The precedent here I find a little weak, a mod isn't facilitating piracy nor is it a replacement for the original product. You need to own the game, the mod is a layer that adds additional features.
When mapping the context to the real world it's more worrying, you don't get car makers suing accessory makers for selling phone mounts advertised to fit their vehicles.
CDPR has an explicit policy allowing free mods with a tip jar, but not mods that are pay-only. Whether or not you agree with that policy it's CDPR's right to make that decision, and you can't complain when they enforce it.
1: https://www.theverge.com/23190201/luke-ross-vr-real-mod-gta-...
This is taking the whole 'you don't actually own this game' to a whole new level when trying to dictate what mods you can use with it. The digital world needs a major reboot in terms of consumer rights, and this should happen sooner rather than later as companies are increasingly trying to take this into the real world by attaching software to hardware and then seeking to gain both rent and control due to nonexistent state of consumer rights associated with software.
On the money, had not spotted how much he was making from this. Given he's been at this for several years and the quality of the product I'm quite happy he's been able to devote the time to this.
“No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”
“to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;”
I’m not sure how modding works in the case but usually this is why companies can come after folks.
This wording always bothers me. If a person were to circumvent a technological measure that tries to control such access, then the circumvention itself proves that this measure was not effective at doing what it is supposed to be doing. Therefore the person is not circumventing something that _effectively_ controls anything. They just showed that it is ineffective, and therefore the law does not apply to them.
Of course, no one who actually has to interpret these laws shares my opinion.
Publishers don't care because there is no money involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin....
(I can only assume they're planning a specific version for the Frame and they fear this mod would offer a superior experience for a lower price)
(Not arguing that it should be, just continuing OP's logic.)
Pretty sure he could rerelease it for free and ask for donations.
Like it or not, mods should be free. Unless you want that scene to turn into another shitshow, just like what happened with Youtube. The moment you open the floodgates on that, the modscene will be flooded with crap and yet another commercial-free space gets molested by the icy hand of capitalism. Financialization destroys everything it touches!
Why? If it's original work, and it does not violate existing laws, whoever makes it should have the right to seek compensation for their work, if they see fit. It's basically software like any other. Licensing models have been successfully applied to software plugins in past, mods fall into that category.
That's an issue if you're USA-based: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Star_v._FormGen_Inc.
Game mods extending video games almost inherently violate copyright as they are a derivative work.
Like it or not, you should accept that you're always at the mercy of a large corporation and you must follow their policies to the letter even if the law says something different.
I don't think that's a sane stance.
Unless they have a business presence in the US and sent it from there.
They might not like the fact, but the dev is selling his software, not theirs. It would be akin to MS sending a take down request to software running on windows.
I wonder how much "strength" the tos really has in this case.
I would be very interested to see how a court would rule on this, as AFAIK such as Lexmark v. Static Control Components, you can modify products you purchase, but how much weight would the TOS really hold?
I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but we're talking about different matters entirely.
The neat thing is that the device was completely unapproved by the device IP owners, most notably - Nintendo. It required the creators to reverse engineer the NES, crack their anti-pirate measures, and then finally enable a nice interface for users to 'hack' games at the end of it. And then for the icing on the cake they then bought copies of every single NES game, 'cracked' them, and published, and sold, books with codes for specific games precisely profiting off players of these games.
Nintendo tried to sue, and lost. They appealed, and lost. The Game Genie wasn't violating Nintendo's IP, they weren't even harming their sales in any way, shape, or fashion - they probably helped them, if anything. And so it was a pretty much open and shut case with all the legal wrangling lasting mere months. And the exact same is true here. As a fun aside this even set the precedent for legally selling games on consoles without the approval of the console IP owner.
The point is that a derivative work has to be a derivative work, not just something that works with your IP. And this just sounds like a mod that hacks in VR capability for dozens of games that don't otherwise support it. I imagine they'll comply simply because going to court against just one of those companies is going to be a lot easier than fighting it, but it's a shame. Mainstream success seems to have turned into a terrible curse for CDPR.
I would like an even stronger precedent, to say that even if sales are harmed, it's non-infringing. E.g. a car aftermarket customization that improves performance so that it is equivalent to a more expensive model of the same brand, thus harming profits of that car brand. Or hell, just plain old regular repairs, so one can keep an old car for longer.
We don't owe it to corporations to protect their business models.
If Valve was the developer of the VR compatibility software, CD Projekt would get crushed in court.
Adding a VR mode to the game is definitely adding content. If you mean storywise, okay, I agree with you. Still, he's profiting off it in the fact that you need to pay a monthly fee to access the mod.
Even if he claims he's not, he indeed is profiting off it, because there is no way you can use the mod without paying first.
> If Valve was the developer of the VR compatibility software, CD Projekt would get crushed in court.
The difference is that Valve would have asked for permission first from CDPR if they could sell their software, or even then, work together with CDPR to have the software be implemented natively on the game. Plus, Valve has the same stance on paid mods on Steam, so it's not really a good comparison here.
I don't see any difference between a paid or free mod. Were CD Projekt losing out on sales of the VR DLC?
> They're going after someone who's profiting off of their IP.
They are going after someone who is making their IP more valuable. I missed Cyberpunk the first time around due to the initial bad reviews and then not having time after they fixed them.
With Valve coming out with their VR headset I am considering getting one, and looking at VR games, Cyberpunk with the mod was going to be a purchase.
Now they have just lost a sale.
It's their game, it's written in the EULA, which everyone accepts blindly without reading. You have accepted the EULA before playing the game.
This is the same as the Steam Subscriber Agreement saying you CANNOT make paid mods using Valve's IP unless given permission to do so.
There's nothing wrong with CDPR going after someone who thought they'd get away by making an important mod paid-only. It's a totally different story if the $10 fee was optional.