this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
233 points (97.9% liked)

PC Gaming

13309 readers
545 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Looks like the Ghostrunner developers also have an issue with paid mods running off their IP.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm surprised and also not really.

It's exactly the same line of thinking where someone else is given more rights over a thing than the person who owns it.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you want to fully own it then put a exclusive and unlimited license agreement into the contract with your architect.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If there is a law that puts limits on what you can agree to in a contract then you don't get around it by making a contract that violates the law.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but such a license agreement is fully inside the limits of the law, not beyond it. There is no violation, only a addition inside of the rules and limits of the law.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

we were talking about laws that exist in Germany and perhaps somewhere else too. Are you commenting on the German law specifically and familiar enough with it to say it can be superseded by a contract?

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It is not superseding anything, why would it? It is not doing anything that is not clearly defined in the law. It is just bundling to types of contracts together.

I fear we have some kind of missunderstanding somewhere and I am not sure how to resolve that.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Again because a law can either be unnegotiable or something that can be superseded by a contract. Anyway, I was just wondering what type it is in this particular case. What you seem to be saying is that it can in fact be superseded if it is possible to enter into a contract where you agree to waive those rights.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

It is the superseding that I don't find correct, but maybe it is just a nuance of the word that i am missing.

But I would say, in some degree, yes.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

a exclusive and unlimited license agreement

That's what 'own' means.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not really, or not always at least. Not every law system allows to sell your copyrights. In germany for example it is only possible to license your copyrights but not to fully transfer them. Copyrights are therefor not part of the transfer of ownership, you have to add a license agreement additionally.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I know there's some nuance and was being a bit facetious. :)