The creator of the Cyberpunk 2077 VR mod CD Projekt recently hit with a DMCA strike has paused his Patreon page and pulled access to all his mods after receiving another strike from a different publisher.
Looks like the Ghostrunner developers also have an issue with paid mods running off their IP.
Because in most cases they can only do the thing they do, because another company invested millions in order to make, release, promote and support the game. Without their work, the modders would have nothing to mod. Because working out a licensing deal with every modder to split the revenue is a lot of work and most mods won’t get played much anyways, it isn’t worth the hassle. So in order to accommodate the community and keep their game active for longer, the terms are modding is allowed and even encouraged. But the other side of the bargain is that the mods can’t be sold. And usually the company reserves the right to outright ban mods using legal means. For example when people mod in far right extremism the company doesn’t want to get associated with.
Now there is a gray area where people donate to modders or even pay outright for modders to build certain things. This is usually just fine, as long as the mod is also available for free. People aren’t paying for the mod, they are paying for the dev time, which is totally fine.
But this modder specifically put access to his mods behind his Patreon. Sure technically you could subscribe for a month, get the mod and then stop the subscription. But that’s legally still a pay wall and in practice the mod needs to be updated often to keep working.
So it’s pretty simple in this case, the modder was asked to stop putting the mods behind a pay wall, he didn’t, so he got a cease and desist. Usually I’m all for the little man and against the large companies, but in this case the terms were pretty clear and the modder violated them.
Now we could have a more general discussion about how and if modders should be compensated for their time. But I feel that’s a bit beyond this single case.
it’s a poor argument because the game couldn’t exist either without many other companies and individuals having invested millions and millions or their labor in order to release, promote and support other things.
No one has said anything about a ‘mod marketplace’. None of sim games I know have a ‘mod marketplace’, so it’s unclear where you pulled it from or what it has to do with anything.
The licence involves with the os, the tooling, the development environments explictedly allow for these things.
You can not be this fucking stupid can you?
If you make something you get to dictate how others use it, if you choose to have it be free and open that’s your choice. Just as it is if you wish for it to be restricted. It’s common fucking courtesy to not steal.
Modders cant make what they make with out the assets and game. They are using someone else’s property.
For example thats the entire fucking crux of things like say OpenMW vs Tamriel rebuilt. One is a standalone product that doesn’t reuse assets or has any dependencies on Bethesda assets. While the other reuses them all over the place.
OpenMW could charge for their product. It’s worthless with out the game, but still is entirely a functional standalone thing. The other literally can’t function with out someone else’s assets.
You should be able to separate the general idea and whether we’re talking just law or morals here. Sure, copyright law gives ridiculously broad control to the copyright holder. They can just outright go after mods in general and disallow them free or not too. I guess if your position is that modding should just not be allowed in general then that’s at least consistent. Personally I think regardless of law things like reverse engineering and mods should exist at least in some form though.
And you can make mods that include 0 code from the original game. It’s actually not difficult. The fact that they modify the game in memory has no bearing on copyright.
Binary patching has been a thing in the emulator/rom scene for as long as I can remember precisely because it’s a means to distribute mods without distributing IP the modder doesn’t own. Some of the takes here are absolutely wacko.
Yeah, I’m not gonna lie this almost feels like astroturfing. Straight up piracy is seen as more favorable than a mod creator getting paid for their work, it’s nuts.
Your argument is that his work relies on the work of others. But many people’s jobs rely on others, with or without their consent. Someone who works at a travel agency relies on nice destinations existing to send people to. Tour guides don’t need consent from an architect to stop and point outside their building.
Note that people will still need to buy the game to play the mod.
It would be like the architect who drew the plans for your home getting a court order to seize your home because you installed extra cabinets that were not on his plans.
Architectural copyright (Architektenurheberrecht) protects an architect’s original intellectual and creative achievements, including designs, plans, and completed buildings, provided they possess a sufficient level of originality (Schöpfungshöhe).
Architects can, and have, use this to deny changes to such buildings or claim injunctive relief, removal of the infringement, or financial damages.
Installing extra cabinets would most likely not be enough to seize the house, but if he can convince a judge that it will sufficient change his art he could get a order to have them removed and the original space restored again.
