I can confirm PSYBERX did disclose the use of purchased assets/items very early on as I was in their discord when they did. I believe that disclosure from PSYBERX came after they were called out for using purchased assets. I will also note that I own a small amount of level 1.2X Million and some 88* crates? I did not pay for those 88 crates, majority were dropped to me/ bonus crates due to holding the LVL token. I have no clue how CRATES sold were calculated but its possible that the 7,500 sold crates you quote might be in part including airdropped/bonus crates that were not purchased. I feel this is relevant as one of your points is to highlight the amount of funds they received. I'm unsure of any recent events other than the release of the PSX token as I been MIA for awhile.
My view as someone with no legal background on such things:
I would expect that the purchase of content would serve as payment for use of that content. Which in turn means no further payment to the original creator is needed. Reading the part of the license agreement supplied in the opening post I would say that still stands as true. The screenshot below (taken from the main post) shows two things (1) The bias of this exposure: could be unintentional bias (2) PSYBERX might just be in the right to use the images as they are doing so. My assumptions about point (1) is due to the highlighted info in the screenshot ending where it best suits the posters agenda/exposure of PSYBERX. My assumption for point (2) is that same screenshot clearly states "..... but can be used in your commercial projects multiple times after paying just once "
I think one of the issues here is how the license agreement is worded and if the "NFTs" some of these images are used on (after being modified to some degree) fall under the Can Be Used In Commercial Project multiple times category. Was the modifications enough to satisfy all license agreements, I don't know but nothing displayed in the OP says to what extent modification is needed. Only assumptions based on opinion. As the assets were purchased over different contracts my opinion might not stand true for each agreement. At the moment I don't care to dig in any further. If more concrete evidence presents itself I have the right to change my opinion.
Very few crates were sold, the vast majority were dropped
That is what I thought but I didn't want to make the statement without being certain of it. Also some crates were likely purchased using the games token known as LVL as well. Which if memory serves me correctly gave a purchase discount. All relevant information due to the fact funds received is a point made in the OP. Thanks for providing the additional info.
So they have been deceiving, as usual.
They have happened to have it removed from the home page now...
Probably telling those artists they sold nothing...
I feel as that is grasping at staws. I have some "crates" in other games that once displayed as "crates' purchased even though some were bonus crates that I got for "free" (I have no issue with this either). I think you could potentially have some valid points that can be discussed but things like the above distract from them. If an image displaying "SOLD" instead of "Distributed" is one of the main talking points than that isn't much of a talking point and one that is easily fixed. Which you pointed out (the removal of said image/I didn't look I'll take your word for it) they very well might be in the process of doing.
It's their overall approach on selling things that is always shady.
This is just another example.
Lying, misleading, unethical behaviours. All things we have seen in psyberx over time.
I would appreciate it if you stopped editing your replies to me to include new information/statements (its been 3* days since the above comment you made and you just edited it again). Edits to make spelling corrections or to make a point more clear of already provided information is ok (I do those to) but adding new info/ damning statements to a comment days after I responded to said comment is not. It makes it look like I skipped over things you responded to me with. If you have something to add I would prefer if you simply created a new reply instead of editing an older one. If we all did such edits it would be easy to make those who we are debating with look bad. Thanks for your understanding.
Noted.
Only aligned this reply with the other similar ones.
Getting crowded in the comments so this gives the important points a chance to be seen more.
The comment says edited as well. Readers can see the previous versions if they want to.
I'm aware but allot won't bother looking unless prompted nor should they have to. Some might not even know how to look. Either way thanks for making note. For what its worth, I don't think you were purposely being malicious towards me with the edits.
So they have been deceiving, as usual.
.
They happened to have it removed from the home page now.
Tell those artists they sold nothing...
.
It was there just yesterday...
I can see why this affects you and are bothered. Most of the supporting replies in the comments are from bag holders or team members.
.
It doesn't affect me personally at all (financially or emotionally), nor am I bothered. I learned a very long time ago when running my own forums to not let anything people say or do on the internet bother me as I have the power to choose who I interact with. I chose to read your post and comments, I chose to respond to them. I can simply not do those things if I ever feel bothered. I responded to your post to shed some light on things such as the early admission by PSYBERX about using purchased items. Also to correct the misinformation you shared (total amount of funds received by PSYBERX). Since you are impartial (right?) and not someone with an agenda I assumed such information would be important to you and those reading your post.
