Technical and legal position regarding the R.E.A.L. VR mod — Cyberpunk 2077 module
The following analysis was posted on Reddit yesterday. I am republishing it here in case anyone's interested, with permission from the original author. Thank you for going to the trouble of making this!
TECHNICAL AND LEGAL POSITION REGARDING THE R.E.A.L. VR MOD
Cyberpunk 2077 Module
After going through relevant law and the relevant facts in detail, I
believe that Luke Ross has NOT in any way infringed on copyright.
Details below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I. ANALYZED GAME-SPECIFIC FILES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cyberpunk-specific support module contains exactly:
S0.dxbc 9,255 bytes
S1.dxbc 9,923 bytes
Settings/option.replace 1,520 bytes
1) Shader Files S0.dxbc and S1.dxbc
Both files are standard DirectX shader container files in DXContainer format.
Each file contains:
DXBC header
Seven structured chunks
SFI0
ISG1
OSG1
PSV0
STAT
HASH
DXIL
The presence of a DXIL chunk confirms these are DXIL-based compiled shaders
produced using the Microsoft DirectX Shader Compiler architecture.
The files are small utility shader blobs approximately 9 to 10 KB in size.
That size range is consistent with independently authored helper shaders such as
stereo reprojection, matrix transforms, post processing, depth correction, or
presentation layer rendering logic.
Nothing in the binary structure indicates:
Inclusion of CDPR proprietary shader libraries
Embedded Cyberpunk assets
Embedded audiovisual content
Extracted proprietary bytecode
Copied CDPR executable code
DXContainer and DXIL are standard compiled shader packaging formats.
The format itself does not imply derivation from any specific game.
These artifacts are technically consistent with original shader code compiled
independently for rendering manipulation.
There is no demonstrated reproduction of protected Cyberpunk expression in
these files.
2) Configuration File Settings option.replace
This is a plaintext configuration override file containing rendering flags
and graphics toggles such as film grain, chromatic aberration, motion blur,
shadow settings, DLSS presets, anisotropy levels, and similar options.
This file contains:
No expressive content
No story elements
No textures, models, or audio
No executable CDPR code
It is purely functional configuration data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
II. WHAT IS NOT PRESENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The module does not contain:
Cyberpunk 2077 executable code
Cyberpunk 2077 textures
Cyberpunk 2077 models
Cyberpunk 2077 scripts
Cyberpunk 2077 audio
Decompiled CDPR source
Extracted proprietary content
There is no redistribution of protected expressive material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
III. COPYRIGHT ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Reproduction Right 17 U.S.C. 106(1)
Copyright infringement requires reproduction of protected expression.
No protected Cyberpunk expression is reproduced in the analyzed artifacts.
Classical copying infringement is not present.
2) Derivative Work Doctrine 17 U.S.C. 106(2) and 17 U.S.C. 101
A derivative work must recast, transform, or adapt protected expression.
The mod:
Does not create new story content
Does not create new characters
Does not create new fixed audiovisual sequences
Does not embed Cyberpunk content
Does not distribute Cyberpunk assets
It modifies presentation at runtime through shader and rendering manipulation.
This is materially closer to:
GPU driver behavior
Display pipeline manipulation
Post processing frameworks
Camera injection tools
The transformation occurs at the presentation layer, not at the expressive
content layer.
Micro Star v FormGen involved new expressive audiovisual displays built from
copyrighted narrative and artistic elements. That scenario differs materially
from runtime display transformation.
Derivative work theory is not automatically satisfied by presentation layer
modification.
3) Fair Use 17 U.S.C. 107
Factor 1 Purpose and Character
The mod enables stereoscopic VR rendering, altering interaction mode
from 2D to immersive stereo. This is functionally transformative.
Factor 2 Nature of the Work
Video games are creative works. This factor favors CDPR.
Factor 3 Amount Used
The entire game is experienced, but only through a lawfully owned copy.
No redistribution occurs.
Factor 4 Market Effect
The mod requires ownership of the original game.
It does not substitute for it.
Evidence indicates increased sales due to VR support.
Market substitution is absent.
Fair use is at minimum arguable under these conditions.
4) DMCA 17 U.S.C. 1201 Anti Circumvention
Section 1201 prohibits circumvention of technological measures that control access.
If the mod:
Hooks rendering after lawful execution
Does not bypass encryption
Does not defeat access control
Does not decrypt protected assets
Then 1201 is not cleanly implicated.
Interoperability supportive precedent such as Lexmark v Static Control
limits expansion of access control theory beyond actual protected expression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. DMCA TAKEDOWN STRUCTURE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A DMCA notice under 17 U.S.C. 512 does not require proof of infringement.
It requires a sworn good faith belief.
Platforms remove material to preserve safe harbor.
This is procedural, not adjudicative.
Under 17 U.S.C. 512(g), a counter notice requires restoration within
10 to 14 business days unless the claimant files an actual lawsuit.
