Court Returns Seized Laptops to Accused GTA V Cheat Developer | Hacker News Reader

Court Returns Seized Laptops to Accused GTA V Cheat Developer

torrentfreak.com

31 pointsDiabloD37 comments

One thing that neither this nor the previous HN discussion linked below seem to clarify is whether the defendant sold the cheats for use in cheating in GTA online or whether it was provided for free, presumably for use in single player. If it's the former I think this case isn't particularly controversial. The dev that sold Glider (WoW botting software) was persecuted for it and I didn't see much controversy surrounding it. It makese sense to me, too. Cheats in an online game degrade the experience for other players.

If it was provided for single player use, though, and especially if the developer didn't monetize it, I think it's an overreach. Altering one's experience in a single player game does not affect anyone else's experience. I can forsee this becoming more of an issue as more and more single player games introduce loot boxes and microtransactions. For example, Assassin's Creed Origins sells lootboxes for crafting materials and EXP boosters. I felt that my progression was slower than ideal for my enjoyment, so I whipped out CheatEngine and modified my EXP and crafting resource values. Did I defraud or steal from Ubisoft? I don't think the answer should be yes. It seems disturbing that publishers could persecute someone for merely using the software they paid for in a manner different than what was intended, even if no other customers are negatively impacted.

But of course, it is worth restating that is the cheat developer sold the cheats for use in GTA online I see no issue here.

Your unhappiness that the quality of the game's experience was degraded does not make the actions of this person illegal nor does it provide any basis to the idea that what this person did was in any way shape or form copyright infringement, and whether the person made money off of these activities does not in any way affect such evaluation.

Copyright infringement laws, at least in the US (I assume Australia has analogous laws) prohibit reverse engineering in many circumstances. Profiting by creating tools to bypass anti-cheat mechanisms in games is one of them. I don't know exactly if profiting off cheats puts this in a different category of violation, but it does signal that the developer is aware of the fact that these cheats are giving players an advantage significant enough for people to want to pay. It also gives the publisher grounds to sue in civil court for lost sales.

Even in Assassin's Creed Origins' case, the EULA prohibits development or use of cheats or trainers. Companies generally do not pursue people who violate this in single player games, as it would be seen as heavy handed, but ostensibly Ubisoft could go after me in civil court for using a memory editor to give myself EXP and mats.

You and I may not agree with these laws, but that does not change the fact that these laws and EULA provisions exist.

The Applicants' case goes a little something like this:

You don't buy the game, you buy a license to play a game, plus a copy of the game. If for any reason that license is revoked, you are making a copy of the game (from disk, into memory) without a license - which is copyright infringement.

Cheating is against the EULA, and it says (somewhere within the vast legal forest) that violation of the EULA will result in automatic suspension of your license. (Mind you, it also says in many OTHER places, that it won't). But let pretend it clearly says "automatic license termination".

If you cause OTHER PEOPLE to do the same thing, you are also responsible for that.

There is an ancillary charge of breaching an AC TPM (access control technical protection measure) but that is somewhat harder to justify, as they are claiming that their "Anti-Cheat" system is part of their AC TPM. (Anti-Cheat, Access-Control). While their Anti-Cheat is certainly (technically speaking) a "technical protection measure", it is not (legally speaking) a "technical protection measure" as recognized by copyright law.

i.e. not everything that is "technical" and involves "protection" qualifies as an AC TPM under copyright law (or DMCA).

There is an additional claim of "tortious interference" which is a classic legal ploy. Best example I can recall is the case where the husband sues his wife's lover for tortious interference, because he is a 3rd party attempting to interfere with their contract (the marriage contract).

hope that clarifies the case... and after reading the link to the previous comment... srsly.... police are not involved... catching cheat makers is not a government initiative (except maybe in china). it's much scarier. it's driven by corporations that have huge budgets and can afford 24/7 surveillance on a subject for weeks at a time, and operate with a "scorched earth" policy.

that's what should make you all scared. corporations can have search warrants issued, force you to provide the key or password to anything, and insist you tell them about any equipment or information you may have hidden.

there is no right to silence what-so-ever.

visit the blog to catch up on the latest news (just give me an hour to start a blog!)

http://www.infamouscheats.cc

Previous post on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18224625

I found the bit about PayPal particularly interesting. It sounds a lot like "PayPal is under no obligation to freeze his money but they decided to keep it anyways, so not our problem".

That sounds pretty close to what happened. Though it might be fairer to say that a giant law firm scared the crap out of them, demanding they implement they simply aren't equipped to do, and they said: "Sorry, we can't actually do that."

Ironically, I told said same giant law firm exactly the same thing.

I honest fail to believe that a law firm of that size weren't perfectly aware that serving a Mareva Injunction on Paypal would result in them instantly freezing the whole thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com