Support NeoGAF

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Well if there have been other lawsuits around this I do need to say sorry I wasn't aware. I skimmed some people posting things above, but that was just reading today. I had no historic knowledge of lawsuits around cheats. Only that bans have been a well known longterm consequence of cheating in MP. My feelings still stand about anyone now calling cheating piracy or anyone who is hoping Epic manage to win copyright claims here. Why would any gamer want that?

It's been going on for awhile, no need to apologise if you weren't aware - it's definitely a niche area. I've been named in court documents specifically around this area and have extensive knowledge of the moderation/administration of cheat forums from my past. Kind of gave me reasons to brush up on it all!

The copyright argument is that the hacks require intrinsic knowledge of the systems in order to be built, which requires the use of reverse engineering to determine aspects of the game to target (especially if using an anti-cheat where often the entire client is unpacked. So even though no knowledge is required on the part of the end user, some penetration into their copyrighted code is evident in the development of them.

Pressure works a number of times, including with the creator of Cheat Engine and members of the forum. However if we're talking about cases going to court and publishers winning then it's almost always the case that the pursuing of profit as a result of those reverse-engineering efforts is what will get you nailed.

I completely understand the argument and it's definitely within the realm of copyright, but I don't agree with cheat-makers facing jail time comparable to physical assault and the like.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's been going on for awhile, no need to apologise if you weren't aware - it's definitely a niche area. I've been named in court documents specifically around this area and have extensive knowledge of the moderation/administration of cheat forums from my past. Kind of gave me reasons to brush up on it all!

The copyright argument is that the hacks require intrinsic knowledge of the systems in order to be built, which requires the use of reverse engineering to determine aspects of the game to target (especially if using an anti-cheat where often the entire client is unpacked. So even though no knowledge is required on the part of the end user, some penetration into their copyrighted code is evident in the development of them.

Pressure works a number of times, including with the creator of Cheat Engine and members of the forum. However if we're talking about cases going to court and publishers winning then it's almost always the case that the pursuing of profit as a result of those reverse-engineering efforts is what will get you nailed.

I completely understand the argument and it's definitely within the realm of copyright, but I don't agree with cheat-makers facing jail time comparable to physical assault and the like.

Thanks for explaining. I don't personally agree any pursuit of profit should just be blanket outlawed. I'm sure you're aware of what Atlus tried to do to the PS3 emulator developer because they have a patreon account?

This also sets a shitty precedent for the already contested field of DRM stripping. Removing DRM from something you own requires modification of code. As does jailbreaking, homebrew and all that good stuff.

Obviously most people won't pay a penny for anything like the above. Just donations at best. As I said on the previous page though this lawsuit doesn't even seem to specify only going after paid cheats. It's incorporating copyright infringement just around code injection/tampering.

 

[Soul of the Beast]

It's not about winning the lawsuit, it's about sending the message.

 

[OmegaFax]

Haven't other companies sued or sought prosecution for this before as fraud? Doesn't fraud assume the misuse or circumvention of paying money? If there's a monetary transaction for a chance to get something, a reward (like a lootbox), regardless of whether it's a return of cash or a good that can stimulate the sensation of gambling ... isn't it gambling?

 

[zedge]

This is one of these threads where people will post after only reading the thread title.

Understatement of week there. Holy bananas. C'mon GAF. Shitty thread title. I watched levelcaps video where he talked about this yesterday. These are people making money off selling cheats. Sue the shit out of them.

 

[Audioboxer]

Understatement of week there. Holy bananas. C'mon GAF. Shitty thread title. I watched levelcaps video where he talked about this yesterday. These are people making money off selling cheats. Sue the shit out of them.

Complain about other people not reading the topic, fail to read how I and others are highlighting this is aiming to say memory editing/injecting is copyright infringement.

The lawsuit doesn't seem to specifically say because you can pay for these cheats. Paying for them is simply the means to earn them for this game (I'm sure free cheats exist too). Epic are primarily being lawsuit hostile to wanting it to be accepted injecting/modifying their code is copyright infringement.

