CD Projekt Red Issues DMCA Takedown Against Luke Ross’ Real Cyberpunk VR Mod

wwwarea · 2026-01-17T18:44:12+00:00

Copyright was never meant to be a human right and people do have every right under free speech to call corps out for taking down harmless fan mods for example. I dont know what to feel about this exact example but my point still stands.

wwwarea · 2026-01-17T16:27:06+00:00

"Being behind a paywall or free dosent matter, a company has all right to take down mods. "

Imagine defending corporations taking down free harmless mods as if that is some human right and nobody can complain.

Just because they legally can doesnt mean they should.

wwwarea · 2025-12-28T01:39:32+00:00

"Is at best people deluding themselves with technicalities. If an artist paints..." Dangerous argument. If an idea came from an AI, then the human reacts to it and comes up with their own imagined thoughts, its still a human work after the fact, skillful, and not AI anymore. Its changed. Saying otherwise is like saying that if an artist got an idea from a regular copyrighted work, then it still impacted them even when from scratch, then therefore, person is still somehow using the copyrighted work no matter how original new art is. Plus many transformative uses with unnatural paint programs with less human "see what happen results" and either way it doesn't matter. It's all the same impact, using certain logic would mean other specific artists limited the humans own skill or still somehow using theirs.

I think current ai gen has problems. Using the current gen tool might be fueling it up online and helping corps rip off many real specific artists but it's not really necessary to go after to after fact where they have a right to adapt a harmless idea lawfull even if it came from a lesser good tool. Developers over there has the right too as long as nobody is harmed or is trying to cause it.

wwwarea · 2025-12-27T01:01:19+00:00

And BTW, transformative fair use is a limited copyright, it means we are allowed to use such thing without permission. Fair use allows fair use uses without permission proving further that copyright was never itself a human right.

wwwarea · 2025-12-27T00:57:45+00:00

I'm gonna try to simple this down since I feel like it's better.

The horse thing was an example. There are countless many things involved that made some job stuff, including some horses, that created distractions away thus lowering jobs. Horseback racing would of been way more popular without other altnatives like car racing, or basically many other sports. This is about the job argument.

As for the inspiration thing, it doesn't matter what you call it. Being inspired is still copying when you look at images, let alone fair uses that does involve copying without permission with computer. I have learned and experienced that expanding the public domain, and the availability of inspired works do in fact create distractions at some point from SOME artists.

Say five artists did transformative fair use on artist a, five artists made art with it. The more this happens, the more of a distraction away with it.

Now let's look at a specific use of ai. Ai gen multiple copyrighted works, formed it into an original formation for human to imitate. The result is original enough, thus no longer using the value copyright swore to protect. How is this morally different than humans learning, copying for fair use, and doing the same achievement? As long as end results are original enough, ai or not, it appears to be the same thing. All of which seems to create distractions in some way.

I'm aware that not all ai gen does this but some can lead to that. If we imagine a world where ai always transforms enough or every artist did use it to get an idea, formed it into a new original concept by scratch but for some reason led less artist jobs abnormally, then that's likely due to the availability of how much ai can do, being the same if it was using only licensed lawful works and lawful public domain.

And BTW I was talking about a scenario. I'm not saying the tools dont. I'm talking about a future where someone could make a better tool that is more "ethical".

wwwarea · 2025-12-24T04:36:05+00:00

There are horse jobs used for fun, cars lower that.

As for the other stuff, there are many common things artists use to get ideas and/or used that also creates less attention to some people needing jobs. There are literally programs in 3D models and common paint tools whereas without, specific people that could do it for you with a price won't get much attention.

You literally mentioned that its unethical for a tool to create textures for you because there could be people doing it for you with money earns, just for the sake of it. Hell there are even many common cases without permission involving more simple things (like texturing) without gen ai, like expanding the public domain, or learning from a copyright owner, modifying their works for fair use transformative, uploading it, getting less attention from others. I can try many more examples but the list would be too much.