Not sure if this is germany only, but it shows that every bullshit is possible when it comes to laws.
They don’t say anything against applying or installing the mod to the game, at least not in this case, but against making money with their IP.
This should not be mixed together.
Let’s be clear: 3rd party mods do not in general contain 1st party IP. So no, I reject the idea that the modder was making money “with” their IP, unless there’s something I don’t know about this mod specifically. This is a perfectly legal and morally clear niche, and the game devs are overreaching.
For instance, the creators of phone cases don’t need permission from the creators of the phone. I also have 3rd party controllers for my switch, 3rd party game cartridge holders. I fixed my phone using an iFixit kit (3rd party). In none of these instances were the third party required to get 1st party approval.
All your examples are physical objects that are owned and physically manipulated or extended, not software that is not owned but always only licensed (yes, even when you buy a physical medium, the software is only licensed), and subject of very complex trademark, copyright and intelectual property laws.
Its like saying I can safe look directly at the moon that means i can safe look directly at the sun because both looking like lights in the sky.
You can and should not, and things that look a lot like each other don’t have to follow the same rules.
Oh and try to fix your physical John Deer tractor with anything not bought from John Deer (and even that is only possible to do in the US since 2023) you will very soon see the limits of 3rd party.
Btw the creators of phone cases and controllers and such need the permission when they use the trademarks and registered names owned buy other companies. You may be allowed to create unofficial accesoirs but you have no right to the trademarks to put them on your product or in your advertisements.
Because in most cases they can only do the thing they do, because another company invested millions in order to make, release, promote and support the game. Without their work, the modders would have nothing to mod. Because working out a licensing deal with every modder to split the revenue is a lot of work and most mods won’t get played much anyways, it isn’t worth the hassle. So in order to accommodate the community and keep their game active for longer, the terms are modding is allowed and even encouraged. But the other side of the bargain is that the mods can’t be sold. And usually the company reserves the right to outright ban mods using legal means. For example when people mod in far right extremism the company doesn’t want to get associated with.
Now there is a gray area where people donate to modders or even pay outright for modders to build certain things. This is usually just fine, as long as the mod is also available for free. People aren’t paying for the mod, they are paying for the dev time, which is totally fine.
But this modder specifically put access to his mods behind his Patreon. Sure technically you could subscribe for a month, get the mod and then stop the subscription. But that’s legally still a pay wall and in practice the mod needs to be updated often to keep working.
So it’s pretty simple in this case, the modder was asked to stop putting the mods behind a pay wall, he didn’t, so he got a cease and desist. Usually I’m all for the little man and against the large companies, but in this case the terms were pretty clear and the modder violated them.
Now we could have a more general discussion about how and if modders should be compensated for their time. But I feel that’s a bit beyond this single case.
it’s a poor argument because the game couldn’t exist either without many other companies and individuals having invested millions and millions or their labor in order to release, promote and support other things.
Somehow none of this is a problem in sim racing, where plenty of paid mods exist just fine.
I’m ready for someone to try explaining how sim racing is totally unlike other games.
Probably because those are the terms that the company whose product they’re modding set out for them.
CDPR has opted not to implement a mod marketplace though. The expectation there is that all mods are free for all.
No one has said anything about a ‘mod marketplace’. None of sim games I know have a ‘mod marketplace’, so it’s unclear where you pulled it from or what it has to do with anything.
But have these companies indicated that their branding shouldn’t be used to advertise 3rd party software?
The “mod” in question isn’t even specific to that game, it’s just one game being used to advertise the software.
Third-party software, like for example custom dashboards displaying telemetry from the in-game car on either the monitor or external devices?
Oh look
And here
And here
So computer games in general should not exist, because they rely on an OS that other people invested millions into?
The licence involves with the os, the tooling, the development environments explictedly allow for these things.
You can not be this fucking stupid can you?
If you make something you get to dictate how others use it, if you choose to have it be free and open that’s your choice. Just as it is if you wish for it to be restricted. It’s common fucking courtesy to not steal.
Modders cant make what they make with out the assets and game. They are using someone else’s property.