My delegation stays because I don't think PSYBERX are out to scam or intentionally deceive the HIVE community. Your post has not convinced me otherwise. I will remove my delegation on my own accord when I so choose. Also, I don't have much of a bag nor am I a Team Member. I listed my PSYBERX holdings in my original reply to your post which at current prices equals to about $70 USD (at most) of the LVL token and 88 crates (I'm not sure what value to give them). I also hold a small amount of PSX tokens. I hid nothing, money doesn't hold weight over my integrity or morals. Especially such small amounts that we are speaking of here.
For transparancy I should mention that I also own 0.1 LVL tokens on an alt account (unbelievable).
Good.
.
That was nothing new. Using purchases assets in a game, for sure does not look good when they promised an AAA game, but it doesn't break the law and is not immoral like re-selling them as NFTs without the artists' permission.
So you are aware of the over 600 K Hive transferred to exchanges too, right? (it's all on chain).
And it wasn't misinformation, that's what their homepage stated. 7500 packs sold.
Ok, so about 1 grand invested, at the current prices.
Of course, you are free to do as you please. More than warning people I can't do.
It wasn't mentioned in your OP when I read it or at least I didn't notice that you mentioned it. So from my point of view, yes it was indeed new information. Not new in the sense that you/ me or some others didn't know the information but new in the sense that it was not shared in your opening post. Its possible one of the team members mentioned it in the comments here before I validated the claims. That doesn't take away from the importance of needing the Team Members claims confirmed to be true by others who are not team members.
I'm no law expert, I already gave my opinion on how I view the parts of the contract as it was displayed in your original OP.
Why would someone be aware of that other than when it is being pointed out? If I invested thousands than sure maybe I would keep such a close eye on their on-goings but I didn't so here we are.I took part in handful of start-ups here on HIVE and I never once felt the need to track funds moved off chain. I always assume such a possibility for cost of operation/ cost of further growing the product/ company and onboarding.
It was misinformation. You very well know how this works as you are a witness and have vast knowledge of the other play2earn games here on hive. Such games also have or at one point had the same type of advertising when it comes to "Sold" "CRATES". Not to mention the possibility that in-game tokens could of been used to trade for some CRATES which is not the same as selling for fiat. You also never considered any potential bonuses for bulk purchases/other. The part that makes it misinformation------->You then presented a number of received funds (Fiat) that wasn't true <---- that is the part that makes it misinformation. Its nitpicking but obviously distributed would be a better word for PSYBERX to use. You are not a newbie to this stuff.
No, I'm not sure how you are calculating my invested value but if you were simply going by what my holdings are worth today that is not what I consider my invested amount nor is it the amount I would get if I were to try and sell everything in todays market. Either way its still a very tiny amount. I'm not hear due to my *-1K holdings in PSYBERX. In short I confirmed some facts and provided my opinion in my original response to your post. You proceeded to address me. I decided to entertain your inquires. That is all this is.
Indeed, will PSYBERX overcome all this. I don't know they now have a big mountain to climb. Only father time knows the outcome. The rest of us have to wait and see.
I don't agree on a couple of points but I don't see the point of keeping to discuss them.
And yes, time will tell.
In most cases it is illegal, and where it's on the edge it's still...
...to profit from someone else's work without attribution or compensation.
NFT = Derivative Work
. . . . .
&
They were compensated (assuming they were paid for the original agreement) and my comment you are replying to expands on my opinion on that. In short, the initial purchase is the compensation. I have no clue in such situations if the original artist should be cited or not. I would assume if the artist wanted their name cited they would include that it needed to be so in the the license agreement/contract. If it isn't there I will have to side with the possibility that citing them is optional or potentially not even wanted by the seller of said asset.
Even with Creative Commons licenses, you are required to give attribution to the original creator.
The licenses they agreed to when they purchased the assets state that they cannot do what they did. They are already investigating remediations.
Just another stain on their already frail reputation..
So they have been deceiving, as usual.
.
They have happened to remove it from their landing page now.
Telling those artists they sold nothing?
.
The first screenshot was taken yesterday.