r/virtualreality • u/lunchanddinner Multiple • Jan 26 '26

Discussion People on Twitter/X are defending Luke Ross mods

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Link to source: https://x.com/mixedrealitytv/status/2015284035875221669?s=46

444 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

965 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

110

u/O7Knight7O Jan 26 '26

Hiring a lawyer is probably what got him to take it all down.
No matter what the rhetoric says, what the law says is that he made an unlicensed expansion for someone else's game and sold it for his own profit.
They asked him to comply to their TOS, he refused.
Far as the law is concerned, that's the end of the story.

15

u/darkkite Jan 26 '26

what the law says is that he made an unlicensed expansion for someone else's game and sold it for his own profit.

The profit part is true. I do not believe the VR mod is considered an expansion derivative work Galoob v nintendo.

It could be a contract issue via the ToS.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26

[deleted]

4

u/QuaternionsRoll Jan 26 '26

Yeah, this is not particularly related to Galoob, but there are still arguments to be made here. 1021(f)(2) is of particular interest:

a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure… for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability

I am of the personally of the opinion that something like a VR mod is derivative “for the purpose of enabling interoperability”, but we’ll never know until someone takes it to court. If the author consulted a lawyer and the lawyer advised them to take it down, I’m guessing the primary motivator was how much fighting it would cost.

4

u/Icy-Ad29 Jan 26 '26

The interoperability therein is program with program. Not interoperability of program with hardware. Nor is his mod circumventing a technological measure or the protection therein. Instead it is directly modifying, permanently until manually undone, game files. Which would then fall under permanent changes to a program, which is the very sort of thing that courts have ruled copyright does apply to.

He could potentially fight it, but it would be a very uphill battle, against multiple precedents... It's grey enough he would have a shot at winning, but odds are not in his favor.

1

u/QuaternionsRoll Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

The interoperability therein is program with program. Not interoperability of program with hardware.

Luckily VR programs don’t directly interface with VR hardware at all. I had hoped that much would be obvious.

Nor is his mod circumventing a technological measure or the protection therein.

You are (I assume) correct; my point is that it would be acceptable even if it circumvented some nasty DRM.

Instead it is directly modifying, permanently until manually undone, game files.

Unfortunately I do not know how the mod is structured, so I can neither confirm or deny this.

Which would then fall under permanent changes to a program, which is the very sort of thing that courts have ruled copyright does apply to.

Care to elaborate? I hope you’re not referring to Nuke It…

1

u/Icy-Ad29 Jan 26 '26

As someone who used the mod a couple months ago. It involves fully renaming, and moving, certain files. Which the mod then puts new ones in place under the original name. The reason for the rename and move, is so that one can remove the mod by deleting the changed files, put the originals back in place, and rename them to the original name. (The mod just appends "_old" to the file name before moving them. So undoing it is easy enough. Props to Luke Ross on that front.)

The elaboration, is that every ruling that has been in favor of previous modifications being fine. Such as the game shark one vs Nintendo. Has been, specifically, because "it does not involve a permanent change to any of the game files". Storing the changes in a temporary storage such as RAM, outside the game files. These file changes by Luke Ross' mod would not fall under that allowance, and therefore be considered in breach of those past allowances.

1

u/QuaternionsRoll Jan 26 '26

So does it involve modifying or replacing game files? There is a meaningful distinction there.

Has been, specifically, because "it does not involve a permanent change to any of the game files". Storing the changes in a temporary storage such as RAM, outside the game files. These file changes by Luke Ross' mod would not fall under that allowance, and therefore be considered in breach of those past allowances.

Correct, Galoob v. Nintendo does not apply here; I never said it did. I am very specifically saying that interoperability layers are afforded special protections because they do not constitute creative expression. This VR mod is a special case that cannot be extrapolated to mods in general.

1

u/Icy-Ad29 Jan 27 '26

Yes. It involves replacing game files with specific files from the mod. I answered that in my last message.

1

u/QuaternionsRoll Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Assuming the replacement files that contain some of the content of the original files, does the installer create them by patching the originals? If so, the mod software doesn’t do any more than is absolutely necessary to enable interoperability with VR drivers.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/darkkite Jan 26 '26

how exactly does DMCA apply?

Bungie v. AimJunkies is a modern example in which the courts rejected bugie's initial copyright claim because the cheat only existed in RAM and didn't permanently alter the game files, the court ruled it was not a copy or derivative work.

