CD Projekt Red has confirmed that it made a modder take down their Cyberpunk 2077 VR mod [VR Injection Framework: +100 games supported] because they were charging money for it [Patreon subscribers] : pcgaming

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 61 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’d like to briefly address the discussion around the “Cyberpunk VR” mod created by Luke Ross. We have indeed issued a DMCA strike, as it was available as a paid mod (only accessible to Patreon subscribers). This directly violates our Fan Content Guidelines: we never allow monetization of our IP without our direct permission and/or an agreement in place. We were in touch with Luke last week and informed him that he needs to make it free for everyone (with optional donations) or remove it. We are big fans of mods to our games — some of the work out there has been nothing short of amazing, including Luke’s mod for Cyberpunk 2077. We’d be happy to see it return as a free release. However, making a profit from our IP, in any form, always requires permission from

@CDPROJEKTRED

So they offered this guy to make it free with donations, which is reasonable in my opinion, and he said no.

Given that, I'm okay with this DCMA.

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Given that, I’m okay with this DCMA.

Just a small detail that doesn't look considered, if you ear only one side of the story. The "Cyberpunk VR” mod is not actually a "Cyberpunk VR” mod, but a framework that came to support Cyberpunk after many other games (like GTAV). If you're still okey, bear in mind the same logic may apply to Loseless Scaling (sold for ~7€ on Steam) and 3DSen (sold for ~13€ on Steam) or you need to take VR Injection Framework apart from Loseless Scaling and 3DSen.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I think you're missing some nuance here.

3DSen is based on reverse engineering and not IP since it's not selling the ROMs that come with it. All completely legal to sell and don't mind buying to support this guy's reverse engineering and transformation effort. If it was just some stock NES emulator that he was selling, eh, I'd probably just say legal but bullshit.

Lossless Scaling is a tool/actual framework that uses released/open source API calls to apply frame gen to any game, as far as I know and that's not violating any terms or conditions or IP either.

With this, while I can appreciate that he's done this for other game, the terms and conditions for them is "don't use our tools to sell mods". Do I agree with it? Actually yes, for the most part. I'm of the firm belief that the modding community should be open, I think that these are things that should be done for passion, I like having donations set up, and that we're lucky that we live in an age that many game companies are kind enough to release modding tools without demanding a license fee. Plus he's not selling a framework here, he's selling his framework built with a company's tools that says "No paid mods because we think the modding community should be open".

I think that IP is often tricky and I think that this is fine and not a slippery slope argument.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] IckabodKobain@feddit.online 70 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The moment you slap a Price Tag on it, it's no longer about "Passion". I'm okay with the modder having like a Patreon or whatever donations mechanism they'd like. But don't lock your mod behind it. I can't stand that nonsense.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I agree that it isn't just passion, it is his full time job. He clearly has passion for it too, but you can't make a mod suite this insane on passion alone. This is years of consistent 100 hour work weeks. All dedicated to making these VR mods better than any VR port, or even "built for VR first" games.

And he drops support for the game as soon as asked. Which requires shutting down for a week to disentangle anything related to the one game specifically from the rest of the suite. I can't say he didn't complain, but not about the work, just that it didn't have to go this route, but it did go this route, so he does what he has to.

While the mod is behind payment, the payment is for his work and dedication. If he had to subsist on donations, he wouldn't be able to put 100 hours a week into it, he would need a job.

Again, the games are fully in their right to pull out, but they also admit that all he would need is their permission, they could choose to go that route, most do.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 97 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean, that's pretty much fair game at that point. It's literally in the EULA. They really had no other option.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm not really to to date with the situation, but just because something is written in an EULA doesn't mean it's legally enforceable? You might even argue that the modder isn't an end user in this case and as such, the EULA doesn't apply.

As long as no copyrighted work is distributed, what is the angle? I just assume that the mod did include copyrighted material, but what if it was purely a patch?

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, assuming they're not redistributing any content from the game, I hope everyone cheering for this realizes that the same justification could be used to forbid emulation, or modding as a whole.

[–] NoPanko@feddit.uk 31 points 2 days ago (3 children)

No CD said they are happy for them to make the mod and to have a link for donations to make money from it, but locking it exclusively behind a paywall is the only issue. This has pretty much always been the case in the modding scene .

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

You are not comprehending my comment at all.

CD Projekt is not the only company in the world and legal precedents affect more than just the case in which they are created. As of right now this isn't a court case, but consider:

Currently it is completely legal to create an emulator provided you write all the code yourself and none of its parts include intellectual property (such as firmware images or copies of games).
Currently it is completely legal to make and distribute patches for, for example, NES game ROMs that contain none of the original information from the game, but merely consist of a list of locations where values should be modified by a specified amount.
To give a non-game example, it is completely legal to distribute a commentary track for a movie so long as you don't include the movie footage within it. Even though that commentary track is essentially useless without a copy of the movie. There even exists sets of instructions for re-cutting movies to create fan edits.

