cp702

When people say "Alienware system," they mean "a system made by Dell under the Alienware brand." TheDivineHustle is saying that the Alienware line of systems is generally overpriced and, in his experience, had poor tech support available. If you want a high-end desktop computer and want to save money, you should generally look at building your own instead of buying a pre-built one. The Alienware line in particular is also notorious for even higher prices than most other brands. I can't speak to their tech support (never owned an Alienware myself), but since one of the main advantages of buying a pre-built computer is support, bad support makes it even less worth the premium.

This topic has been moved to the appropriate forum. Please post in the correct location in the future.

Update: SHV is now officially released.

Not how it works. A letter "requesting" that you cease and desist is the same thing as a demand letter. In either case, the request comes with an implicit or explicit "...or else we'll sue."

This isn't a topic about whether civilians should have guns. It's a topic about whether police should be armed.

LSPDFR does not require SHV. It uses RPH, which is totally independent of SHV (and which has already been updated).

"Freeware" does not mean "you can do what you want with it." "Freeware" means "it is distributed for zero dollars." You might be thinking of "free software" under the FSF definition (also known as "open source" or "FOSS"), although that still doesn't mean "you can do what you want with it" (while the four freedoms do include the freedom to run, modify, redistribute, and redistribute modified copies, copyleft free software licenses like the GPL forbid you from distributing your modifications unless you distribute them under a GPL-compatible free software license). In any event, OpenIV is certainly not FOSS. Its license is fairly restrictive, in fact; you may not reverse-engineer, modify, or redistribute for a fee. Before you say "but I'm uploading it for free," nowhere does the license say you may redistribute it if you don't charge money. It says Russian law governs all situations not explicitly mentioned, and I suspect Russian law doesn't allow copying and redistributing a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner regardless of whether you're charging a fee. You say it's been abandoned as if that's relevant. It's not. Copyright doesn't depend on the author continuing to update the copyrighted work; for most copyrighted works (like books and films), the expectation is that the author will not continue to update them. Nor does copyright depend on the author authorizing anyone to copy the work. Copyright means that no one but the owner can authorize copies of the work (with possible exceptions in special cases depending on national legislation, but I would be extremely surprised if any exceptions applied here). If the owner doesn't authorize any copying, no one may copy the work. An author has the right to say "I only want 100 copies of this in existence, so I'll make 100 copies and then forbid anyone from making any more."

https://www.rockstargames.com/eula Surprisingly, no reference to arbitration that I can see.

Rockstar is wholly owned by Take-Two. Even if they weren't, Rockstar doesn't own any of the GTA IP; Take-Two is the copyright holder, and doesn't need to ask Rockstar's permission before suing or not suing someone for violating it. Take-Two has to be involved. Rockstar doesn't get to decide who can do what with GTA V; that's Take-Two's prerogative as the copyright owner.

That's pretty terrible timing. They sent the letter over a week ago, and had time before they even sent it to work out a statement.

Translation, given the time it was released: "Ohcrapohcrapohcrap. Would it kill them to give us some advance warning so we can do more than slap together the first statement that comes to mind?"

By the way, for people talking about Take-Two vs. Rockstar: Take-Two owns the copyright to GTA V (or at least they did when they registered it). The "Rockstar" EULA is actually an agreement between you and Take-Two. I'm pretty sure Rockstar legally can't sue you for violating the GTA V copyright; that's a right of the copyright owner, which is Take-Two. Who sent the letter doesn't necessarily reflect whose decision it was.

The *recent* ratings flipped to negative. V has been out for years. Not a whole lot of people are still buying and reviewing it.

That decision is about whether a patent holder retains patent rights on a physical item they have sold. Software is generally protected by copyright, not patents; Rockstar's position is that their software is licensed, not sold (US courts have generally upheld that sort of claim, although in other countries it might be less accepted); and the decision was not about whether a contract could bind the purchaser (Lexmark was trying a claim for patent infringement, not breach of contract).

Not necessarily. Like I said: this stuff is jurisdiction-dependent. EULAs are a type of contract called a "contract of adhesion," which are heavily disfavored in quite a number of places. Likewise, many countries have rules governing the sale of goods, rules which might plausibly prevent this sort of arrangement (at least not without more notice than a long take-it-or-leave-it contract that it is expected most people do not read).

It's worth noting that EULAs can't just contain whatever terms a company wants. Local law determines what contractual terms are and are not enforceable, and it is entirely possible that that line in the EULA is unenforceable in some countries. If you want to know whether it is enforceable, consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

They do require you to accept it before running the game. You probably just clicked "accept" without reading, but that's your problem (details may vary by jurisdiction, consult a local lawyer for details; the OpenIV team seems to feel that provision is unenforceable in Russia, but they also don't feel like fighting it). This is a joke, right?

Let's be realistic here. Rockstar doesn't actually make money from you playing single-player. They make money when you purchase a game, but then they make no more money from you except through subscription services, paid DLCs, microtransactions, etc. And while there may be "tens of thousands" of people like you, tens of millions of people bought GTA V. The modding community feels big to its members, but that's not where Rockstar makes its money. From the Rockstar EULA: The Steam store page is not where companies put the terms and conditions of their software.

That doesn't contain a tactical sheriff ped, which is what echo04 was looking for. If you're going to suggest an alternative, it should be one which is actually relevant, like or or

The default sheriff peds have three meshes for their equipment belt: gun, no gun, and vest. The "tactical deputy" that you see by default just uses the vest mesh. If you use RDE, there is a real SWAT model for BCSO (as well as for LSPD, SAHP, FIB, and LSSD).

It's not "all of a sudden;" police pursuit tactics have been changing for a long time now, and stationary roadblocks were one of the first things departments moved away from. Pursuits are very dangerous for the suspect, for officers, and for bystanders. Police are sworn to protect, not to apprehend by any means necessary. With few exceptions, police are expected to let a suspect escape if the only alternative is killing them. Stationary roadblocks present a fairly high risk of the suspect crashing into them and dying. Ever since the courts ruled (in 1989) that a stationary roadblock does count as a seizure, departments have mostly eliminated them as a tactic. While police can use potentially-deadly techniques to stop a high-speed chase that threatens the lives of the public, that doesn't mean they should when safer options exist.

Strictly speaking, the GTA V EULA says: The main difference is how much they care. While R*'s EULA forbids modding (and I'm pretty sure their statements don't change that fact), they aren't currently planning on enforcing it against single-player modders under normal circumstances. Console manufacturers actively enforce no-modding rules. It's not a legal difference as much as a practical one.

This topic has been moved to the appropriate forum. Please post in the correct location in the future.

Certain files must be manually approved by staff before they are available for public download. I've just gone through the moderation queue, so try now.

Sorry, but you don't. At least not here. According to the LCPDFR.com rules: No one gets to post publicly claiming "XYZ mod is stolen." Not even the original creator. Mod theft allegations are handled in private by the moderation team, not in public by whoever decides to call "thief." If you suspect someone is using a mod without permissions, you should report it with evidence: both evidence that the mod uses someone else's work, and evidence that the work was used without permission. Normally, only the original creator is in any position to provide the latter. There are exceptions (so feel free to file a report if you do have evidence), but in general we're unlikely to take any action just because of the suspicions of a third party. I'm going to assume this tangent started with genuine interest over which Liberty bar was used and continued with a genuine desire to give advice on looking into permissions, and wasn't an attempt to accuse anyone of mod theft. However, it's been taken as far as it should go. This topic isn't about moral aspects of crediting and permissions, it's a showroom/WIP thread.