Luke Ross is an Idiot, CD Projekt is Right

Описание: he made the post public lol. link below. overall i don't hate the guy, i just hate greed. doing mental backflips around the moral implications of this stuff is pointless when the precedent is plain & clear. too many yappers around here that refuse to do basic research (in this great age of information at that).

plus, most game studios go STRAIGHT for the DMCA. CDPR, chads they are, was nice enough to ask him to make it free for the community. he's just showing he'd rather move in bad faith. no chance of them buying that mod off of you and making it official now LOL.

Racing Footage by Fabio Rauer
Nexus Mods: https://www.nexusmods.com/games/cyber...
Luke's Patreon post:   / another-one-dust-148437771  
Jan's Twitter/X thread: https://x.com/jan_rosner/status/20132...
Reddit thread ripping this dude to shreds:   / cd_projekt_has_issued_a_dmca_notice_agains...  

1. "Corpo Logic" Argument
CDPR does not require modders to work for free—they require that modders not sell access to their intellectual property. There is a massive legal distinction between "passive monetization" (donations/tips) and the "active monetization" (hard paywall) used here. Once you charge a mandatory fee to access a tool that relies entirely on a $300 million software asset, you are an unlicensed commercial vendor, not a hobbyist.

2. "Paper-Thin" Derivative Work Claim
This is legally incorrect under established case law like Micro Star v. FormGen. A mod that "recasts" or "transforms" the experience of the original game is a derivative work. Even if the specific code files are original, the resulting output is almost entirely CDPR’s assets. You cannot legally sell a "VR lens" for a movie you don't own and claim it is a separate, non-infringing product.

3. "I Sold Extra Copies" Defense
Driving sales is not a legal defense for copyright infringement. Under Title 17, the "benefit to the copyright holder" does not grant a third party the right to monetize someone else's IP. CDPR holds the exclusive right to decide how their brand is commercialized, regardless of whether a mod provides a perceived "boost" in game sales. It is also not a defacto "license" just because you drove sales, regardless of volume.

4. "No Official VR Port" Argument
This ignores the "Right of First Refusal" and brand integrity. Copyright grants the owner the rights to all potential future markets. An unauthorized paid mod devalues a potential future "Official VR Edition" and creates "price anchoring." Furthermore, CDPR has the right to prevent third parties from selling a potentially buggy or unoptimized version of their brand that they cannot quality-control.

5. "Breaking Updates" & Entitlement
Modding is a guest-host relationship, not a partnership. CDPR’s primary responsibility is to their millions of standard users, not to an unlicensed business built on their architecture. Framing standard game updates as "breaking" a modder's work implies a level of legal entitlement to the game's code that simply does not exist for a third party.

6. "Knee-Jerk Reaction" Theory
The paywall is the specific legal trigger. CDPR’s guidelines allow for fan content, which is why they "ignored" the project while it was a hobby. However, when a project transitions into a significant recurring revenue stream (estimated at $20k+ per month), it becomes a commercial violation that a legal department must address to avoid risking the future enforceability of their own trademarks and copyrights.