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.
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.
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.
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.
Question for people who are lawyers or lawyer adjacent: would you be able to reasonable argue against this in court, assuming you do not use any Cyberpunk assets or content directly, and instead just offer a dll mod of the game that writes memory at specific addresses and modifies code (i'm assuming that's what this mod is doing)? To me, if you're not using any of the actual game's content CDPR can't reasonably claim that you're infringing on their copyright, but ianal.
Meanwhile thousands of modders make some money on nexusmods from their Cyberpunk mods. My Cyberpunk mods get me like 200 USD/month in passive income. Why is this guy getting singled out?
CDPR's policy is you can have a tip jar but you can't put it behind a paywall. Dude was asking $10/mo on Patreon for access. I imagine he does quite well because he has the same mod for a lot of other games.
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.
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.
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-...
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.
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.
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.
Question for people who are lawyers or lawyer adjacent: would you be able to reasonable argue against this in court, assuming you do not use any Cyberpunk assets or content directly, and instead just offer a dll mod of the game that writes memory at specific addresses and modifies code (i'm assuming that's what this mod is doing)? To me, if you're not using any of the actual game's content CDPR can't reasonably claim that you're infringing on their copyright, but ianal.
I suspect this is not a copyright issue, but rather a ToS issue.
In the 9th circuit you would have to get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Star_v._FormGen_Inc. overruled.
There are a handful of relevant fair use cases, e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin....
Meanwhile thousands of modders make some money on nexusmods from their Cyberpunk mods. My Cyberpunk mods get me like 200 USD/month in passive income. Why is this guy getting singled out?
Difference between selling your mod rather than getting revenue from ads on the download site.
CDPR's policy is you can have a tip jar but you can't put it behind a paywall. Dude was asking $10/mo on Patreon for access. I imagine he does quite well because he has the same mod for a lot of other games.
Pretty sure he could rerelease it for free and ask for donations.
Today's lesson: don't paywall mods!
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!
>Like it or not, mods should be free.
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.
Damn, and I was just getting to love gog as the not-a-fuckwit alternative platform. guess i'll stick with steam afterall.
GOG split from CDPR just before the new year: https://www.gog.com/blog/gog-is-getting-acquired-by-its-orig...