For example thats the entire fucking crux of things like say OpenMW vs Tamriel rebuilt. One is a standalone product that doesn’t reuse assets or has any dependencies on Bethesda assets. While the other reuses them all over the place.
OpenMW could charge for their product. It’s worthless with out the game, but still is entirely a functional standalone thing. The other literally can’t function with out someone else’s assets.
You should be able to separate the general idea and whether we’re talking just law or morals here. Sure, copyright law gives ridiculously broad control to the copyright holder. They can just outright go after mods in general and disallow them free or not too. I guess if your position is that modding should just not be allowed in general then that’s at least consistent. Personally I think regardless of law things like reverse engineering and mods should exist at least in some form though.
Where is this theft you’re talking about?
And you can make mods that include 0 code from the original game. It’s actually not difficult. The fact that they modify the game in memory has no bearing on copyright.
Binary patching has been a thing in the emulator/rom scene for as long as I can remember precisely because it’s a means to distribute mods without distributing IP the modder doesn’t own. Some of the takes here are absolutely wacko.
Yeah, I’m not gonna lie this almost feels like astroturfing. Straight up piracy is seen as more favorable than a mod creator getting paid for their work, it’s nuts.
Just because the terms are clear doesn’t mean the terms are fair.
Your argument is that his work relies on the work of others. But many people’s jobs rely on others, with or without their consent. Someone who works at a travel agency relies on nice destinations existing to send people to. Tour guides don’t need consent from an architect to stop and point outside their building.
Note that people will still need to buy the game to play the mod.
They do need permission from the building owner to bring people inside to look at it though. And that usually involves paying them.
Yes but in this context, the building owner is the person who bought the game.
It would be like the architect who drew the plans for your home getting a court order to seize your home because you installed extra cabinets that were not on his plans.
In germany we have the “Architektenurheberrecht”.
Architectural copyright (Architektenurheberrecht) protects an architect’s original intellectual and creative achievements, including designs, plans, and completed buildings, provided they possess a sufficient level of originality (Schöpfungshöhe).
Architects can, and have, use this to deny changes to such buildings or claim injunctive relief, removal of the infringement, or financial damages.
Installing extra cabinets would most likely not be enough to seize the house, but if he can convince a judge that it will sufficient change his art he could get a order to have them removed and the original space restored again.
Not sure if this is germany only, but it shows that every bullshit is possible when it comes to laws.
I’m surprised and also not really.
It’s exactly the same line of thinking where someone else is given more rights over a thing than the person who owns it.
If you want to fully own it then put a exclusive and unlimited license agreement into the contract with your architect.
If there is a law that puts limits on what you can agree to in a contract then you don’t get around it by making a contract that violates the law.
That’s what ‘own’ means.
Yeah exactly. It’s crazy that people think it’s OK for game developers to have a say in what mods you can apply to your own legally purchased game.
They don’t say anything against applying or installing the mod to the game, at least not in this case, but against making money with their IP. This should not be mixed together.
Let’s be clear: 3rd party mods do not in general contain 1st party IP. So no, I reject the idea that the modder was making money “with” their IP, unless there’s something I don’t know about this mod specifically. This is a perfectly legal and morally clear niche, and the game devs are overreaching.
For instance, the creators of phone cases don’t need permission from the creators of the phone. I also have 3rd party controllers for my switch, 3rd party game cartridge holders. I fixed my phone using an iFixit kit (3rd party). In none of these instances were the third party required to get 1st party approval.
All your examples are physical objects that are owned and physically manipulated or extended, not software that is not owned but always only licensed (yes, even when you buy a physical medium, the software is only licensed), and subject of very complex trademark, copyright and intelectual property laws. Its like saying I can safe look directly at the moon that means i can safe look directly at the sun because both looking like lights in the sky. You can and should not, and things that look a lot like each other don’t have to follow the same rules.
Oh and try to fix your physical John Deer tractor with anything not bought from John Deer (and even that is only possible to do in the US since 2023) you will very soon see the limits of 3rd party.
Btw the creators of phone cases and controllers and such need the permission when they use the trademarks and registered names owned buy other companies. You may be allowed to create unofficial accesoirs but you have no right to the trademarks to put them on your product or in your advertisements.
It’s making money with their labor. Work is valuable, and deserves pay no matter what