It's not just to punish the bad MP cheaters selling cheats. As someone else said it'll probably be symbolic more than anything as a court should hopefully chuck it out. Anyone championing this being a success seems to fail to grasp the potential consequences for everyone unless I am the one that's totally reading things wrong. The claim of copyright infringement for modifications of code does seem pretty open ended and inclusive of all ways of doing that. Free or paid. That's bullshit if it were ever passed as law/a lawsuit won.

 

[zedge]

Complain about other people not reading the topic, fail to read how I and others are highlighting this is aiming to say memory editing/injecting is copyright infringement.

The lawsuit doesn't seem to specifically say because you can pay for these cheats. Paying for them is simply the means to earn them for this game (I'm sure free cheats exist too). Epic are primarily being lawsuit hostile to wanting it to be accepted injecting/modifying their code is copyright infringement.

It's not just to punish the bad MP cheaters selling cheats.

I doubt they are going to sue little Johnny who bought a cheat and used it. This is going after those making them. I don't think this is going to be used against people making legit mods or tweaking settings. Unless it is allowing you to cheat online. Did the Blizzard lawsuit bring on some kind of apocalypse?

 

[Audioboxer]

I doubt they are going to sue little Johnny who bought a cheat and used it. This is going after those making them. I don't think this is going to be used against people making legit mods or tweaking settings. Unless it is allowing you to cheat online. Did the Blizzard lawsuit bring on some kind of apocalypse?

So you're okay with cheat makers being targeted legally but still want to allow people to cheat? How is that going to work if the process of creating the cheats in the first place is deemed copyright infringement if they are memory editors/code injections?

Cheats are piracy, right? I'm pretty sure hardly anyone wants that future. You wouldn't download a car... I mean, you wouldn't download a cheat.

 

[scitek]

This sounds like a bad idea.. whats next? suing modders?

Probably.

 

[Venfayth]

I understand the hand wringing about precedent and how this can affect modding and other innocuous client-only cheats, but let's be clear about this:

The reason this lawsuit is happening is because cheating is rampant in Fortnite right now and it is ruining a lot of matches.

 

[zedge]

So you're okay with cheat makers being targeted legally but still want to allow people to cheat? How is that going to work if the process of creating the cheats in the first place is deemed copyright infringement if they are memory editors/code injections?

Cheats are piracy, right? I'm pretty sure hardly anyone wants that future. You wouldn't download a car... I mean, you wouldn't download a cheat.

Ban the cheaters. Go after the ones making them. If you are talking about people modding or using cheats in offline or single player games I don't care in that case. Not affecting others. If this prevents that occurring then I understand your concern. I guess I have more faith in these companies. The backlash if they went this heavy handed would not be worth it.

 

[Audioboxer]

I understand the hand wringing about precedent and how this can affect modding and other innocuous client-only cheats, but let's be clear about this:

The reason this lawsuit is happening is because cheating is rampant in Fortnite right now and it is ruining a lot of matches.

Okay, that is shitty, but it's the same problem PC games have faced for a long time. The answer will always be banning and good detection. Not going to the courts to try and get legislative precedent to muck up consumer rights.

Ban the cheaters. Go after the ones making them. If you are talking about people modding or using cheats in offline or single player games I don't care in that case. Not affecting others. If this prevents that occurring then I understand your concern. I guess I have more faith in these companies. The backlash if they went this heavy handed would not be worth it.

Banning already happens and is fair to do even to people who've bought your product (I understand this is a F2P game). Going after the ones making them isn't being done with a scalpel knife here, it's trying to take down all cheats by the nature of them injecting code as copyright infringement. Not something most gamers should really be celebrating if you ask me.

 

[collige]

This also sets a shitty precedent for the already contested field of DRM stripping. Removing DRM from something you own requires modification of code. As does jailbreaking, homebrew and all that good stuff.

That ship sailed with the DMCA unfortunately.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

"infringing Epic's copyrights by injecting unauthorized computer code into the copyright protected code".

Well Epic can go fuck itself then.

 

[Audioboxer]

That ship sailed with the DMCA unfortunately.

