Again, users are required to always treat others with kindness and respect. Please follow that rule, and all the others as well of course. More posts deleted.
- Status
You are demonstrating this to be true:
Courts certainly have supported what is written in the LTT post I have linked you to. In fact, that's why the LTT post was written - and that's why it sources various court rulings around the world affirming precisely what the LTT post says.
It's odd that you don't think the European Union Court of Justice, which rules on the law for half-a-billion people, is an actual court. Or that Australia's High Court is an actual court. Or that Canada's Federal Court is an actual court. Or that the US Supreme Court's assertion is relevant.
As I said, you are demonstrating your claim that 90% (which might be a conservative estimate) of what you post is BS.
Why not actually do some reading - particularly of the LTT post, which contains full sources for everything?
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
Last edited:
No doubt, the debate about the legalities and moral aspects will rage on. I didn't download this mod as it didn't interest me, and frankly the whole Keanu fetish in this game bores me and I believe it contributed to its downfall. But, I dare say the furore over the topic will (for a while) make this mod even more in demand, so the creator may simply distribute it some other way or people will just swap the files between themselves privately if they want it for their game.
Oh I sure I am demonstrating it to be true, as you are with your comments. See the EU high court says a lot of things, just as all High Courts do. But have you read the actual findings, or just some articles written by others distilling the information down to whatever point they want to make.
So this court decision was written back on 2012, and covered only certain narrow things, as most High Court cases do.
And yet companies still pay money to lawyers to write up EULAs and such. Why would a company, any company, waste money on doing anything that they know can be easily overturned in a court of law.
Especially in this case a Polish company... you know a European company... a country that's been in the EU longer then this finding was written.
If EULAs weren't able to be enforced then they wouldn't waste time or money or them.
And yet they do, and they can be and have been enforced since 2012.
Again, you're pulling articles off the internet and selectively pulling information off of them to support a bogus claim.
You own the game yes. You do not own the likenesses and copyrighted material in the game.
Only you are demonstrating your own claim to be true, and only regarding your own comments.
That is an entirely absurd thing to say and again demonstrates that you just BS things without knowledge and without a proper understanding. The EU CoJ is the highest court in the European Union and its ruling are the law applied to the entire EU.
The ruling made by the EU CoJ in this case is that software is a good which undergoes transfer of ownership to the purchaser upon the point-of-sale, and the seller of the software no longer has any say regarding the software item they elected to sell - and that the seller's EULA is therefore of no consequence.
And here Australia's High Court (which is, likewise, the highest court in Australia and whose ruling are the applied law in Australia) ruled against Valve (which owns and operates Steam), when Valve tried to argue that EULAs count for something. Australia's High Court unequivocally ruled that Valve was wrong.
Read the High Court's judgment:
" 126 The second issue is whether there was a “supply of goods” by Valve. Valve accepted that if “goods” were provided by it to consumers then the goods had been “supplied” (ts 218). "
" 128 The definition of “goods” is inclusive. ... The legal meaning of “goods” can be analogised to the strict definition of “property” which is “a description of a legal relationship with a thing”: Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; (1999) 201 CLR 351, 365-366 [17] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ describing the word “property”). "
" 137 Valve supplied consumers with a good. "
" 145 I reject Valve’s submission that goods supplied by licence are not a “supply of goods” "
" 340 ... "Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails." ... "Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software). "
You have consistently appealed to arguments of confirmation bias, a type of argument which is a logical fallacy.
If you read the LTT post, you'd have some insight into why publishers bother with EULAs. And publishers wish that EULAs were legal contracts... but they aren't.
Plainly, you are wrong.
Neither of which are relevant to the topic at hand. And I've written as much in the LTT thread.
So, you're tacitly admitting that you had no basis for anything you argued against the OP. And you're stating that you don't know what ownership means. Ownership of the software is what entitles a person to modify it per their sole discretion. People's ownership of their software is also what invalidates any claim by CDPR or another publisher or developer that they can choose in what way a person may mod their software for their own personal offline usage.
Here in Europe a lot of laws about copyright have changed in recent years so that finding may be a little outdated. '
Also in my country we don't have the concept of "precedent" and every case is treated separately, are we sure that isn't the case for the European Court too?
Just about every part of what you've claimed is false, and every argument you've made against the OP and the LTT post is outright false. But I'm going to reiterate something I already posted in this thread to help you understand the nature of EULAs - with that nature not being that of a legal contract.
CDPR's CP 2077 EULA says this:
The claim that the license is revocable would invalidate the terms if they were actual legal terms. That is because a claim that one party in a contract can end the terms of the contract unilaterally and for any reason is what's called in law an Illusory Promise. And an illusory promise automatically renders any would-be legal contract null and void.
You can verify this for yourself in any legal dictionary, such as this one:
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.
When the provisions of the purported promise render the performance of the person who makes the promise optional or completely within his or her discretion, pleasure, and control, nothing absolute is promised; and the promise is said to be illusory. For example, a court decided that a promise contained in an agreement between a railroad and an iron producer whereby the railroad promised to purchase as much iron as its board of directors might order was illusory and did not form a contract."
So, EULAs aren't legal contracts to begin with. But even if they were, CDPR's EULA would render itself null and void because it contains an illusory promise claiming that CDPR can revoke the license and terms for it at any time per their sole discretion.
This underscores the fallacy of your appeal of 'if EULAs weren't binding then publishers wouldn't spend money them' and makes it undeniable to even yourself that publishers spend money on EULAs even when they are inarguably of no force or effect.
As to the larger reasons why they spend money on EULAs that aren't legal contracts under the law and contains claims which would invalidate any otherwise-binding contract, well, read the LTT post to learn something about that.
Post automatically merged:
Here in Europe a lot of laws about copyright have changed in recent years so that finding may be a little outdated. '
Also in my country we don't have the concept of "precedent" and every case is treated separately, are we sure that isn't the case for the European Court too?
A top court's ruling is the final and permanent say on a matter, and its ruling cannot be overruled by new legislative changes or any subsequent ruling except a further one made by the top court. Therefore, the EU CoJ's ruling cannot become outdated unless the CoJ invalidates their previous ruling.
The latest EU Goods and Services classification and copyright law affirm that the First-Sale Doctrine, which governs the transfer of ownership over an item, applies to the software that people purchase.
Last edited:
My goodness, you're such an expert on the law, my question still stands that if your argument was even remotely valid then take them to court and prove it in the EU High Court system. You claim to have studied law, that makes you a lawyer right?
Or does it?
See you're reading the revokable part one way, I'm seeing it as another. Read the whole thing... PERSONAL device and PERSONAL USE ONLY.
That means you can go ahead and mod the game yourself to frack Mr. Reeves, but the moment you go public with it (say on a mod board) then you no longer have the rights to what you are doing with it, and it can (and should) be revoked.
But again, you've studied law, I haven't. So my question to you is, if your arguement is right, and has been since you posted that tripe on that no name conspiracy theory reddit, why haven't you done anything about it?
My guess, you're not a lawyer (and if you are you're nothing more then an ambulance chaser that makes Jimmy McGill look damn respectable, and no court or lawyer will take this with a ten foot pole knowing that it'll be quashed.
You know it too, which is why you're arguing here, and not suing CDPR.
It is not an illusory promise; The End User has the right to terminate the agreement at any time. The EULA is stating the terms under which the IP owner, publisher and distributor has the right to terminate the contract.
In either case the agreed terms are no longer applicable and the license is revocable.
In either case the agreed terms are no longer applicable and the license is revocable.
Do you not read anything you respond to? The matter already went to court and was ruled on - and in the very way that affirms what I've told you and that conversely invalidates what you've argued. How many times does that need to be said to you?
CDPR can't revoke somebody's license or dictate how people may mod their games, and EULAs aren't legal contract. That's already the legal fact. There's nothing more that needs to be done about it. What that legal fact means is that CDPR claiming they don't allow a mod is 100% ignoreable because it is without legal basis. Nothing needs to be done by anyone for that to be true, because it's right now already true.
Post automatically merged:
The EULA claims that CDPR can unilaterally revoke the license unilaterally per their sole discretion.
That is literally an illusory promise.
I have read it all, and what you're saying is laughably wrong. I'm not a lawyer, or have "studied law" in any way, and even my weak uneducated mind can see that you're an arm chair lawyer with no leg in the law, and no real knowledge of the crap your spouting.
What's even scarier is that you actually believe what you're spouting, and try using cherry picked articles to back up your claims.
You own the game... am I disagreeing with this, no.
Can you do whatever you want with the game, for your own personal use. Again I'm not arguing that fact. The key word there is personal.
Can you do anything with the game for PUBLIC use. The answer is no, unless CDPR (and kind of by extension R. Talsorian Games) allows you too.
You as a consumer do not own the rights to Johnny Silverhand, Keanu Reeves likeness, V, or Cyberpunk, and to do anything with them, you need either the express permission of CDPR (or R. Talsorian Games in a non-Cyberpunk 2077 setting) or the silent non-action permission of the same.
So mod the game to your hearts content to frack Keanu Reeves, but don't make it public.
I am no lawyer but I feel there is some legal grey area they are crossing here.
First off, the model in question was lent to cdpr by Reeves to use in the game. Unless there is some contract lingo that states what they can and can't do with his likness, the fact that he gave permission slso means they gave them some form of exclusive rights.
