CD Projekt Red ask Nexus Mods to remove Keanu Reeves sex mod - but issue a misleading statement as to why

[Delicieuxz]

Publishers have been cultivating an ever-increasingly-inflated impression of the power that they hold for decades. It was possible for them to do this before because the general public had no understanding of the topics and, before the internet and for a long time after the internet, it was like society-wide dogma that a person of a particular profession and industry was a big authority on matters related to their education and profession: Perceptions of everything were more compartmentalized and seen as of a more specialized and esoteric nature.

 

 

Like the ideas that you're a glasses-wearing brainiac if you're a scientist or that you have to be some genius and super-nerd to program something were in the 1980s or 1990s, the continued influence of the sharing and organization of all information enabled by the internet has resulted in compartmentalized and assumptive attitudes of things becoming progressively deflated, and they will eventually be gone entirely.

 

That includes the idea that the law is some enigma that you have to be a practising lawyer to understand or to be able to speak concerning what the law actually is, and in the face of someone who is benefitting from having the law be perceived to be something else.

 

The law sector has been one of the last hold-outs of this effect and transition, but it's happening regarding the law, too, and will continue to. And I think the only reason why the law has been slower than other sectors to become demystified to the public is because it's more boring than other topics and so the general public has less interest in looking into it to see how it actually works, to then be able to dispel the artificial face it's been given. If you can cut-through the mind-games, it's far more logical and straight-forward than most people assume.

 

And there will be major corrections to conventional perceptions of the law as it becomes demystified to the public.

 

 

The more that the law, or any sector, is confined to just those practising it, the more it succumbs to club mentality and becomes a sub-environment in which the participants develop and start conforming to scene conventions that they created themselves but which aren't actually official, legal, and authoritative - but they might speak as if they are and try to intimidate others with them and impose them on others. They also might come to believe their conventions are actual legal reality - and this is a widespread issue within the software industry.

 

Currently, publishers, and I think many industry lawyers, still feel very empowered and puffed-up by a sense that they have some exclusive access and are the club rules / that being in the club means that the rules are as they have been taught to interpret them or as they prefer to tell others they are. And that's something to keep in mind when listening to what they have to say.

[Space5000]

Oh for unfair contracts, I was thinking that if the term is unfair for standard contracts, it would always be unfair even if the person was consciously aware of it. So even if the person knew about the contract and agreed to it, I was thinking an unfair contract still "agreed to" would still be void.

 

When I was talking about the changing terms thing, I was referring to contracts that do give out a reason, but it's a bit broad (e.g. we will change for legal reasons, or the whole "if we find it necessary" thing). Under Europe, I found this under "Potentially unfair terms" : "Terms which allow the trader to alter a contract unilaterally, unless the contract states a valid reason for doing so." here.

 

I actually meant to say browse-wrap agreement instead of click-wrap for the power tools thing, which I apologize for.

And yeah you said a EULA and a ToS isn't the same, but I was mainly referring to the 'binding' argument by itself regardless of each.

 

For the Nintendo Switch thing, I already pointed out that I wasn't depending on whether a EULA is enforceable or not. I was mainly just wondering if the design of the region design is itself a needed element to make a contract less clear on that binding, in case such a contract could somehow be enforceable (we could even pretend that the software was a rental service usage instead to help make this argument) by I guess a bad court ruling.

I live in the USA, the same place where a lot of courts has had a lot of mixed cases regarding shrink-wraps. Haha Though I still care about the possibility of moving to another Country. I was aware of the 2013 mention, but I wasn't really sure if the 2013 ruling really conflicted with the Autodesk ruling because I'm not really sure if the court truly would accept such goods labels to being different when the Autodesk court was depending on a contract attempting to restrict many ownership rights. Though I can understand that property rights with non-Copyrighted specific goods would automatically be with lawful software because of the 2013 ruling maybe, but this concept of restriction of usage from the Autodesk ruling might of been based off standard contracts with any lawful goods, which is why I'm less sure if that really conflicted with it. - I guess the real argument is whether a US state can restrict or take away ownership of a lawful good (even without Copyright) itself without being a service, since this was an ownership argument as an element for first sale and first step doctrine in that court ruling.

[Quackers101]

since the game is already having adult content, why not.

I do find any company go against mods that are for fun and doesn't harm anything to be hostile towards the community in general.

Although they asked? same with the mod engine for GTA V that was for single player, EULA or not, there is some shady practices that wasn't maybe used that much before. More so when a lot is a live services and all that nonsense.

 

just hope they don't **** the **** out of GOG.