Not quite because I don't think there has been any big cases where individuals were sued or put in jail for stripping DRM from something they own. Or homebrew/jailbreaking. I know for a fact the law states posting instructions for how to remove DRM is not illegal. It gets murkier when it comes to actually doing it, but as I said I don't think there's been any landmark cases where individuals or those supplying tools/homebrew have been wiped out.

The EU at least quite strongly backs consumer rights around jailbreaking and homebrew with something you own. Where the companies have power is they can ban you from their online services due to the TOS you accept. Such as Nintendo finally getting around to banning homebrew 3DS's.

 

[Venfayth]

Okay, that is shitty, but it's the same problem PC games have faced for a long time. The answer will always be banning and good detection. Not going to the courts to try and get legislative precedent to muck up consumer rights.

Not sure I agree with this. I want to protect the sanctity of being able to do whatever you want to software on your own computer - but not when it demonstrably negatively impacts other players in an online game you're playing with.

Surely a level of legal nuance exists where such a goal is achievable.

Edit: To be even more clear, I'm not talking about using cheats being legally punishable, but developing or selling them? That's where I'm curious if something could be done. I'm no lawyer, so maybe it's just completely infeasible to do this while protecting significant consumer rights (including modding or cheat engine in games where you're not affecting anything but your own experience).

 

[TSM]

It would be pretty awful if Epic wins the court case with modifying copy written code as the basis of victory. That could have serious repercussions for many things not involving cheating like emulation of commercial software.

These cheat programs are essentially mods, and should ideally be handled as a TOS violation. If they won this, it would basically mean publishers would have a legal basis to shut down mods carte blanche.

 

[Trup1aya]

Ehhh.

It's more analogous to 'bringing a sport into disrepute' that does not grant access to damages it prevents access to the sport. I think for lack of other options the injunctive relief sought makes certain amount of sense, in not only preventing them from participating any further but the cessation of the distribution or development of the cheating tools.

I'm not familiar with the Act, but insofar as actual damages are concerned, if they're assessed in a similar fashion to Australia it seems like a really big stretch, they have to draw the line between the impaired experience of the players and (other than the 'loss of goodwill') and the lost sales and lost profits.

Im not sure that's quite analogous.

The defendants "access" to the sport, in this case is via code they inject that alters the experience of other players.

The result is an experience for Epic's customers that is that is different from what those customers are expecting and paying for. As such, Epic should be privy to damages should the cheaters continue to access the sport or recieve $ for teaching others to do so with intentions of altering the experience.

People are worried about this setting some precedence that leads to an injection free world. It doesnt. They clearly state that their grievance is related to preserving the experience for players who aren't cheating. I doubt you'll see any such action against people doing this to SP games or on private servers.

 

[Biscotti]

It's sad how many people just read the thread title without reading the post.... If the thread title said that they were suing the makers of the cheats I think people would be more reasonable.

 

[decoyplatypus]

Nevermind. Misread earlier post.

As discussed above, the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures that effectively control access to a copyrighted work even if you do nothing to violate copyright law after circumventing the technological measure. Jailbreaking is only legal in the US because the Library of Congress has exempted it from the DCMA, but that exemption has to be renewed every three years.

Epic seems likely to win on its DMCA claim based on the Blizzard case discussed above. Blizzard isn't binding on the a district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and there are some weaknesses in the Blizzard ruling plus some potential factual distinctions, but federal courts often look to the 9th Circuit when it comes to copyright law, so I wouldn't be too optimistic if I were the defendant. Epic will probably also win on breach of contract. The harder part is the copyright claim. In Blizzard, there was no copyright infringement because the cheating had no nexus to Blizzard's exclusive rights in WoW. Here, Epic is alleging that the cheating involved the creation of a derivative work. I can't remember if a similar argument was made in Blizzard or what facts such a claim relied on.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

This is precisely why in the present case they've had to go through this ridiculous attempt at an unauthorised derivative work, there are no clubs beholden to any administrative or regulatory bodies, these are people acting alone.

