly without the approval of CDPR, the owner and publisher of the product.

It's the double standards. Johnny is okay to take over V's body, fuck Rouge. But we can't mod Silverhand to do whatever. Because he looks like a celeb?

Yes. Deal with it. It already defined in law. That is why 2k got sued up the wazzoo for NBA titles. And its also why EA is under fire from footballers for FIFA.

 

[hulkman2456]

[...]

Yes. Deal with it. It already defined in law. That is why 2k got sued up the wazzoo for NBA titles. And its also why EA is under fire from footballers for FIFA.

Don't have to deal with it. I have the right to point out the double standards. Don't use Celebs in your games than.