That is the procedural point where proof becomes required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
V. MARKET STRUCTURE AND MONETIZATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging for access to a development platform or membership page is not
inherently copyright infringement.
Risk increases when a product is marketed as a paid enhancement for a
specific copyrighted title.
Risk decreases when:
The core framework is generic
No copyrighted content is distributed
Title specific modules contain no copyrighted assets
Marketing avoids title branded commercial positioning
Monetization attaches to general tool development or community support
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. STRONGEST LEVERAGE POINTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent software architecture with multi title support
No redistribution of protected assets
Presentation layer modification only
Standard DXIL utility shader artifacts
Functional configuration overrides
No embedded copyrighted expression
Positive market impact evidence
Interoperability friendly legal precedent
Counter notice leverage under 512(g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. STRATEGIC OPTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 File a counter notice under 17 U.S.C. 512(g) to compel a
sue or restore decision.
2 Separate generic framework monetization from title specific modules.
3 Maintain documentation proving independent shader authorship.
4 Avoid title specific commercial branding.
5 Distribute modules independently from monetized channels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. STRUCTURAL MONETIZATION MODEL REFINEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not refer to it as a mod for a game. Refer to it as a VR tool/utility,
and adopt a structure in which:
Membership provides access to multiple development related benefits
such as early builds, support, development updates, community interaction,
and participation privileges.
The core framework tool is positioned as a general purpose VR rendering
framework and may be included among membership benefits.
Game specific support modules are openly accessible and freely downloadable
without membership requirements.
This structure:
Reduces the appearance of selling a publisher specific IP adaptation
Reinforces the framework identity as independent software
Separates monetization from any single copyrighted title
Maintains sustainability while lowering targeted IP exploitation optics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. CONCLUSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The analyzed Cyberpunk specific files do not demonstrate reproduction
of protected expression.
The shader artifacts are standard DXIL container outputs consistent with
independent authorship.
The configuration file is purely functional.
No embedded copyrighted assets are present.
The dispute centers on ecosystem control and monetization positioning,
not demonstrated copying.
The strongest procedural leverage point remains the counter notice
mechanism under 17 U.S.C. 512(g).
Comments (35)
This looks AI generated, and as such it may be slightly inaccurate or completely wrong, that's how LLM hallucinations work. Do we even know it was actually created by a human with knowledge in the matter?
go for the counter suit filing! I think you have a winning case
They lost a sale for that game. I was going to get it next sale. Oh well. Funny, i bought RDR2 for the mod, and that got hit a couple weeks later. I no longer buy Take Two products
Here's a thought, Luke: Return to collecting my monthly payment and the monthly payments of anyone else that is willing to back you and put those dollars toward a good lawyer. With the analysis posted above, you wouldn't even need a great lawyer. Wealthy corporations that are run by losers depend on scare tactics to force their will over you. They hope like hell that you give in and give up. Michael McCormack is 100% correct about the times. If you do nothing, you'll get beat down and the bullies win. As my old man used to say, "Put up your Dukes and go toe to toe with the bastards." There's still the chance you may lose, but at least they will know that they were in a fight. Don't give in.
Quite bizarrely, I'd sent Luke a message just hours ago pointing precisely at the aforementioned legal baselessness of the DMCA strike, without any of this resolution of detail. But my hunch was spot on. Get yourself a lawyer Luke! Don't let the big bad corpos scare us into submission.
The problem is we are entering a time where everything is being questioned if it has no physical backing... Laws, politics, tarifs, wars... No one cares anymore in positions of power about the democratic voice... The voice is just noise they are realizing... So people from here on out are going to do whatever they can get away with... You are a threat to their modality... And they will use whatever they have to to cut you out.
I'm rooting for you Luke. Crazy how your troubles stem from something as simple as people innocently but erroneously calling your framework a "mod", when it's really no different than any other agnostic utility like UEVR, Reshade, etc. I wish you the very best as you navigate these challenges.
The suggestion under VII is exactly what I suggested, it's the model UEVR and RE framework use and they haven't had any issues with DCMA's or litigation.
Luke. We already know this. People in your comments posted as such a month ago….how does this help you move forward or prevent another dmca strike. Unless you are planning to fight this in court it doesn’t matter at all. Why not create a post asking community for suggestions instead of going in these loops that will take u nowhere. I’ve seen countless suggestions from your supporters that would have had up and running by now.
No offense Luke and I do appreciate all you have done for VR. And I personally had no issues paying to access your mod. But nothing in this post actually matters. What matters is their ToS. It plainly states that paid mods are not allowed. If you can't access a mod for free, that is a paid mod. And you framework is indeed a mod. Just putting unintended files into the game folder is considered modding them. And then your framework injecting directly into the game files is also considered modding them. Charging for access to your Patreon where it is the only way to get your mod without pirating it goes against their ToS. That ToS is a legal and binding contract. That contract has to be abided by, and you don't even have to play the game to have to abide by the ToS. They are within their rights to request to have your mod taken down. Whether any of us believe it's morally right or wrong doesn't matter. And nothing in this post changes that.