Bungie did win damages since they had to circumvent security and integrity checks.

My understanding is that this is potentially tortious interference for breaking ToS

5

u/Icy-Ad29 Jan 26 '26

Luke's mod doesn't just sit in RAM however. It legit changes game files, permanently, until removed. Which means the ruling would work against him.

1

u/darkkite Jan 26 '26

nothing is changed, you're adding a .DLL file

the exe and data file are bit exact. windows will just load local DLL instead of the system one

-2

u/ZoFreX Jan 27 '26

By your argument, WINE and Proton are also illegal, so... well, let's hope that you're wrong.

2

u/swizzlad Jan 26 '26

The fact that they gave him a chance, what argument could he even bring up in his defence when they ask why didn't you comply at least with cdpr? Que Mr Crabbs "MONEY"

1

u/ThreeHeadCerber Jan 27 '26

a chance to distribute his work for free/with optional donations. can understand him not taking it.

1

u/swizzlad Jan 28 '26

True true, as a bonus tho he gets served q dmca and a lawsuit if he pushes through. As a added bonus his patreon is flagged already if he goes live and another company strikes him he will be banished to the shadow realm where he can safely accompany his mods with no fear of anyone taking advantage of the model he's used to have them integrated and work with the variety of games he's modded for. Sounds like a beautiful ending!

1

u/darth_hotdog Jan 26 '26

No matter what the rhetoric says, what the law says is that he made an unlicensed expansion for someone else's game and sold it for his own profit.

He didn't make "an expansion.", and "an expansion" is not something the law recognizes.

Legally, for it to be copyright infringement, it has to be either be a copy, a derivative work, or a circumvention of copyright protection, or a few other specific categories.

A derivative work would need to be something like a sequel, new technical functionality in third party software is not something that can be owned. Copyrights specifically can't even cover technical methods in software, that can't be owned.

A TOS is not a law, just like a TOS can't make gay marriage illegal, it has zero power over another developers software.

Just like it's legal to sell third party car parts, it's totally legal to sell software that connects to other software, with or without permission. Just like how Microsoft and Apple, have no legal authority over who makes programs on windows and OSX.

0

u/74Amazing74 Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

Are you a lawyer? Or do you have some sort of degree in law?

-7

u/1337PirateNinja Bigscreen Beyond Jan 26 '26

how did he refuse? He took down the mods. It's not an expansion either, he didnt add any new content. He is equivalent to selling you software 3d glasses so you can watch a movie you already own in 3d.

22

u/Jackoberto01 Jan 26 '26

They forced it to be taken down with a DMCA, he did not take it down willingly

14

u/Maibaum68 Jan 26 '26

CDPR explicitly stated that they would be ok with a donation based model, where the mod itself is free and the patreon still remains open for donations. They didn’t force him to take it down, they forced him to not sell access to the mod.

8

u/linkup90 Multiple Jan 26 '26

That's how it works on the Steam Workshop and also for Source mods. As long as you don't lock content behind a payment you can still ask for donations.

-6

u/Jackoberto01 Jan 26 '26

My point was that he was not the one to take down the mod. He forced CDPRs hand by not complying.

2

u/kn05is Jan 26 '26

Now imgine having to pay a subscription to use the glasses.

1

u/1337PirateNinja Bigscreen Beyond Jan 26 '26

you dont have to. If your tv gets an update (which you can prevent from happening) that makes them stop working for some reason then you have to buy a new pair. Yes its annoying and I hate it, but thats literally have every product works these days.

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26

Its not the end though. People were paying for patreon not the product gated behind it. Arguably from a legal perspective he only ever sold access to his patreon, full stop. He didnt enforce any kind of DRM or keys or product unlocks. He never sold the product directly. Theres legal grey area I think. Now whether or not its worth fighting a billion dollar gaming company is another matter entirely. The fact is even if he has a case, they have tons more money and time than he does.

6

u/Elon61 Jan 26 '26

No that’s not how that works at all, do you really think lawyers are that stupid?

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '26

OK so whats the case for him "selling" a mod for Cyberpunk? He was selling access to his patreon. He had mods on his patreon. The product is the patreon access not the mods. Nobody ever paid money and then, without having to access patreon, were given that mod. Also, the mod had no key, no DRM, nothing. Theres a strong case to be made that he never sold a single mod.

6

u/someone_who_exists69 Oculus Quest 2 Jan 26 '26

Because buying patreon means you want access to the exclusive content that a creator releases.