5 ms·

Context: It's a paid mod but doesn't appear the guy was in it for profit, rather to support the time spent which covers multiple games. The precedent here I fi

by wjdp 9mo ago

Context: It's a paid mod but doesn't appear the guy was in it for profit, rather to support the time spent which covers multiple games. 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.

b473a 9mo ago
At $10/mo for access even if he's not doing it for profit he's absolutely making bank. Verge in 2022 estimated about $20,000 a month [1]. 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-v-elden-ring-horizon-red-dead https://www.theverge.com/23190201/luke-ross-vr-real-mod-gta-...
- wjdp 9mo ago
  Question is, as long as he's not using their assets, what leg have they to stand on and enforce this? He's selling his software, not infringing on theirs. 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.
- NL807 9mo ago
  CDPR's policy and the law are orthogonal things. They would have to demonstrate that the mod and its business model violates some kind of law.
- somenameforme 9mo ago
  How is it their right to make that decision? 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.
  - marak830 9mo ago
    I agree, that do not(should not) have a leg to stand on here. 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.
    - zvqcMMV6Zcr 9mo ago
      The term "derivative work" covers a lot. For example all fan translations are one and all content stored on movie subtitles sites is by definition illegal. I don't know about those particular VR mods but in general case it is easy to show that game mod is not a standalone work and counts as derivative work, so game developer can limit the distribution however they want.
      - marak830 9mo ago
        I think it's more a dependency and less a derivative (there isn't any source code/game objects being distributed via the mod as far as I can tell.) 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?
  - klez 9mo ago
    But they're not going after people who use the mod. They're going after someone who's profiting off of their IP. Someone else said upthread that CDPR doesn't go after people who make free mods (or donationware) so it's clear they don't have a problem with mods per se. I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but we're talking about different matters entirely.
    - somenameforme 9mo ago
      Depending on your age the term Game Genie [1] probably brings back some fond memories. If it was before your time, it was a hardware device - a mod, you could attach to video game devices that would enable you to tweak the memory of the game in real time enabling you to do all sorts of things, mostly it was used for stuff like infinite lives or whatever but you could also do neat things like tweak the gravity in games. 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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie
- Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
  It shouldn't be CDPR's right to make this decision. A mod is just software that runs on top of other software. Microsoft doesn't get to dictate what I do with Windows. Apple does try to dictate what I do with my iPhone, but even then, if I manage to jailbreak my phone there's nothing they can do about it.
exegete 9mo ago
AFAIK DMCA is such a strong law that you just have to circumvent any kind of access mechanism to violate it. I’m not a lawyer. “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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
- matrss 9mo ago
  > “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” 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.
  - thenewwazoo 9mo ago
    The meaning of effect is not what you think it is. In this case it simply means “to bring into being”, or “have the intent to”.
expedition32 9mo ago
Modding is actually a legal minefield. Publishers don't care because there is no money involved.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

by wjdp 9mo ago

b473a 9mo ago

At $10/mo for access even if he's not doing it for profit he's absolutely making bank. Verge in 2022 estimated about $20,000 a month [1]. 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-v-elden-ring-horizon-red-dead https://www.theverge.com/23190201/luke-ross-vr-real-mod-gta-...

wjdp 9mo ago
Question is, as long as he's not using their assets, what leg have they to stand on and enforce this? He's selling his software, not infringing on theirs. 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.
NL807 9mo ago
CDPR's policy and the law are orthogonal things. They would have to demonstrate that the mod and its business model violates some kind of law.
somenameforme 9mo ago
How is it their right to make that decision? 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.
- marak830 9mo ago
  I agree, that do not(should not) have a leg to stand on here. 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.
  - zvqcMMV6Zcr 9mo ago
    The term "derivative work" covers a lot. For example all fan translations are one and all content stored on movie subtitles sites is by definition illegal. I don't know about those particular VR mods but in general case it is easy to show that game mod is not a standalone work and counts as derivative work, so game developer can limit the distribution however they want.
    - marak830 9mo ago
      I think it's more a dependency and less a derivative (there isn't any source code/game objects being distributed via the mod as far as I can tell.) 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?
- klez 9mo ago
  But they're not going after people who use the mod. They're going after someone who's profiting off of their IP. Someone else said upthread that CDPR doesn't go after people who make free mods (or donationware) so it's clear they don't have a problem with mods per se. I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but we're talking about different matters entirely.
  - somenameforme 9mo ago
    Depending on your age the term Game Genie [1] probably brings back some fond memories. If it was before your time, it was a hardware device - a mod, you could attach to video game devices that would enable you to tweak the memory of the game in real time enabling you to do all sorts of things, mostly it was used for stuff like infinite lives or whatever but you could also do neat things like tweak the gravity in games. 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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie
Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
It shouldn't be CDPR's right to make this decision. A mod is just software that runs on top of other software. Microsoft doesn't get to dictate what I do with Windows. Apple does try to dictate what I do with my iPhone, but even then, if I manage to jailbreak my phone there's nothing they can do about it.

exegete 9mo ago

AFAIK DMCA is such a strong law that you just have to circumvent any kind of access mechanism to violate it. I’m not a lawyer. “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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention

matrss 9mo ago
> “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” 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.
- thenewwazoo 9mo ago
  The meaning of effect is not what you think it is. In this case it simply means “to bring into being”, or “have the intent to”.

expedition32 9mo ago

Modding is actually a legal minefield. Publishers don't care because there is no money involved.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]