Second, in what way is this meant to "hurt" him? If that is the case. Why have
There is even a mirror where you see his face.
Also this is a model swap being used in the game engine using existing code. There is nothing new here.
I feel like CDPR is not being honest again.
First off, the model in question was lent to cdpr by Reeves to use in the game. Unless there is some contract lingo that states what they can and can't do with his likness, the fact that he gave permission slso means they gave them some form of exclusive rights.
Second, in what way is this meant to "hurt" him? If that is the case. Why have
a sex scene with him and his girl?
Also this is a model swap being used in the game engine using existing code. There is nothing new here.
I feel like CDPR is not being honest again.
You agreed to the terms and conditions, and have the right to revoke the agreement at any time. That by definition precludes it from being unilateral. Both parties agreed to the terms and both parties have rights to terminate. The EULA is defining the terms the owner of said IP has to terminate. It does not need to stipulate your rights to terminate, because the End User has the express right to terminate the agreement at any time.
The confusion here is the belief "buying" a game is actually buying the game. You are not. The game is... the game. Assets, code, etc. Game developers are not selling this. They are selling a video game license. Regardless of how much people try to reduce this down to, "Buying a game.".
Consider for a moment an operating system like Windows. Fun fact, running Windows on a machine in no way means you own Windows. You don't own Windows. Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft doesn't really sell Windows. They sell Windows licenses.
An easy way to understand this is to consider what would happen if they were selling you the game. In this case you could take Cyberpunk and start distributing it freely. You could change the code however you wish, repackage it and resell it. Because... you would own the code itself. This is why they are merely selling a license allowing usage of the software. Nothing more or less.
Does this sound familiar at all? Ever used Linux? Open source anyone? Take your pick from a list of 35 word processing programs and do whatever the hell you want with them? Compile your own kernel from source? This is what selling you the game would mean. Well, certain Linux distros and software would fall here anyway (most are freely distributed, not sold).
Many of the links in that LTT post are speaking about things like reselling this license. This has nothing to do with whether you're buying the game or a license. It has to do with whether you're legally allowed to transfer the rights to this license. Other links are speaking about what the developer can and cannot allow the buyer of this license to do with it (like... resell it).
Somehow there is no line being drawn between "license" and "game". The reality is these are not interchangeable. They are very different "goods".
Whether the mod can be legally pulled is another matter. I could see reaching an interpretation where this is.... muddy. I'm actually not sure how that works. The thing is, "CDPR asked Nexus mods to remove it...", could mean exactly that. It's conceivable it was not a demand but a request. A request Nexus mods decided to agree with.
Would you be comfortable if someone snapped your picture or took video footage of you and put it in a porno? Perhaps Keanu doesn't want to be featured in video game pornos. You'd think Johnny would be all for that but.... oh nevermind....
Consider for a moment an operating system like Windows. Fun fact, running Windows on a machine in no way means you own Windows. You don't own Windows. Microsoft owns Windows. Microsoft doesn't really sell Windows. They sell Windows licenses.
An easy way to understand this is to consider what would happen if they were selling you the game. In this case you could take Cyberpunk and start distributing it freely. You could change the code however you wish, repackage it and resell it. Because... you would own the code itself. This is why they are merely selling a license allowing usage of the software. Nothing more or less.
Does this sound familiar at all? Ever used Linux? Open source anyone? Take your pick from a list of 35 word processing programs and do whatever the hell you want with them? Compile your own kernel from source? This is what selling you the game would mean. Well, certain Linux distros and software would fall here anyway (most are freely distributed, not sold).
Many of the links in that LTT post are speaking about things like reselling this license. This has nothing to do with whether you're buying the game or a license. It has to do with whether you're legally allowed to transfer the rights to this license. Other links are speaking about what the developer can and cannot allow the buyer of this license to do with it (like... resell it).
Somehow there is no line being drawn between "license" and "game". The reality is these are not interchangeable. They are very different "goods".
Whether the mod can be legally pulled is another matter. I could see reaching an interpretation where this is.... muddy. I'm actually not sure how that works. The thing is, "CDPR asked Nexus mods to remove it...", could mean exactly that. It's conceivable it was not a demand but a request. A request Nexus mods decided to agree with.
Would you be comfortable if someone snapped your picture or took video footage of you and put it in a porno? Perhaps Keanu doesn't want to be featured in video game pornos
. You'd think Johnny would be all for that but.... oh nevermind....There's nothing to take to court because EULAs aren't legal contracts. Taking CDPR to court over writing a non legal bit of BS would be like taking you to court over the BS you've written in this thread.
I'm not a lawyer, and not everybody who studies the law is a lawyer. And your conception of what a lawyer is is plainly ignorant of the reality.