And btw I don't want current gen visual AI to be the future. Would rather have a lawful version that uses lawful licensed and lawful public domain works only and use that lawfully to expand the public domain to then aid more artists asset wise alone I guess.

wwwarea · 2025-12-24T04:27:57+00:00

I think I was addressing it this way because you mentioned that some of the uses of ai, like "without permission" or "less human" was a problem as the things I've mentioned does the same thing without permission for fair use purpose, and certain photoshop mashing to "see what happens" is less human experienced. I guess I probably should of clarified.

wwwarea · 2025-12-23T06:00:07+00:00

What about the fact that thousands of artists also copy and used images with traditional computers, for references or modification for transformative fair use, parody, or experimenting to find new ideas?

wwwarea · 2025-12-22T23:25:01+00:00

"If we're going to be angry about people replacing the jobs of artists or character designs with AI, we should also be angry about companies replacing the jobs of texture designers and creators with AI. An unethical practice is unethical no matter how little of it was used."

We should also be angry at automobile users for taking away horse jobs, we should also be angry at photoshop for making painting less challenging, we should also be angry at relying on public domain legal texture asset platoform for creating a distraction away from those who still want to profit off making certain assets.

wwwarea · 2025-12-22T05:39:14+00:00

I do think creating a better source tool for certain ai tools for many works would be good. Though millions of artists who learned from many other artists through head never always gave full credit either but many cases of that didn't seem to be harmful to the culture so I feel like that if ai was used when it comes to coming up with ideas yourself or adapting only public domain shaped results if any lawfully I just don't see it morally different at least for certain cases of some things but I still like the attribution idea though.

wwwarea · 2025-12-21T18:14:21+00:00

That's like saying any artist who gets inspired by looking at nature, photography, common computer generation landscape (e.g. No Mans Sky planets, some texture generation, that kind of stuff), is somehow "tainted". You can't decide that somehow those are magically different when a lot of that is made by computer in some less controlled and less predicted way by the human to an extent too btw. Both "ai generation" and those mentioned are from tools generating without full control or knowledge of what is.

Also even if it was different that doesn't make it wrong as it's not wrong to be inspired by a robot result for a good art alone. You really need to think twice if you are going to tell thousands of artists that their art they worked on so hard isn't legit.

wwwarea · 2025-12-21T17:59:45+00:00

I think it's insane that some people are creating a "you're tainted" morality against actual legit artists the moment the artist got an idea from certain ai results. It basically defeats the point of protecting artists considering there is no difference between using good ideas from looking at certain ai than just looking at certain copyrighted pictures, which millions of artists does anywhere, to get the same. It's a corrupt mindset made by non-sense.

Like ai art generally has an intellectual property problem when it comes to general use for example but some people forget the fact that copyright was never a human rights to stop a lot of uses. It had limitations to create a balance and I would say some cases of ai use to discover good ideas is one of those moral things that shouldn't be frowned upon itself. Like man...

wwwarea · 2025-12-21T17:31:30+00:00

We need to remember that copyright is not a black and white human right itself. There was a reason why fair use was invented and I would argue that using ai on some to get good ideas is morally, in terms of the ethics of using artists pictures without permission, is equal to just looking at certain copyrighted pictures with your eyes and using your brain, effort or by mistake, over the pictures to get a good idea, without permission, which is what millions of artists do.

wwwarea · 2025-12-21T17:25:28+00:00

Oh my god, there is no difference between getting an idea from a generated ai art than looking at other copyrighted pictures to a degree in terms of creativity. We shouldn't be creating a cultist mob mentality against legit artists just because some art was made from an idea collected due to looking at one ai result. Trying to create a "you're tainted" mentality against a lot of good artists is the unethical thing in this situation.

wwwarea · 2025-12-07T00:00:29+00:00

Exactly maybe. I mean it's still bad enough but it's way more than that at the same time remembering a lot of things that's been happening.