Yep, that was my point too, it turns out.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Here is the controversial part of the complaint:

64. The cheat software used by Defendant (and those whom Defendant induces to use such software) improperly injects unauthorized code into the active memory of the game as it runs. The cheat software manipulates the functionality of the game and gives the cheater an unfair advantage over other players, changing and disrupting the game.
65. This unauthorized modification of the game’s code as it runs on the cheater’s computer and of the code that is sent back to Epic’s servers materially changes both the game’s code and the audio-visual aspects of the game generated by the code. These changes create a different version of the Fortnite game than the Fortnite game that is generated by Epic’s copyright protected software.
66. In using cheat software to modify the game’s code in this way, Defendant and other cheaters who use the cheat create unauthorized derivative works based on Fortnite in violation of the Copyright Act.
67. Use of the cheat software also violates the express terms of both the EULA and the Terms, both of which prohibit any modification of the game and the creation of derivative works based on Fortnite.

And for people say “Just ban them”:

68. Defendant has been banned at least nine times for violating the Terms and the EULA. On information and belief, Defendant has circumvented this by creating numerous other accounts under false names and continues to play and cheat at Fortnite.

Regardless, they did very clearly break the EULA. And according to the complaint, the two people have been caught making statements that they intend to harm Epic and the game’s profitability, and have purposely been targeting live streamers to make the game look full of cheaters. That’s not going to go down very well in court for the defendants.

 

[Audioboxer]

Not sure I agree with this. I want to protect the sanctity of being able to do whatever you want to software on your own computer - but not when it demonstrably negatively impacts other players in an online game you're playing with.

Surely a level of legal nuance exists where such a goal is achievable.

Edit: To be even more clear, I'm not talking about using cheats being legally punishable, but developing or selling them? That's where I'm curious if something could be done. I'm no lawyer, so maybe it's just completely infeasible to do this while protecting significant consumer rights (including modding or cheat engine in games where you're not affecting anything but your own experience).

But you aren't protecting the interests of the PC platform if you think it's wise to pursue legal avenues to being able to slam cheat creators with copyright infringement. That's like trying to give the RIAA back in the day the good intentions/benefit argument to say their heavy-handed approaches to hunting down MP3 downloaders were fair (suing people for hundreds of thousands if not millions for downloading 10 MP3s). At that, there is more a claim to copyright infringement from downloading MP3s you haven't paid for, than downloading a damn cheat. Hence me satirising you wouldn't download a car, so why would you download a cheat? Or maybe change that to create a cheat.

The developers and publishers would just want maximum control and power, hence why Epic in this lawsuit is not specifically even trying to claim they only want cheat sellers done for copyright infringement. It's just simply cheating that injects code/tampers with their code. They don't think like you or I as gamers, in their legal department. Even on payment requests, I've brought up how the "free market" on the PC/internet should allow creators to ask for money if they want, but consumers can refuse. A blanket "every cheat that asks for payment is copyright infringement" is not protecting the interests of the PC platform either. As I said what are peoples feelings on Atlus trying to DMCA a patreon account page claiming the PS3 emulator developer profits off of their work? People had a field day criticising Atlus for that, but now we're seeing serious debates on GAF about cheats being piracy and trying to get a middle ground with copyright infringement?

Maybe if the RIAA argument is a bit flawed, you can draw comparisons to DRM stripping which I brought up. Shit like Denuvo and other stuff being used, then end-users then want to download "no-CD" cracks or other tools to remove DRM. Publishers and developers can ban you for breaking their TOS, and sure, that can be an endless task in a F2P game, but that's the deal of how you don't cut your nose off to spite your face on the PC platform. In the perfect world the only cheats that would exist would be SP cheats, but it's not really possible to legally via copyright infringement break the world down into "SP cheat" and "MP cheat". MP is illegal, SP is legal. Hence why since PC gaming has existed it has been up to server hosters/game developers and publishers to have anti-cheat protection in MP games, and for bans, both timed and permanent. Consoles haven't completely avoided MP cheating either. Heck, you can even buy physical hardware to try and give you the edge (controllers with turbo buttons/memory scripts and whatnot).

