Fortnite Publisher suing Aimbot Service claiming Copyright Infringement

[jubjub]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

your opinion doesn't equal fact.  

 

What do you think is "easily disproven" here?  you are essentially arguing that they can disprove they reverse engineered the game, how do you show a judge that there is an alternative when the claim (accompanied by the game engineers) is that the to make the cheat you have to know the code?

 

Until you know for sure that there accusation is false (and I suggest you don't know that), then you can't claim anything is easily disproven.   They only need to show how essential one line of code is to the cheat working and how you couldn't know that code without reverse engineering and it's game over.

You're misunderstanding here what reverse engineering is and how the cheats work. They couldn't even get the code if they wanted unless they broke into the game studios servers or work there or have magical super powers.

 

It's easier to prove there was no source code involved than that they are a unicorn with magical powers and eyes that turn people to stone when they look into them.

[mr moose]

Just now, jubjub said:

You're misunderstanding here what reverse engineering is and how the cheats work. They couldn't even get the code if they wanted unless they broke into the game studios servers or work their or have magical super powers.

 

It's easier to prove there was no source code involved than that they are a unicorn with magical powers and eyes that turn people to stone when they look into them.

That's still just your opinion.

 

[jubjub]

Just now, mr moose said:

That's still just your opinion.

 

It's not my opinion that they don't ship source code and that there is no way to get the source code from the compiled binaries. That's definitely facts, even trying to say otherwise is equivalent to saying mathematically 1 + 1 = 3.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, jubjub said:

It's not my opinion that they don't ship source code and that there is no way to get the source code from the compiled binaries. That's definitely facts, even trying to say otherwise is equivalent to saying mathematically 1 + 1 = 3.

The publisher claims they did, you can claim they didn't.  Given this sort of thing has gone through the courts before and the publisher has won on exactly the same claim, I know which side I'd be betting on for slightly more accurate information.

 

https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/4/15177818/overwatch-cheat-maker-sued-loses-judgment

[MadSprite]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

It's not my opinion that they don't ship source code and that there is no way to get the source code from the compiled binaries. That's definitely facts, even trying to say otherwise is equivalent to saying mathematically 1 + 1 = 3.

Reverse engineering does not mean looking at source code or decompiling programs solely, it includes observing behaviours of the program while its running. 

Which is how most hooking cheat engines work. 

[jubjub]

5 minutes ago, MadSprite said:

Reverse engineering does not mean looking at source code or decompiling programs solely, it includes observing behaviours of the program while its running. 

Which is how most hooking cheat engines work. 

Yes I've literally been saying this. It would be pretty much impossible to use the source code that you don't have. I've already written paragraphs of how we reverse engineer games to manipulate them

 

 Also decompiling does use reverse engineering but it also isn't reverse engineering, it just uses it. Decompiling just looks at how something works and tries to guess what the compiler was processing to produce that result.

[jubjub]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The publisher claims they did, you can claim they didn't.  Given this sort of thing has gone through the courts before and the publisher has won on exactly the same claim, I know which side I'd be betting on for slightly more accurate information.

 

https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/4/15177818/overwatch-cheat-maker-sued-loses-judgment

They don't claim they use source code, at all. You completely misunderstand my point and how this works and you're going off of incorrect information. I'm not saying they'll win, they'll definitely lose. BUT THEY DO NOT USE ANY SOURCE CODE BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO SO ANYWAY AND THAT'S NOT HOW REVERSE ENGINEERING WORKS AT ALL.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, jubjub said:

They don't claim they use source code, at all. You completely misunderstand my point and how this works and you're going off of incorrect information. I'm not saying they'll win, they'll definitely lose. BUT THEY DO NOT USE ANY SOURCE CODE BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO SO ANYWAY AND THAT'S NOT HOW REVERSE ENGINEERING WORKS AT ALL.

Stop yelling.

 

The article claims that:

 

Quote

Epic Games claims they had to reverse-engineer and modify Fortnite's source code to do this,

 

I'm sorry you feel superior, but I am only going to address the information in the article and not make up any other reasoning.

[jubjub]

Just now, mr moose said:

Stop yelling.

 

The article claims that:

 

I'm sorry you feel superior, but I am only going to address the information in the article and not make up any other reasoning.

The article is completely wrong and some uninformed person wrote it. I'm trying to correct you but you want to believe some idiotic statement made by a journalist who obviously doesn't understand the area.

[zberry7]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's still just your opinion.

 

Not an opinion. You can’t “magically” convert machine code back to source code. It’s a one way street.

 

all you can do is try and make the machine code more readable.

[jubjub]

Just now, zberry7 said:

Not an opinion. You can’t “magically” convert machine code back to source code. It’s a one way street.

 

all you can do is try and make the machine code more readable.

I swear people will think we know each other lol

Also THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

 

But you can try guess what the compiler was processing to produce the machine code. That's decompiling and completely irrelevant here and would not help at all in making a cheat (it also doesn't work well at all).

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

The article is completely wrong and some uninformed person wrote it. I'm trying to correct you but you want to believe some idiotic statement made by a journalist who obviously doesn't understand the area.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but If the publishers makes that claim and wins in court (as has happened before) then your understanding of the legal ramifications of all this are wrong.  Simply being unhappy with the terms someone uses doesn't make you right,  and it certainly doesn't make anything I have said wrong.

Just now, zberry7 said:

Not an opinion. You can’t “magically” convert machine code back to source code. It’s a one way street.

 

all you can do is try and make the machine code more readable.

Be that as it may, the article clearly states that as the accusation and that is what will go through the courts.   Discussing the intricacies of other peoples definitions of what constitutes reverse engineering and accessing/modifying source code will not change the reality of the court proceedings.

[jubjub]

Just now, mr moose said:

You are welcome to believe what you want, but If the publishers makes that claim and wins in court (as has happened before) then your understanding of the legal ramifications of all this are wrong.  Simply being unhappy with the terms someone uses doesn't make you right,  and it certainly doesn't make anything I have said wrong.

Be that as it may, the article clearly states that as the accusation and that is what will go through the courts.   Discussing the intricacies of other peoples definitions of what constitutes reverse engineering and accessing/modifying source code will not change the reality of the court proceedings.

You actually have no understanding. You also have no proof that people have made this claim and won before (they have made claims that are true unlike this one), because they haven't.

[MadSprite]

12 minutes ago, jubjub said:

You actually have no understanding. You also have no proof that people have made this claim and won before (they have made claims that are true unlike this one), because they haven't.

To be honest, most likely they did reverse engineer the code to modify one of the binaries that allows their cheats to run because fortnite is mostly encrypted or obscured in a way to prevent memory hooking. So they did have to modify their decompiled source or something similar to recompile it with the built in hook to run with the cheat program. 

So for Epic Games their claim would be true regardless. Even memory hooking would legally be considered modifying source as that's not what the intended program was to run from the developer. 

[jubjub]

17 minutes ago, MadSprite said:

To be honest, most likely they did reverse engineer the code to modify one of the binaries that allows their cheats to run because fortnite is mostly encrypted or obscured in a way to prevent memory hooking. So they did have to modify their decompiled source or something similar to recompile it with the built in hook to run with the cheat program. 

So for Epic Games their claim would be true regardless. Even memory hooking would legally be considered modifying source as that's not what the intended program was to run from the developer. 

They definitely reverse engineered the program, but they wouldn't have modified the binary because that's actually stupid and so easily detectable so fortnite would just ban everyone and not waste money taking legal action. They also don't decompile anything as decompiling actually works terribly and will barely help you anyway.

 

There are a few ways they would do it after they gain an understanding of how the game works.

1. Using their knowledge of how the game works they could inject their compiled code into the process and find the memory addresses of variables and functions then use those and also modifying memory to perform their cheats functions.
2. Load an external process and manipulate the memory of the games process reading and writing to it to find certain values or write certain values to change the gameplay.
3. Start a process and then load the game inside the process you started. This way you can do the same as in 1 but you have a bit more control to do a few things.
4. Create a ring0 driver to catch certain calls by the game and perform actions in a similar way to 2 but instead allowing you to mess with a lot more.

They most likely did 1 or 2 as 4 is very rare and mostly used when you don't want to be detected (overwatch or esea for example) and 3 is used more in certain types of modding than cheating because it can be detected rather easily. In all of these they don't decompile anything and they don't modify any source.

 

Also about the last part with hooking, that's not modifying source that's modifying machine code of the process (not binary) which is completely different and could be considered illegal but it is used in so many things and it would make a lot of programs illegal like overlays, anti virus and anti cheats or even windows itself.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, jubjub said:

You actually have no understanding. You also have no proof that people have made this claim and won before (they have made claims that are true unlike this one), because they haven't.

 

You keep telling me I have no understanding yet you are on a tangent and not even reading my posts or links.  I linked you to an article explaining blizzards win.

 

Quote

Blizzard argued that Bossland, in creating bots called "Honorbuddy," "Watchover Tyrant," "Hearthbuddy" and others, had bypassed Blizzard anti-cheat protection, altered its games without permission, and effectively resold its code.

 

It's the same argument, if you aren't willing to accept the basic premise and facts of the case then what is your issue?  Are you just mad because they are using the terms "reverse engineer" and "source code" incorrectly to your absolute understanding of said definitions? or perhaps you just don't like such cases and are letting ideals cloud your reasoning?

[jubjub]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You keep telling me I have no understanding yet you are on a tangent and not even reading my posts or links.  I linked you to an article explaining blizzards win.

 

 

It's the same argument, if you aren't willing to accept the basic premise and facts of the case then what is your issue?  Are you just mad because they are using the terms "reverse engineer" and "source code" incorrectly to your absolute understanding of said definitions? or perhaps you just don't like such cases and are letting ideals cloud your reasoning?

The cases aren't the same at all? They're 2 completely different claims.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

The cases aren't the same at all? They're 2 completely different claims.

 

???

 

[jubjub]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

???

 

The fact that you don't see it shows my point.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, jubjub said:

The fact that you don't see it shows my point.

see what?  they use the same legal argument and rely on the same legal evidence.  

 

your just saying they're not, which isn't the same as there being a difference.

 

[jubjub]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

see what?  they use the same legal argument and rely on the same legal evidence.  

 

your just saying they're not, which isn't the same as there being a difference.

 

They don't use source code and reverse engineer incorrectly in the blizzard case?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

They don't use source code and reverse engineer incorrectly in the blizzard case?

I have been refraining as best I can from making judgments, but it really appears you have no idea what you are arguing here.  This is not about what you consider source code to be or what you consider reverse engineering to be, this is about the legal definition of modifying game code and selling it on.  Blizzard used copyright law (42 thousand violations) and argued that Bossland modified code (illegal modification of IP) and resold it.  Fortnite are also claiming the same thing only they used the term reverse engineer to describe the method and source code rather than just code.  They also both claim the game (their IP) is damaged by this copyright infringement.    The cases are the same and you are being argumentative now for the sake of it. 

 

 

[michaelocarroll007]

On 10/13/2017 at 8:11 AM, HarryNyquist said:

In other news, water is wet, the sun is bright, and the moon is not made of cheese.

 

I'm not sure why they think legal action will stop people from making aimbots. So they go down, there's a ton still out there I'm sure.

It will help reduce the Large %. But honestly with free accounts its hard to fight cause banning doesnt matter. 

[Dissitesuxba11s]

First and for most, if you are an avid Imgurian you may have already seen this on Imgur Front Page so I have to give credit where credit is due.

I found this originally on Imgur and it was posted by ItsMrDrTeeBoneToYou: https://imgur.com/gallery/HJf1X

Original Source: https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/12/16464750/epic-games-fortnite-cheater-lawsuit

Another: http://www.pcgamer.com/epic-sues-two-fortnite-cheaters/

Suit: Epic Games, Inc. v Brandon Broom

Suit: Epic Games, Inc. v Charles Vraspir

 

Another game studio is now in the news, this time it is the studio who is against the gamers. Two gamers, Brandon Broom and Charles Vraspir, are being sued by Epic Games for using modified software from the subscription based cheating service, AddictedCheats.net.

 

Quote

These lawsuits are unique because the cheating service itself isn’t the subject of the civil litigation. Instead, Broom and Vraspir are being sued personally. Each instance of copyright infringement carries a penalty of up to $150,000.

 

Companies like Blizzard Entertainment have been successful in the past using copyright infringement as the basis of suits against cheating services. One recent case against Bossland GmbH, the German creator of bots known as “Honorbuddy,” “Hearthbuddy” and others, resulted in 42,818 instances of copyright infringement, which totaled $8.6 million in damages.

 

Quote

Epic’s lawsuit says that Vraspir is himself a cheater, and through building the software sold through AddictedCheats.net, enabled others to cheat as well. He has been banned from playing Fortnite at least nine times, according to court documents.

 

Court documents specifically call out Broom for modifying AddictedCheats.net software “so that it is specifically designed to circumvent Epic’s technological measures and instructed subscribers to the cheat provider website to do the same.”

 

Quote

In a statement provided to Polygon, Epic Games reiterated that it will vigorously defend its games from cheaters.

 

“When cheaters use aimbots or other cheat technologies to gain an unfair advantage, they ruin games for people who are playing fairly,” Epic said. “We take cheating seriously, and we’ll pursue all available options to make sure our games are fun, fair, and competitive for players."

 

If you need cheats to play a game, at least do not publicly broadcast it to everyone. These individuals have been told numerous times to cease these actions and they have not complied. I believe this would set a good example to cheaters to show them that they cannot getaway with these actions.

 

We play games to have fun. When only one player is having fun, and regular players do not even have the chance to fight back no matter how skillful they are, it is just completely wrong. I am not sure if this will go to court or if the judge will throw it out. We'll just have to wait and see where this goes.

 

A little snip-it from the suit found by Imgur user Oruls:

 

So, who's side are you on?

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

Howwww whaaat?

 

How is this copyright infringement?