kevind963

Checkout "911 Operator" and the squeal that will be released soon "112 Operator"

I would expect to see a response from T2 and R* in the next week. Assuming they have also seen a notable decrease in sales of the title as well as shark cards which I think is very likely. At some level I think they know they have caused irretrievable damage as many people will not change/remove their reviews. If they do fix this I will make sure to change my review to positive but I only think 50% of the people will do that which will still leave them in a massive review hole.

You raise an interesting point. It does seem dubious at best. California's regulations have more weight than federal regulations at this point because manufacturers know if they want to sell in CA (they do) they need to comply. You are forgetting. This is America. I have been experiencing intermittent anxiety, distress, and emotional angst over T2 illegal infringements of my rights. I personally value that distress at $100 per hour I cannot play GTA V with the mods I know and love. I imagine this exact feeling is shared by the 38,000 that have signed the petition. That is say, maybe half a million dollars in damages so far... Not that is a very good legal argument (about on par with T2 assertions) but if I had a board room full of $800/hr lawyers you bet they could make that case on some level.

Oh absolutely, this is more of a "law school" argument than a suggestion. It just adds to the irony of the already baseless claims of T2. If only Putin played LSPDFR then this would be a non issue haha. Exactly... I wonder how much they would have to charge for GTA if they intended to enforce the EULA against average the average Joe? Maybe $5,000 per copy?

Given recent Supreme Court president the legal issue would be against T2 for prohibiting people from modding their game by issuing the cease and desist order. If you purchased the game you OWN it and have a right to modify, repair, and alter it in anyway you see fit. The "manufacturer" saying that you are prohibited from doing so was just stuck down by the Supreme Court. No amount of lobbying can ever change that. This is a bleeding edge issue so there is little to go on but given the ruling it would be conceivable for a modder that relied on donation revenue (giving them legal standing) from providing mods could sue T2 for damages over this. Software is not quite an ink cartridge but this ruling was sweeping and can absolutely be extended to software TOS just like it applies to physical products TOS. Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/supreme-court-victory-right-tinker-printer-cartridge-case

I would totally support development of OpenV in an open source way. I've never done any GTA modding so I would have no IDEA where to start but my day job is a developer so all I do is write code all day anyway. Point me towards a Git repo though and I would be on my merry way to GTA modding... How hard could it be?... Famous last words...

As far as I'm concerned OpenIV should fully comply with the C&D letter... Fully stop hosting and developing the tool by posting it on GitHub with an MIT licence. Then say the running the software may be illegal and to do so at your own risk. There is no legal recourse for companies (or anyone) to say that code (by itself) is illegal or in anyway "infringes their rights." Code would be A) protected by the first amendment (to some degree) and B) fully protected by copyright and most importantly C) Completely unenforceable. Just look at all of the "security" tools that are out there that would be more aptly name hack-tools/exploit kits. They are not illegal and can't be. Bottom line: If you (T2 and R*) don't like people messing with your code, cheating online, and decrypting content then DO BETTER. The burden is on you to protect what you want protected not to hide under your TOS. Which, funny enough is likely illegal now thanks to the Supreme Court (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/supreme-court-victory-right-tinker-printer-cartridge-case). Given that, T2's claims hold no weight as their TOS would likely not hold water in court given this brand precedent.

Do you know if there will there be front/rear only patterns available? For example, after making a traffic stop will it be possible to turn off the lights on the front of vehicle? Are you able to shed any light (no pun intended) on how ELS will be controlled? Back in ELS IV we had 4 light "sectors" on the primary light bar that defined the patterns. We had the WRNL, PRML, and SECL available to control/select patterns for.