this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
254 points (97.0% liked)

PC Gaming

13264 readers
974 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don’t understand how this is legal action?

Well just the use of the trademark would probably be enough to file a DMCA takedown. But beyond that modding the game entails using its modding tools, which have an EULA, which stipulates no paywalls for mods.

Technically the modder has legal recourse, they could argue fair use and file a counter-notice. Then CDPR would have to sue in front of a court. But given the financial and legal risks it seems unlikely a counter-notice will happen.

Honestly the only real chance is to come to some kind of agreement with CDPR, which they seemed to heavily telegraph is possible in their public message ("we never allow monetization of our IP without our direct permission and/or an agreement in place").

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see, I didn't think about the modding tools here. I always thought such clauses in the EULA are there for "good manners", and not something that can be used in court in example. Lot of stuff in EULAs in general are not legally enforceable.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah true, but actually proving that in court costs time and money. And once you get a DMCA takedown notice you are forced to fight it or comply.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There are no modding tools. This is done entirely outside the game. But it does still qualify as a breech of ToS. There are alot of options for how to handle it, this is the option they chose.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are, called REDmod: https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/modding-support

From what I understand the Cyberpunk VR mod is partially made up of REDmod plugins and partially of stand-alone binaries, but not sure on that one.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, meant no modding tools from any one specific game involved in the luke ross mod, he supports 35 games with it.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

And he does so by providing a stand-alone binary and providing integration into the games by using their modding tools. At least that was my, admittedly unresearched, understanding of the matter.

If what you say was true it would be an open-and-shut case meaning Ross could have immediately filed a DMCA counter-notice (i.e. legally asserting that no copyrighted material was used) because he wouldn't have anything to lose. But he didn't do that. My guess would be because he did in fact use REDmod plugins to make his VR mod binary viable to actually play.

But I'm admittedly guessing here, any source you want to provide to the contrary would be welcome.