 

[Clockwork5]

I am 100% okay with epic going after the creators of this cheat. They are altering the product that others experience when playing "Fortnite". This is Epic's property, the title of their game is their trademark and both their property and their trademark are being damaged by individuals outside of the company. The fact that the creators of the cheat are profiting from their manipulation of Epic's property makes this a case that Epic could very well end up winning. I can see how a court could agree that the cheat creators are both profiting from a derivative of Epic's IP while also damaging the Epic and Fortnite brands.

If it leads to other publishers/developers going after individuals who they can show have damaged their property/trademark/brand or are profiting from an unauthorized derivative product, so be it.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Fuck cheat creators, fuck cheaters and fuck people who support them.

 

[2blackcats]

Fuck cheat creators, fuck cheaters and fuck people who support them.

Yup, online cheaters suck.

One of the main reasons I stopped playing online games on PC.

Even if it's not a cheater that kills you, thinking that it might be ruins it for me.

Hopefully it's eliminated completely some day.

 

[Gamegeneral]

Am I crazy or isn't modifying code that you purchased a license to technically illegal currently thanks to fucked copyright laws?

 

[Venfayth]

Audioboxer, to be clear I was mostly responding to your point:

"The answer will always be banning and good detection."

I'm not particularly invested to the legal argument of copyright infringement, and am open to your explanations of how this particular avenue may not be a good approach. I just don't think it is inherently necessary that we need to legally accept cheaters in online games as a byproduct of sufficient PC platform rights.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

The relevant case law suggests this should be thrown out pretty quickly, unless a new precedent has been established that I'm unaware of.

Of course that case isn’t precedent for this case. Find a 4th circuit or Supreme Court case.

 

[spad3]

Uninstalling Fortnite now. Can't stand copyright nazis.

L M F A O

 

[Wiped89]

Uuurgh. This has huge implications for how you can use your software. Imagine if you could get sued for making notes on a book you own.

Making modifications to something and only sharing those modifications without any of the original copyrighted material should not be considered copyright infringement.

Yeah but what if you then released your edited version of the book to other people, even for free? Surely that would be messing with a copyrighted work.

 

[farisr]

So all you who are defending Epic are okay with PC game mods going away I reckon. Because winning this case (with the way Epic is approaching it), makes it fair game for game companies to go after modders who are offering stuff for free.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Uninstalling Fortnite now. Can't stand copyright nazis.

Have fun cheating elsehwere then.

Spoiler

Don't have fun.

 

[Audioboxer]

Audioboxer, to be clear I was mostly responding to your point:

"The answer will always be banning and good detection."

I'm not particularly invested to the legal argument of copyright infringement, and am open to your explanations of how this particular avenue may not be a good approach. I just don't think it is inherently necessary that we need to legally accept cheaters in online games as a byproduct of sufficient PC platform rights.

Well, I did try to hint that it's not just on the PC. Consoles have had cheating as well, especially when the PS3 was opened up to homebrew. Someone posted this earlier https://www.savewizard.net/ While it's not a real-time PS4 editor, it is tampering with save game files. It's mostly SP games, but there are some MP games on there. MGS5 for one, and the cheats seem to be for max currency. That can probably transfer over to base building which is a MP component.

No one likes MP cheaters, they've always ruined experiences. What I was trying to mostly say is you always have to be careful with what laws/copyright you want the Government to have power over you with, which extends to private companies. It really isn't wise for consumers to just legislate away their freedoms in the pursuit of justice sometimes. Account bans, IP bans and more usually does cleanup most cheaters. Especially if there is monetary value involved, as that scares many off losing their accounts. I get that is less of a concern with F2P games, but F2P games are an industry choice and along with that may come added hurdles for the devs/pubs. I'm sure China loves botting F2P games to sell currency/items on the black market.

 

[Plywood]

Uninstalling Fortnite now. Can't stand copyright nazis.

They weren't getting any money from you anyway.

 

[collige]

Yeah but what if you then released your edited version of the book to other people, even for free? Surely that would be messing with a copyrighted work.