Now, assuming that the mod in question doesn't redistribute parts of Cyberpunk, and is instead a completely separate piece of software that happens to be capable of interfacing with the game, what right does CD Projekt have to tell them what to do? Possibly they use the word "Cyberpunk" in the name of their mod, which is indeed a trademarked term that CD Projekt could potentially assert control of in this case, but other than that?

[–] Airowird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Arguably ....

Your movie commentary track works without the movie. Considering the amount of Youtube react vids, it seems legal to do that for money.

Your emulator might be legal, the ROMs for them aren't. Because one is recreating some functionality with different means, the other is an infringement of a developer's copyright.

As far as the ROM patch fixes go .... yes, selling those is technically not allowed. You can ask for donations, but the patch itself must be freely distributed. Sometimes there is no rights holder left, or they don't care to pursue the case, but they are in their right to challenge paid patches if they wanted to.

This mod, though, is a product that provides a new experience (Cyberpunk VR) by using someone else's work. It doesn't matter if it's a $1 yearly subscription, you must pay to get it, so it's legally a commercial product. And that product relies on other people's work to deliver its advertised experience, which makes it illegal in the vast majority of courts in this world.

Specifically, this mod is not universal, it only works on Cyberpunk and its functionality is directly related to that game. If it worked on all games, you could call it a VR emulator, but it doesn't, so you can't.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Considering the amount of Youtube react vids, it seems legal to do that for money.

Actually if anything those are illegal considering they usually contain the entire video with some moron's face in the corner. You could argue that they fall under fair use for criticism and analysis, though I don't think you'd be able to do so successfully given the amount of original content included and the insubstantial nature of the commentary. Its more like these videos usually copy work from creators that don't have the resources to put up a fight.

Your emulator might be legal, the ROMs for them aren’t.

Yeah, that's what I just said.

As far as the ROM patch fixes go … yes, selling those is technically not allowed. You can ask for donations, but the patch itself must be freely distributed.

I'm really sorry to tell you this but IP law doesn't give a tinker's damn about whether or not you're making money from something. It might aggravate a company's lawyers into action more readily than if you are not, but a company is fully within their rights to shut you down whether you're violating IP law to make money or if you're doing it to help underprivileged kids with cancer.

And that product relies on other people’s work to deliver its advertised experience

Copyright laws, as the name suggests, govern who has the right to make copies of a particular piece of IP. If you are not making and distributing copies of something in some way then copyright law doesn't apply.

You are effectively arguing that I shouldn't be able to make and distribute lists of songs I think are good to listen to together unless I get the permission of all the song creators. That is ridiculous.

If companies are able to exert legal control over anything that relies on their IP to function, not just copies of their IP, the implications would be far reaching and disastrous. For one, custom phone ROMs, even completely original ones, are usually specific to specific models of phone because they rely on interfacing with firmware that is different from phone to phone. Currently it is legal for consumers to modify phones they own (which is something that had to be fought for, by the way), but under that standard a manufacturer could DMCA ROM developers. Nvidia would be able to DMCA the developers of the Nouveau driver since it relies on their GPU firmware in order to function.

Something everyone here needs to understand is that law in general, but IP law especially, is not a set of platonic ideals handed down by god. It's very very fuzzy and what flies and what doesn't relies heavily on precedent. There are things that were common practice in the 1960s that would get you sued now even though the law hasn't changed. Companies constantly try to push to expand the scope of their control while consumers try to push back. Yes I know "I like free mods, I like wholesome CD Projekt because they ran GOG, I think this is a good thing", but you need to think of the broader implications of things like this. I don't give a shit about this specific developer or whether they "deserve" to charge for their mod or whatever, the precedent that game companies are able to exert legal control over, and set standards for, mods of their game is very very bad. Even if you think daddy CD Projekt would be a good steward I can assure you other companies would not be.

[–] Airowird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have no opinion or comment on historic cases, what should be legal or if CD Projekt is my daddy or not. I didn't even specifically refer to IP or copyright laws, so I don't know why you started on that.

The current legal consensus (atleast in the West) is that paid mods are a commercial product and no longer a user "passion project" under fair use.

Yes, it's essentially the same concept as a phone case, but laws seem to make a distinction for software vs physical products. Feel free to go into politics to change that.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] HotDog7@feddit.online 56 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Good. Mods must forever remain a passion project and not something incentivized by money.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago

I dream of a world where people can follow their passion without having to worry about where their next meal will come from.

[–] Senseless@feddit.org 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tell that to Bethesda.

[–] ChillPenguin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But my horse armor though.

[–] Senseless@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

If it only were the horse armour. Iirc they sell mods that are already available on nexusmods, made by 3rd party creators and keep a percentage of that money because they "offered the service for mod distribution".

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Team Fortress was a mod. Counterstrike was a mod. DotA was a mod. Really depends on what they can do with dedicated effort rather than just simply a passion project.

VR mods, they aren't really worth it IMO, I even resent the game devs who charge for separate VR releases that they usually don't even end up maintaining across different VR hardware. IMO the problem with VR is that people try to do too much with it and try to Wii-ficy the experience, and this is at the hardware level given how usually you can't even use your keyboard and mouse, having to resort to the VR controllers they came with for a much slower and less fluid experience.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, and these mods were so good that they became their own games.