A lawyer is not a legal truth-speaker. A lawyer is an advocate for hire, with their job being not to represent the law as it is intended or good to be, but to navigate and shape interpretation of the law to secure the most benefits and dismiss the most negatives for their employer. And in the course of their advocacy for their employer's interests, lawyers are also often liars for hire.
A copyright lawyer makes their living by advocating for copyright holders and will probably simply tell you what is in their employer's or profession's interests for you to think. After all, they make their money and reputation that way.
Examples of copyright holders include big publishers and developers. Large gaming publishers can afford the 'best' lawyers, and their definition of a 'best' lawyer is likely going to be the one that argues whatever it takes to accomplish whatever the publisher wants accomplished. Many of them would prefer that you didn't own your software, and so lawyers in the employ of publisher of the view will argue and assert-as-true that people don't own their software - despite that courts around the world have ruled otherwise.
But if you were to talk with a consumer rights lawyer, which are often arguing from the opposite side of things as a copyright lawyer, you might hear a completely-opposite viewpoint and interpretation.
To understand your rights as an owner of software which you've purchased, you don't take the word of an EULA written by a software industry lawyer, because an EULA is psychological manipulation and advocacy for the interests of the software publisher. It isn't a crime to make a legally-baseless claim such as those that EULAs are commonly made of.
Then why is this still up? It's haunting
Their argument has nothing to do with the mod at hand? Stop trying to strawman them into someone "creepy".
I don't know about the legalities but I recall EU giving costumers ownership of software more akin to hardware. Why do I need to be allowed by cdpr to alter how the game, I bought, functions on my end? Assuming what I do is legal (no, think again) it's really none of their business?
cdpr can have their own legal problems with said mod and the distrubution of it, I don't know. But I act alone and in my own right on my own copy of the game. Maybe it makes me ineligible for future updates/support, I don't know.
And no, cdpr absolutely cannot disable modding. If there was a way to "disable" modding there wouldn't be this thing which I probably can't mention on the forums. Granted they makes things easier with mod support which they have the right to pull at anytime.
joke ahead
You're missing the semantics of 'the game' and 'software'. Like with your shoes, shirt, vehicles, hardware, etc, that you purchase, you don't own the IP for those things, but you do own your purchased copy of those things. The license you received is to use the IP. Your non-reproduceable copy isn't licensed but is fully sold to you and you are the exclusive owner of your copy.
So, people do own their software, be it a game software like CP 2077, or be it Windows. Just like you own a book you purchase. You don't own the book's IP, but you do own your book. You don't own the IP for a software item you've purchased, but you do own your software, the non-reproduceable instance of the IP, that you've purchased.
Courts have ruled this, and you can read about that in this post:
You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda
Post automatically merged:
No, that doesn't preclude it from being unilateral. If both sides can unilaterally end the terms of a contract, then both sides have committed to illusory promises and the contract isn't a legal contract.
Post automatically merged:
You need to read the LTT thread. Because everything you're claiming in opposition to what I've said is not only simply not how things work, and is not only self-contradictory (which you'd be aware of if you knew the legal definitions for things like ownership), but is all covered in the LTT post.
You have accepted that people own the software they purchase and that people can do whatever they want for personal use of their property which includes the software they purchase. That means that you now concede that CDPR cannot tell people how they may modify their game - which means CDPR's statement that they don't allow certain mods is invalid.
The matter of distribution of a mod is a separate topic, and I highlighted that fact in the OP. I also stated that CDPR aren't responsible for the distribution of content that isn't theirs - which includes Keanu Reeves' likeness. The face of Keanu Reeves is still Keanu Reeves and not specifically Johnny Silverhand. Johnny Silverhand's face is that of Keanu Reeves. So, CDPR stepping-in to oppose a mod which puts a texture of Keanu Reeves' face on a model could be CDPR overstepping their authority unless Keanu Reeves has solicited CDPR to act on his behalf in this matter.
All of this is said in the OP of this thread. So, you've conceded to everything I said.
Last edited:
You mean the voice actors who already voice acted specifically for JoyToys having those sound bits used for JoyToys?
So what was the quote that V used for Johnny is the Clouds elevator when he said something about intuition? I think it fits here.
You're what we call an arm chair lawyer. In the Navy we called them sea lawyers. Typical run of the mill people who thought they were an expert in the law (or UCMJ as the case may be) who ended up not knowing anything really about it, but thought they did, and end up causing more harm then good when some poor gullible slub believes what they are saying, and finds out the hard way that they're just people who "read the internet" and thought that means they're experts in the law.
TDLR of all my posts in this thread. CDPR was right, they acted within their authority, and you don't know a thing about what you're talking about.
Anything more that I have to say would simply be insulting you even more then I already have, and I'd prefer not to get deleted by the devs for it. Its a shame
- Status