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.
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.
hell 90% of what I do post is crap
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.
You own the game yes. You do not own the likenesses and copyrighted material in the game.
And yet they do, and they can be and have been enforced since 2012.
If EULAs weren't able to be enforced then they wouldn't waste time or money or them.
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.
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?
You can verify this for yourself in any legal dictionary, such as this one:
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.
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.
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?
Post automatically merged:
The EULA claims that CDPR can unilaterally revoke the license unilaterally per their sole discretion.
That is literally an illusory promise.
The EULA claims that CDPR can unilaterally revoke the license unilaterally per their sole discretion.
That is literally an illusory promise.
Second, in what way is this meant to "hurt" him? If that is the case. Why have
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.
Do you understand what disrespectful means? Sorry that Polish companies have honor [...]. They are doing it out of respect to Keanu.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean the voice actors who already voice acted specifically for JoyToys having those sound bits used for JoyToys?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.
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.