If you want to do that, you're a game developer. So license (or develop) an engine, and also pay for all the non-permissively licensed other code you use.

Congratulations, you're now on a solid base for charging money for your game.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So in other words, "Mods must forever remain a passion" is false, which was the point I was addressing. But it doesn't even have to be a game, like say, Virtual Desktop, Wallpaper Engine, 3D Mark, etc.

edit: I go on to describe what the developer was actually doing, apparently, so it would not have gone "very differently" as I suggested. Welp, it is CD Projekt RED. They talk the talk, but the devil is in the details with them [See Devotion].

If this developer had released a software tool named, say, VRossify, and it was released as a VR launcher that offered VR for multiple games that didn't have it, the discussion could be very different. He could sell this and provide the plugins that mod support for each particular game freely. Instead, he released them as paid mods for what the developers are likely also considering, a dedicated VR release. ~~He tied himself to one particular IP each time while trying to monetize it, and that's basically a sure way to guarantee a loss if it ever got to trial. Ain't no host that's going to ignore a DMCA notice in such a clear cut case of IP violation IMO.~~ He'd have to make it clear that it is providing its own platform and not just use it as a excuse to profit off of notable game releases. He could do things like focus on Unreal Engine games, which would net him a good amount of support for games that could benefit from VR.

At the end of the day, though, it's up to each developer, and he might have to remove games on request from the support of said software tool. Then it might be up to a third party to provide a plugin for said platform, or just replace it entirely if its too basic. At this point,~~ given his attitude I assume he has burned bridges with CD Projekt RED~~ (these are the guys who after Devotion have not allowed future Red Candle Games on GOG even when they've notably been on Steam, EGS, and Humble Bundle), ~~but if he had had foresight to present it that way first, it might not have gone the way it has~~ (edit: Na, they decided to be assholes anyway. Guess there wasn't enough horse bestiality in the mod.)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago

We hate on Nintendo and Rockstar for DCMA'ing free/open source mods/project, not paid ones. If you're charging money for a tool, you're running a business. If your business involves another business's product, like with AI training or freaking phone cases, legal demands like this become a fair part of doing business.

Granted there is still a power disparity to recognize, even if the guy is a douche. But it's not unfair in the way DCMA'ing things made freely for the community is unfair.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I get it. It sets a precedent that mods shouldn't eventually be a capital environment. Mods have always been passion projects and have always been paid for with donations.

If there were a hypothetically good balance, it'd be that the developer gets their initial income for the game, worthy of support for continued good quality games from them. Then, rather then releasing shitty DLC for gamers to waste money on, redirect that towards modders with promotions, reminding the audience that they deserve donations. Leading fundraaising events like "modder packs" that's nothing but a $5, $10, $15 things to pay for with not content attached, for the audience to buy, where the total kitty is distributed to the modding community for their part of carrying the game on.

The last thing I'd like to see is mod slop because once the precedent is set, given a few years later it's the norm to only get mods after paying for them. This would ruin modding communities and the longevity of games long after they're developed.

[–] NeveHanter@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know where are you getting the "have always been ... and have always been paid for with donations" thing from.

IMHO, its a "recent" thing, folks were doing mods/indie games without getting paid before Patreon/ko-fi/etc. existed. I remember the times when ModDB and IndieDB were popular and so many games in there were completely free. Then Steam Greenlight happened and now everything is early access paid game. Also game demos died.

About the mod slop, its already happening for example in the Minecraft modding, they're filled (mod listing pages and even some mods themselves) with ads, paid access or forcing you to join the discord.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Donations are donations, though.

If you're coming across mods locked behind donations, they're not donations. Perhaps this is your confusion.

If you want to reference the old days, you should no doubt remember old PayPal buttons in kod descs.

Content locked behind Patreon is not accessed with donation. It's literal purchase.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] murvel@feddit.nu 21 points 2 days ago

Good

[–] locahosr443@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While I agree cdpr have acted fine here, it is making me think. Should copy law be updated so that if something like this is considered transformative then it can be monitised, however because it uses another ip a fixed percentage minimum is due to the ip holder. I imagine there are a lot of pros and cons, but it could be an answer to huge corps hoarding and in many cases ruining beloved IPs.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Personally, I don't see how this guy's project hurt them in any way, even if he was making money from it. That's assuming each copy involved a purchase from them (and if not, that would resolve it IMO).

I disagree with the hate paid mods get, at least in the current economic model. Though even if there was a UBI, I think worthwhile work should be rewarded.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (11 children)

I don't understand how this is legal action? If the project does not contain copyrighted material itself, then how in earth is CD Projekt Red able to take it down? A modder should be able to decide themselves if they charge money or not for a mod, as long as no copyrighted (or other protected) material is included.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

DMCA notices are just a strongly letter from an attorney, that they record sending to you for when they really sue you should they choose to do that

load more comments (9 replies)

PC Gaming