Is Luke Ross modding YOUR game?? Or are you getting something from Luke Ross and THEN modding your own game that you own and are legally allowed to mod? Think about that please... its like you would say if Luke instead wrote a book with all the code and sold the book that would be a mod cause you could copy from the book and create the mod yourself
going the Vorpx route is still the best option wether you go to a lawyer or no , pay for software that offers vr desktop view that requires a sign up , and some sort of serial to protect from piracy , ((( you can make it 20 or 30 and something like 5 or 10 resub for monthly updates ))) , and off site like people saied on github or your own site for game profiles
That would make too much sense at this point….
The counter notice is very likely to draw a lawsuit you cannot afford. Splitting the core tool from configuration files is the right idea... particularly if you convert it to a framework and allow anyone to make configuration files for games... you can leverage the same free labor that companies like CDPR exploit in the modding community.
Excellent news
Even if this is correct the cost to fight something like this wouldn't be worth it. If you made a paid program with free downloadable profiles this would be a better route. I do hope you find a solution.
Of course it would be worth it
Obviously someone has used AI for this, but the AI is telling you the same thing that I suggested: A paid app that turns any generic DirectX application into stereoscopic with a plugin architecture. No mention of any games anywhere in the documentation or sales pages. Host on your own domain, payment with Stripe. A GitHub library under an anonymous user for plugins for specific games that will be forked many times. The plugins don't work without the core app, so your revenue is kept
"Distribute modules independently from monetized channels." This could be a thing ... the REAL Framework on patreon, and the plugins for each game for free. Edit: This would work for CPDR, not for R*, they would take down the plugin anyway, even if it's free
The question is how much would cost to defend those facts on court ? Unless Valve or someone of that caliber is ready to fight for it, we are cooked ;(
You're really making it exciting, aren't you? Maybe we even get GTA V and RDR2 back. XD
Sounds about right. I mean how is RealVRmod different from any other display based plug-in. Or in the case of cyberpunk , Take NovaLUT. Thst one actually affects the game as a whole, but in the end its just another mod. A mod that CDPR has talked about AND NovaLUT costs more than this does.
When im in a soulless litigation competition and my opponent is a AAA games studio
good info. Please keep going. Set up your new 'distribution method' in a way that keeps you out of legal trouble/visbility - and below the radar of the haters and uninformed mob.
Ross they have bamboozled you. I feel they owe you an apology and a position on the Cyberpunk VR project. Project Red need to rectify this and give the fans what they want. We stand with you.
I can say from my own experience that sueing a big corporation is a full time job and comes with a lot of stress. Also, it takes years until it's resolved. I personally doubt they will sue you. So unless you wanna go after them, I would strongly suggest you to move your work on your own website where it can't be taken down. And if they sue you, you have all the winning points. That's why probably they won't bother risking a lose in court.
Don't give up. You definitely have a case and I hope you keep fighting for all the people doing what the devs should be doing in the first place. Giving us amazing VR experiences that we will gladly pay for as long as it's not too much
Have to say, always thought the Internet was a shit hole full of angry immature idiots, the retaliation over a niche mod that makes money has been even more of an eye opener. WTF gets people so riled up over something that doesn't even affect them? Not a single balanced, rational thought amongst the people who never even tried the software. If you're not interested, don't pay for it, simple. As long as I have VR ill happily pay for something that makes games work in it, especially when devs aren't interested in porting them over.
I am happy to see mate that you're not giving up. Totally on your side here. And I hope your case would be an example in case CDPR will listen and come to its senses. Kudos and fingers crossed man.
CD PROJEKT are f++king corpos
Is the poster a lawyer or is it an AI post? Hope it's legit. I guess the next thing is whether you'll "File a counter notice under 17 U.S.C. 512(g) to compel a sue or restore decision."
I want you to know one thing: what you’re doing is truly incredible. You’ve given us a level of immersion and emotion that very few creators are able to deliver. For many of us, your work has completely changed the way we experience video games. No matter what happens, if I ever get the chance to support you again like I did before, I absolutely will. That’s for sure. I sincerely hope you stay strong, find solutions, and don’t let the industry pressure wear you down. I understand that companies have to protect their rights, but sometimes it feels excessive and disconnected from the passion and innovation that projects like yours represent. Stay strong. Your work matters, and it impacts people far more than you probably realize.
I am not a lawyer, but this does make a lot of sense. You have created an application that engages with and manipulates content. A gfx card makes up frames, a joypad sends signals to manipulate a game view. We decide as players what to look at each frame (unlike a movie). The games companies provide the content and we explore it. The weird pile on vitriol on social media is awful too, but I guess those people might miss the subtleties of this point. Their pc/console/controllers/speakers/monitor/gfx card light show controllers and the seat they sit in are all augmenting the gaming experience. I hope some pro bono legal help comes your way. Thank you though for showing everyone what is possible!
No lawyer here but that looks really good to me and I wish u all the luck man!
:D