Azilut: I'm just speculating here, but I suspect that the age requirements have more to do with laws around who may enter into valid contracts, rather than concerns about whether you are old enough to play the games they sell.
as indicated above, I was talking of age of majority! allthough by rethinking with your post, this could still be a problem (consent and majority)
Goodaltgamer: Unless, you see it as an option for you ´GOG´ checking on a case by case basis.
Azilut: Paragraph 6.6 is specifically about using VPNs to "exploit" the regional pricing system - for example, by using a VPN to make it appear that you are in the lowest-priced region, buying up a bunch of cheaper game codes, and then selling them off on grey market sites at a profit. If you're just using VPNs for convenience and not to scam the system, then I doubt GOG cares about that. That said, I agree that the language in 6.6 is a little too vague, and could probably be tightened up by being a little more specific about when using a VPN amounts to "exploitation".
Agreed, but shall we first not assume innocense ?
Goodaltgamer: 12
You are saying in the title gog content, but are in reality speaking about 3rd party owner rights.
You have a nice mistake there:
LOL
So to whome are you (GOG) belonging
Still ROTFLOL........
back to the topic, you might whant to split it up between YOUR work and 3rd party owner rights.
Azilut: If you look at paragraph 1.1, you will see that "GOG content" refers to the movies and games that GOG sells. Obviously I don't know the details of GOG's contractual arrangements, but they are likely correct in saying that they do not own this content (they probably just have an agreement that allows them to distribute it). There may be some grey areas here - for example, GOG probably has IP rights in the code used to make their install wrapper - but it may not be a distinction worth covering in the Agreement, since I doubt many people are going to make "fan content" about the GOG-wrapper. (Of course, now that I've
said that...)
But the wording is still making me laugh, as it clearly states: "
the GOG content is the property of the respective owner, NOT GOG.com´s" and the paragraph is stating "Using GOG content in fan work"
So either they are talking about their own work, as you said gog wrapper, or they are talking about 3rd party work....
The part 1.1 is not contradicting this. Ether it is their intellectual property or not. If it is not, they will have to state this clearly. This is a contradiction. Saying GOG content is NOT GOG´s property is clearly wrong.
Better to say is a term like saying that the property rights needs to be checked with their corresponding owner.