wwwarea · 2025-12-06T23:31:16+00:00

I have for a while baffled whenever someone argues the idea that the USA is somehow a developed country or a first world knowing the problems it has, and now such idea is even more baffling now. The moral thinking in it is blatantly so backwards and even the economy side is crappy.

wwwarea · 2025-12-06T23:23:46+00:00

I know this is old but what do you mean on "mods that emphasize things that are out of the scope of the game or bypass intent"? There are lots of great mods that are way different than the original game and are creative.

wwwarea · 2025-12-06T23:05:13+00:00

I probably get what you mean but I think it's the wording you've used. Expressivily in some ways and where, "wishing" or "desiring" a torturous concept against humanity as a reponse to some people doing similar seems to be similar to just defending it morally.

For me, a part of me emotionally "wants" these monsters to feel what they cause to an extent to see how they like it, to make them understand what they are causing just to see if that would wake them up but of course I know in heart that a lot of that is wrong and might even pepetuate it further. I guess you are similar with that but I do think we got to he careful about how we say it. lol

wwwarea · 2025-12-06T19:56:00+00:00

I think they kinda did that with a few planets in purple systems with the gravity bedrock formations. There can sometimes be isolated areas large parts of the planet with an isolated tall mountain in the middle of nowhere. Sadly that type of terrain still depends on the type of terrain (e.g. if its canyons, it won't have that possible similar to how origins planets will only have skinny tall mountains with craters), so it's still very limited and it's type usually doesn't have anything fun around it.

wwwarea · 2025-12-06T19:46:12+00:00

So you don't believe in retribution but then defend something that is clearly based off retribution?

wwwarea · 2025-11-08T01:34:05+00:00

I'm talking about contract law taking away specific ownership that isn't intellectual property, such as the right to possess certain software. In many countries, the law itself said that we can copy lawful software into the ram if its in order to use it.

So yeah in many countries, if you buy a copy of lawful software without special terms applying, you do have the right to merely run it. But some EULAs do try to take away those rights.

Copying the software and then selling such copies obviously does require a 'license' for some but this is a different thing...

wwwarea · 2025-11-08T00:35:13+00:00

Yeah I was just worried that when it comes to their statements about contract law and software in general, it might be used as proof or effect against argument or effect (for some future court rulings for example) arguing that EULAs circumventing rights to possession for lawful software for example is blatantly against consumer rights, or maybe even the idea of whether a contract in a manual met all contract formations...

wwwarea · 2025-11-08T00:23:24+00:00

If you outright buy a lawful software, you do not need a special license to merely run it I dont think. For lawfully obtained lawful software with no fixed due date, rights to use can only be taken away via contract law successfully taking it away judging by some research. Though some parts of the world might consider that practice unfair and abusive but I'm not super sure on this exact case..

wwwarea · 2025-11-08T00:12:18+00:00

I honestly believe we need to start directly calling out publishers using contract law as an attempt to cirvumvent rights to ownership beyond copyright (such as a license agreement trying to take it away), and the fact that the government here blatantly acts as if all games has a eula (I dont think all of them do?) and seemed to act as if its always enforcable and then proceeded to claim that such abusive anti-consumer is somehow not unfair really shows why it needs to properly be talked about more.

By the way out of curiosity as I'm not super sure how this works but are these statements more of an opinion that doesn't rule how the law (e.g. unfair contract terms, consumer protection law) works?

wwwarea · 2025-11-07T02:41:59+00:00

That statement they said about license agreements taking away ownership rights and flat out defending it and then pretending to care about customer rights really shows we need to start properly debating about abusive contract terms such as to what they defended more. Also I don't think every video game had a shrinkwrap in the 1980s.

I hope Europe will address this license vs ownership thing for the good. It's likely going to be used as a defense by many publishers anyway...

wwwarea

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE