Fortnite Publisher suing Aimbot Service claiming Copyright Infringement

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

No, they aren't using dedicated servers.  They use host based servers.  Meaning it's not an exploit.  See the edit.

 Well it's still an exploit. Exploiting a configuration is still exploiting. It's just a really stupid exploit. Also what I said about cheaters and DDoSing not being related still stands, even more so now.

[jubjub]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I edited again.  They are DDoSing you because they are flooding your connection with packets, not bungie's due to them using a hybrid server type.  When it is peer to peer mixed with a client server then they are able to attack your connection directly by flooding it with packets.  Is that not a DDoS?  It's even advertised as that by the paid carry people, and it is even treated as such by the developer's networking team.  I mean I guess you can count the DDoS as an exploit considering they are exploiting your connection based on the server type, but a DDoS is still a DDoS when you flood someone with packets to force them to disconnect.

(D)DoS is an exploit against IPv4/IPv6. Also being able to get the IP in the first place because of the configuration is also an exploit.

[jubjub]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So then it is both considering the peer to peer aspect of the server type.  My original point still stands.  It's illegal to DDoS to someone's connection even if it is to win a competitive game mode.  Cops have arrested people over it before.  I remember, not sure if it was recent, but a guy was playing Trials with his friends then got kicked thanks to this.  They managed to knock some server he owned offline too.  Not sure if that makes it even more of a crime than before.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with cheating.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Bungie considers it cheating and will slam the ban hammer over it.  It's literally part of their report system for cheating.

Just because they consider it cheating doesn't make it cheating. It has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's an out of game thing, not interacting with the game.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

You are forcing someone out of the game to put their team at a disadvantage for you to win.  I don't see how that's not cheating especially when it is against the rules set in place by them and plenty of other developers who don't use dedicated servers.  It might not be considered cheating to you, but when they set rules in place and you break them to gain an advantage then you are indeed cheating.  

Then that's moving the goal posts. Cheats in this context is a program that interacts with the game to achieve an unfair advantage. Cheating in general has a whole different meaning that your case would cover including abusing features of the game.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The definition of cheating is acting unfairly in order to gain an advantage.  By forcing a player out of the game to give yourself an unfair advantage is indeed cheating by definition.  Giving yourself an aimbot, spawn forcing, DDoSing, and more are all cheats by definition.  

In that context yes, but we're talking about a completely different thing.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I said they DDoSed me to knock me out of the game to give themselves an unfair advantage.  The report I linked you to is speaking about that.  So, they were by definition cheating by attempting to win by kicking the guy out of the game who was beating them the most.  Aka 3 to 2 match to unbalance my team in order to win.  You said that wasn't cheating.  That's exactly why people DDoS in Trials.  It is why Bungie added it to the report system.  I don't know what you think we were talking about.  Network manipulation is cheating was my entire point.  And, some forms of it is illegal.

We're talking about a law suit around a program that interacts with the game to achieve an unfair advantage (aka cheats in this context)? DDoSing is 100% not related to cheats in this context, at all.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

It is still illegal to DDoS and cheating by DDoSing people on peer to peer and client servers.  This developer is suing over reverse engineering of their code for the sake of aim manipulation.  Both are illegal in some context and both are forms of cheating.  Just like Bungie could sue over spawn forcing over manipulation.  Spawn forcing someone wherever you want also requires reverse engineering and additional code which is indeed copyright infringement as well.  The point still stands, all of this is cheating and illegal.  What isn't cheating is if you were DDoSing a company rather than the players directly, but that's still illegal.

Still not cheating in this context. Nothing you can do or say will change that. It doesn't interact with the game at all.

[jubjub]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I sincerely hope you mean single player games....

Oh also making cheats actually really isn't that bad. I made a terrible python triggerbot for csgo in the under 100 lines thread, go have a read at how it works, it'll let you see how to use win32 in python and how to interact with processes and do very very basic memory manipulation. Wait what's that? I think I see an educational benefit.

 

P.S The codes absolutely godawful to read but it works.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

It is still cheating regardless by definition.  And, by doing such you are forcing a character out of the game.  That, in a sense, is interacting especially when it is a fully online game.  What you are trying to describe is that they aren't taking direct code from the game which is completely different from interacting with the game to cheat.  Interacting with the game to cheat would be spawn camping.

If you read my other post you would know that NO ONE IS TAKING CODE FROM THE GAME. Also interacting with someones internet != interacting with the game. It's still not cheating in this context as cheating is something very specific in this context.

[zberry7]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I sincerely hope you mean single player games....

No. Multiplayer games of course. It’s not a bad thing to make cheats for educational purposes. I did not sell them, or share them, or use them in public servers of course.

 

There are multiple types of “hackers”, Black, White and Grey. I would consider myself a Grey Hat. I’ve never done anything malicious. The people who make your antivirus wouldn’t be very good at their job if they didn’t know how to write a virus, now would they? 

 

Or when companies hire people to find vulnerabilities? If they weren’t good at finding exploits then they wouldn’t be effective either. 

 

The people who make your anti virus are hackers, who happen to use their skills to prevent attacks, and they are constantly reverse engineering malware. By this example, they should be sued.

 

”But they are using their skills for good!”

 

Then who creates the definition of what’s acceptable to reverse engineer under what circumstances? 

 

“The lawmakers!”

 

Yes. Those people who have no idea on the subject they are legislating. Let them take all of ours rights away! 

 

This is NOT a subject where government (including civil law) needs to be involved. When I used to play monopoly with my sister, and she cheated, the makers of the game didn’t sue her for copyright. (I cheated too sometimes)

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I only read what you quoted me with not your other posts, to be fair.  I was speaking from the OP about the source code where they said they would have had to of taken the code from that.  That's not exactly interacting with the game to cheat that's manipulating code to cheat.

It's also completely wrong about the situation.

[zberry7]

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I only read what you quoted me with not your other posts, to be fair.  I was speaking from the OP about the source code where they said they would have had to of taken the code from that.  That's not exactly interacting with the game to cheat that's manipulating code to cheat.  Also, cheating is cheating regardless of how you do it.  If the one who makes the rules declares it is cheating then it is.   It isn't up to you.

Source code and compiled code are completely different.

 

when you copyright a program (Which happens technically as soon as it’s written), the actual copyright is on the source code, not the compiled code. So interacting with compiled code has no bearing. This is why you send out source code samples when getting a registered copyright, not the compiled program.

 

edit: and trust me, the source code for non-open source games are well hidden away from hack writers. They don’t have access to it

 

The games terms of service cannot make cheating illegal, or allow the developers to sue uou. (If your country doesn’t have laws against it)

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Okay then if it is wrong then is wrong, but it is still cheating if they didn't infringe on the code then it isn't illegal.  The only way they'd have a case is if you broke the ToS or whatever agreement.

Nope it is far far more complicated than that.

 

Also there's no "code" in the traditional sense, it's literally binary numbers that are processed by the cpu as instructions for what to do and all we are doing is translating those into a slightly more readable form (a lot like translating binary to ascii so we can understand what it is) and reading what the program does. We abstract and automate, then it gets more complicated and it's not nearly as straightforward as I describe it but it's still just reading the machine code essentially.

[zberry7]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, I just realized I messed up there before you posted.  I originally read it as code then noticed the source after that out of my own stupidity.  I should really pay more attention before posting.  I can't even grammar today on another thread.  Then typed source code without letting my own brain remember what source code is.   If they used the copyrighted code or anything copyrighted then yes they have a case.  But, my problem with this is that a lot of devs claim infringement when there is no actual case. 

My apologies, this story has me frustrated and I’m going full keyboard warrior 

[jubjub]

3 minutes ago, zberry7 said:

Source code and compiled code are completely different.

 

when you copyright a program (Which happens technically as soon as it’s written), the actual copyright is on the source code, not the compiled code. So interacting with compiled code has no bearing. This is why you send out source code samples when getting a registered copyright, not the compiled program.

 

edit: and trust me, the source code for non-open source games are well hidden away from hack writers. They don’t have access to it

 

The games terms of service cannot make cheating illegal, or allow the developers to sue uou

Depends on law of where you live, type of compiling and if protection is involved. Most of the time the compiled binaries are protected. The difference is when we reverse engineer we load that binary as a process and it now becomes something dynamic, the law dictating how you load it is different in different places.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I know how programming works I'm just having a vague and bad grammar day.  See the above and the first part.  You really don't need to explain it to me

Reverse engineering != programming.

[jubjub]

3 minutes ago, zberry7 said:

My apologies, this story has me frustrated and I’m going full keyboard warrior 

It's a worth while cause to go full keyboard warrior over and it's one where keyboard warrioring is part of the solution.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I never said it did, but as a programmer, I know the difference between the two.  Read the vague and bad grammar part.  Reverse engineering is more about adding and/or changing features and really doesn't require knowledge of the source code.  I know how it is done.  If they simply added or change how it works then no they don't have a case.  However, if they took the source or whatever code that is copyrighted then the aimbot maker is at fault.   Especially in the sense that they used the copyright code in their aimbot.  However, if they simply reverse engineered it, in the traditional sense, then they don't have a case.

Nope you still don't understand reverse engineering. It's not about changing how it works at all, it's about understanding how it works. Then how the cheat works is a completely different discussion that gets more technical.

[zberry7]

6 minutes ago, jubjub said:

Depends on law of where you live, type of compiling and if protection is involved. Most of the time the compiled binaries are protected. The difference is when we reverse engineer we load that binary as a process and it now becomes something dynamic, the law dictating how you load it is different in different places.

Interesting, that makes sense though. But what if I obfuscate a binary, and distribute it with a program that deobfuscates at runtime?

 

My understanding of copyright laws, especially relating to software.

[jubjub]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Unless the dev or publisher has more money than you.  Then they win the case.

The law around it is really complicated, it's never straightforward and the act of reverse engineering can be illegal, then you have to prove they had that information by reverse engineering which will come down to the judge and then you have the aspect about selling it and then you have that they manipulated the process but then that involves a lot of case law which gets even more complicated because you have to bring a case to how the case law applies to this case and because of the nature of case law it means that the law gets interpreted more broadly and can "jump" to other situations. In the US I would just try settle out of court, in NZ or Aus I'd fight it, in the eu I'd just give up hope and in the UK I'd be very confused on how I lose but I'd almost expect to lose.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

The keyword is vague.  And, I wasn't talking simply about just this situation.  I meant the terminology.  Changing how it works, adding features to it, and more are all considered forms of reversing engineering.  It also doesn't require knowledge of the source code, but yes understanding how it works.  Reverse engineering is not simply knowing how it works.  

Yes trying to find out how it works is literally reverse engineering. Anything further comes under other terms. You may modify things in order to work out how they work but it's still just to find out how it works.

[jubjub]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Depends on where the case is, but let's say it is in the US.  A major corporation can easily bribe a judge into winning this case even if they don't have a case.  In the UK and other countries, it is probably different.  It also depends on if they are from different countries which makes it even more complicated for both parties.

Except that wouldn't happen, judges don't just get bribed.

It's not explicitly legal at all and can be argued that it is explicitly illegal. It's almost definitely a lost case in the us and most other countries but can change depending on the situation due to the long list of reasons I already gave.

[jubjub]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

In the most basic definition, but it isn't that simple in the sw world.  In the sw world, there's more to it.  Such as adding features to it without knowing the source code.  But, you could look it as them simply having the knowledge, and that knowledge enables them to add features to it.  Which in this sense is likely all that occurred.  They added a "feature".

That's not what reverse engineering is and that's not what happened here. They work out how the program works and they manipulate it. The second part is the cheat, the first part is the reverse engineering. Reverse engineering isn't adding or removing things from the program and most people never do that anyway. Let's take a non cheat example.

 

I want to crack a program. I first need to find how the program stops me from using it. After that I then remove the ability to do that. The first part is reverse engineering, the second part is cracking.

 

Another example. I want to change a config path in a program. I find where it uses the config path. Then I change it. The first part is reverse engineering, the second part is just modifying the software.

 

One more for fun. I want to make a mod for a game. I find how the game works, what data structures it uses, what functions it uses, how it uses them, how it essentially runs itself. I then need to make something using the information I gained to manipulate the game into doing what I want. The first part is reverse engineering, the second part is modding.

 

Cheating example (counts as one because cheating and modding are similar). I want to make a cheat for a game. I do the same sort of thing for a mod. I then find ways to use this information to my advantage, then I make something that manipulates the game to do what I want. The first part is reverse engineering, the second part is cheating.

[jubjub]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not always, but "if" the judge doesn't take a bribe then it is most likely this will get thrown out the window.

I don't think you understand how US law works.