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.
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”).
There are no modding tools. This is done entirely outside the game. But it does still qualify as a breech of ToS. There are alot of options for how to handle it, this is the option they chose.
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.
It is indeed against their ToS, they do have this option. They also cite themselves that all he would need is their permission, but they didn’t go that route.
That does not answer the core question I have. The project itself seems to be a mod and not violate any copyright, as far as I know. So assuming that, how is it legal to take it down? Companies the hoster of the mod, not the modder itself (also applicable to videos on YouTube in example) will take anything down without hesitation and questions asked, if it is a DMCA request. That does not mean its legally correct at that time and must be investigated.
So my question is, how a end user agreement can be a reason to DMCA, if the modder itself does not agreed to the EULA in example. How is it, that a company can decide if and how a product from a hobbyist is monetized, if it is not their product?
In example, do you think YouTube should be able to shutdown all third party YouTube players, because they sell the software? That would be a similar situation with this DMCA takedown.
I see, but that is not what I was asking. I know that DMCA makes it easier to takedown, because the companies (like the website that hosts the files) has to take it down immediately no questions asked. I know that, my question is how this is legally right to do in this case. I am not arguing if it should be, I am asking how this is even a takedown that is requested? Because the EULA of a company is irrelevant, as it is not part of the mod itself.
I assume this part, at least it’s the first one that gives them an excuse:
Don’t create, use, make available… software that interact with or affect our Games and/or Services in any way (including any unauthorised third party programs that collect information about our Games and/or Services by reading areas of memory used by our Games and/or Services to store information).
The DMCA allows the hosting service to be exempt from any legal damages if they follow up on DMCA takedowns. It would take winning or losing a lawsuit to determine how valid or invalid the argument is, not winning or losing an Internet argument, so I can only point out why it’s possible.
There are a lot of people abusing DMCA takedowns on YouTube, have you not heard about it before? Look up copyright trolls DMCA on YouTube if you want more info on it.
There are a lot of people abusing DMCA takedowns on YouTube, have you not heard about it before? Look up copyright trolls DMCA on YouTube if you want more info on it.
This is what I am actually asking. Does CD Projekt Red abuse the DMCA system here?
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.
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”).
There are no modding tools. This is done entirely outside the game. But it does still qualify as a breech of ToS. There are alot of options for how to handle it, this is the option they chose.
There are, called REDmod: https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/modding-support
From what I understand the Cyberpunk VR mod is partially made up of REDmod plugins and partially of stand-alone binaries, but not sure on that one.
Sorry, meant no modding tools from any one specific game involved in the luke ross mod, he supports 35 games with it.
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.
Yeah true, but actually proving that in court costs time and money. And once you get a DMCA takedown notice you are forced to fight it or comply.
It is indeed against their ToS, they do have this option. They also cite themselves that all he would need is their permission, but they didn’t go that route.
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
It doesn’t need to be legal: Patreon, like Valve and any other big company, deem request from other companies as top priority over any commoner.
Patreon think “we may have extra business with CDProjeck, but mod authors are nobody that need to work for free at best”.
So they know who need to be sacrificed.
Software DRM legal threats preceded DMCA takedowns, but DMCA takedowns make them easier to execute.
That does not answer the core question I have. The project itself seems to be a mod and not violate any copyright, as far as I know. So assuming that, how is it legal to take it down? Companies the hoster of the mod, not the modder itself (also applicable to videos on YouTube in example) will take anything down without hesitation and questions asked, if it is a DMCA request. That does not mean its legally correct at that time and must be investigated.
So my question is, how a end user agreement can be a reason to DMCA, if the modder itself does not agreed to the EULA in example. How is it, that a company can decide if and how a product from a hobbyist is monetized, if it is not their product?
In example, do you think YouTube should be able to shutdown all third party YouTube players, because they sell the software? That would be a similar situation with this DMCA takedown.
I’m telling you what the law has historically been, not arguing with you about what it should be.
I see, but that is not what I was asking. I know that DMCA makes it easier to takedown, because the companies (like the website that hosts the files) has to take it down immediately no questions asked. I know that, my question is how this is legally right to do in this case. I am not arguing if it should be, I am asking how this is even a takedown that is requested? Because the EULA of a company is irrelevant, as it is not part of the mod itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
The ones you agree to when you install the game, like CD Projekt RED’s EULA.
https://store.steampowered.com/eula/1091500_eula_0
I assume this part, at least it’s the first one that gives them an excuse:
The DMCA allows the hosting service to be exempt from any legal damages if they follow up on DMCA takedowns. It would take winning or losing a lawsuit to determine how valid or invalid the argument is, not winning or losing an Internet argument, so I can only point out why it’s possible.
There are a lot of people abusing DMCA takedowns on YouTube, have you not heard about it before? Look up copyright trolls DMCA on YouTube if you want more info on it.
This is what I am actually asking. Does CD Projekt Red abuse the DMCA system here?
Depends on your take on the law I cited.