Trying to understand

[NexBeth]

Effectively, they have implemented a change, and gave users notice with one month time period to withdraw their files before the contentious change goes into effect. I don't see a legal way out if anyone decides to keep their files here but latter demands to have them removed. Nexus is even saying it will allow for file removal afterwards on a case by case basis (ie: someone who has not been around but later becomes aware of the change and wants files removed).

 

What legal case does anyone have after Aug 5?

[LeelooMinai]

 

That does happen occasionally. I just see collections as a support nightmare.

As do I - especially if they're marketed as one-click modding for those who aren't interested in learning anything about modding.

 

I vaguely remember modding FO4 at a time well past release, when most actual fix/patches were done - yet every time the Creator's Club store updated, Steam would automatically update my game whenever I tried to launch it - which made the version out of sync with F4SE, so I needed to wait for an update from that team before I could play again. (Actually, there was a workaround, a way to get the previous version of the game using a direct link.) I really felt for the F4SE team while that was going on.

 

I can't imagine the gymnastics that will be required of collection curators during times when everything's changing...

 

All I am saying is Stardew Valley...... x'D

[Khornetto]

I wonder what's next, them claiming ownership over mods unless you delete them within a month? When companies start taking these anti-customer roads it never leads to improvements.

[HeyYou]

I wonder what's next, them claiming ownership over mods unless you delete them within a month? When companies start taking these anti-customer roads it never leads to improvements.

They are effectively taking ownership of files. They can do whatever they want with them, and you can't remove them. Doesn't that sounds like ownership?

 

The trouble is, we have two competing groups of customers. The tiny minority, mod authors, and the vast majority, mod users..... It isn't difficult to see which group is going to get more favor..... Even though that hasn't been the case until just lately. Maybe they figger they have enough content on here now, and they don't 'need' mod authors quite so badly, so, they feel they can mistreat them however they wish, and any that leave, will be replaced by someone else, AND their files will still be here......

[Pasquale1223]

But, they provided a way for anyone who did not agree to leave the site without being affected by the change. They could still remove their files for 30 days. And they will continue that option for anyone who misses the notification. Effectively, they shuffled the implementation of the change down the road to August 5th and that will likely work in their favor.

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

 

As I understand it, they rolled out the software changes along with the notification. Before the change, MAs could delete their own files.

 

Effectively, they have implemented a change, and gave users notice with one month time period to withdraw their files before the contentious change goes into effect. I don't see a legal way out if anyone decides to keep their files here but latter demands to have them removed. Nexus is even saying it will allow for file removal afterwards on a case by case basis (ie: someone who has not been around but later becomes aware of the change and wants files removed).

 

What legal case does anyone have after Aug 5?

A couple of things:

1) I'm not sure a TOS constitutes a valid contract.

2) Contracts can have provisions that are unenforceable.

 

A TOS could say "signing up for an account here gives us possession of all of your worldly goods and your first-born child." Obviously, that would be unenforceable.

 

It was... a loooong time ago when I took Business Law (US), but I vaguely remember some other requirements contracts have to meet in order to be enforceable. People can sometimes get out of contracts if they can demonstrate they entered it while under duress (or under the influence). Sometimes industry standards come into play, and most sites that host user-supplied content allow users to delete their content - even if their TOS say they don't. Contracts that are found to be patently unfair can also be judged unenforceable - like when a contract requires a lot more from one party than is required of the other.

 

Also, the EU has something called GDPR, aka the right to be forgotten - which I believe gives them the right to have their data deleted upon request.

 

I would think the Nexus might have had some legal counsel prior to making these changes, but I still question whether they're really on solid ground with this.

 

ETA: Oh, yeah - then there's the fact that every single mod uploaded prior to the TOS change was uploaded under a different set of rules. If you're trying to make a case for the TOS being equivalent to a contract, that... doesn't really work. The files uploaded under the old TOS would have been provided under a different contract, and thus not subject to the stipulations in the new one.

[showler]

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

 

As I understand it, they rolled out the software changes along with the notification. Before the change, MAs could delete their own files.

...

Â

Also, the EU has something called GDPR, aka the right to be forgotten - which I believe gives them the right to have their data deleted upon request.

Â

 

Whether you delete your files or they delete your files the result is the same.

 

And the GDOR only allows you to demand the deletion of personal data that was collected in the course of the company doing business. And that's data ABOUT the person, not data belonging to the person.

[WileCoyote68]

 

Also, the EU has something called GDPR, aka the right to be forgotten - which I believe gives them the right to have their data deleted upon request.

This right does not apply here. By uploading you have agreed to the ToS and thus forfeited your right for file deletion. A file can't be equated with sensitive information about the author so it doesn't belong to the right to be forgotten. That is not my opinion, but the statement of a German lawyer who specializes in Internet law and GPDR. Please do not get me wrong. I do not want to defend the actions of the operators of Nexus Mods in any way. The way of proceeding with their newly agenda is and remains disgusting from my point of view

[Pasquale1223]

 

 

Also, the EU has something called GDPR, aka the right to be forgotten - which I believe gives them the right to have their data deleted upon request.

Due to the change in the Nexus Mods ToS, this right does not apply here. By uploading you have agreed to the ToS and thus forfeited your right to be forgotten. A file can't be equated with sensitive information about the author That is not my opinion, but the statement of a German lawyer who specializes in Internet law and GPDR

 

Did this lawyer know that the terms had changed? That is, most of the files had been uploaded under a different TOS?

[Raptilize]

I don't understand all this litigation talk. Is there someone having difficulty sending Nexusmods a formal letter stating they no longer want their work available for distribution?

[WileCoyote68]

 

Did this lawyer know that the terms had changed? That is, most of the files had been uploaded under a different TOS?

 

Yes, he does. He read the relevant parts of the announcement and ToS. From an ethical point of view, he condemns the procedure, but that will not help you in any lawsuit. You would have to be able to prove that the change was not announced or tacitly implemented and that would be quite difficult.

 

 

Part of his statement:

The GPDR is only relevant to personal data (Art. 4 No. 1 GPDR), which is usually not the case with mods. If it could be related to mods too, there would be a conflict whose effects are difficult to evaluate - since GB is no longer part of the EU and thus EU regulations no longer work.