That would be infringement, but that's also not the scenario Moosichu presented. What should be fine is releasing the edits without including the text of the original work.

Not quite because I don't think there has been any big cases where individuals were sued or put in jail for stripping DRM from something they own. Or homebrew/jailbreaking. I know for a fact the law states posting instructions for how to remove DRM is not illegal. It gets murkier when it comes to actually doing it, but as I said I don't think there's been any landmark cases where individuals or those supplying tools/homebrew have been wiped out.

The EU at least quite strongly backs consumer rights around jailbreaking and homebrew with something you own. Where the companies have power is they can ban you from their online services due to the TOS you accept. Such as Nintendo finally getting around to banning homebrew 3DS's.

The text of the law explicitly bans circumventing DRM except for specific cases specified every 3 years by the Librarian of Congress. It's pretty clear cut. Enforcement is another matter, of course.

 

[Agent_Carnage]

Seems like a waste of resources when they could just ban them.

 

[Audioboxer]

That would be infringement, but that's also not the scenario Moosichu presented. What should be fine is releasing the edits without including the text of the original work.



The text of the law explicitly bans circumventing DRM except for specific cases specified every 3 years by the Librarian of Congress. It's pretty clear cut. Enforcement is another matter, of course.

The EU has always been a bit better than the US

The Court of Justice next states that the legal protection covers only the technological measures intended to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution, for which authorisation from the copyrightholder is required. That legal protection must respect the principle of proportionality without prohibiting devices or activities which have a commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent the technical protection for unlawful purposes.

The Court of Justice notes that the scope of legal protection of technical measures must not be assessed according to the use of consoles defined by the holder of copyright, but that rather it is necessary to examine the purpose of devices provided for the circumvention of protection measures, taking account, according to the circumstances at issue, of the use which third parties actually make of them.

Having made those important general points, the Court of Justice of the European Union then goes on to instruct the Milan court to consider specific issues, such as whether Nintendo could use alternative forms of DRM that allow other programs to be run, and whether PC Box's software is mainly used for legal or illegal purposes.

As well as being an eminently sensible ruling, it's potentially hugely important, because it establishes that in principle DRM may be circumvented, depending on the circumstances. It's one that is likely to be greeted with howls from the copyright industry, since it cuts right across its view that DRM is sacred, and can never be circumvented in any situation. It's refreshing to see Europe's top court adopting a more nuanced approach to copyright that recognizes that users have important rights too, and that they should not be obliged to put up with what copyrightholders impose upon them if that is disproportionate in its knock-on effects.

You and anyone else would be right though to point out DRM has always been a hugely contested area, and a lot of the time it is down to enforcement/how to enforce.

Either way, trying to cling onto fair use and what muddy protections there are in legislation is better than some wanting copyright infringement waved around without truly considering offshoot consequences. We already see how badly DMCA claims are abused at times.

 

[Trup1aya]

So all you who are defending Epic are okay with PC game mods going away I reckon. Because winning this case (with the way Epic is approaching it), makes it fair game for game companies to go after modders who are offering stuff for free.

No it doesn't.

They are explicitly taking issue with the fact that the cheat negatively changes the game that OTHER PEOPLE are experiencing.

I'm gonna need Tim Sweeney to come out and settle this.

Seems like a waste of resources when they could just ban them.

But they banned them 9 times... so...

 

[decoyplatypus]

So all you who are defending Epic are okay with PC game mods going away I reckon. Because winning this case (with the way Epic is approaching it), makes it fair game for game companies to go after modders who are offering stuff for free.

It depends which of Epic's claims succeeds. The breach of contract and DMCA claims would not be breaking new ground. I happen to think the DMCA is a bad law and raises serious constitutional concerns, but I can't really get too angry about a NC district court choosing not to challenge the prevailing interpretation of the DMCA or the constitutionality of the law itself. (Also, if you were the EFF looking for a sympathetic litigant to push boundaries on the DMCA, these defendants would not be your first choice).

The copyright claim is more concerning. I would prefer Epic did not win on that one.