Fortnite Publisher suing Aimbot Service claiming Copyright Infringement

[jubjub]

18 minutes ago, zberry7 said:

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.

Okay so this is complicated and changes greatly but here's a rundown.

If you can do everything else legally, as long you aren't the one breaking the obfuscation and the program does it then it's fine.

Some places you can break obfuscation legally too so that doesn't matter.

Other places it is illegal because there is an expectation of restriction and you are directly going against that. These countries support incompetent people.

 

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I know plenty of judges have taken bribes, but I also said if they broke no laws here then they don't have a case.  I also mentioned that a lot of big companies abusing copyright infringement claims.

I never said it happened here I brought up scenarios where they would be at fault and where they'd walk.  However, reverse engineering is different in different applications.  In the SW world reverse engineering code or sw has a broader definition than the traditional definition. But, if you want to keep it to the most basic definition then yes, you are correct which I said before.

Reverse engineering in sw is literally the same, we just have a few more terms. Anything further than understanding how it works is a completely separate thing from re.

 

Also judges don't just take bribes, it's an extremely rare thing. They also may have broken laws. We don't know if they have or not because they haven't gone to court yet, where it will be determined whether they have or have not, it's not black and white.

[jubjub]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

We can agree to disagree on terminology as there's not need to spam the thread further with it.

 

And, yes we don't know how they did it.  Hence why I was bringing up different scenarios of where they'd walk or be at fault.  However, we might as well leave it for the court to make a ruling on the matter.

Except we do know a subset of how they did it. The problem is we don't know what the law will rule it since that's how law works. We can also speculate on how it will be ruled (that's a large part of what lawyers do). You just don't understand how what they did it or reverse engineering works.

 

Also if you do some reverse engineering you'd understand how wrong your terminology is.

[Zodiark1593]

22 minutes ago, jubjub said:

Except we do know a subset of how they did it. The problem is we don't know what the law will rule it since that's how law works. We can also speculate on how it will be ruled (that's a large part of what lawyers do). You just don't understand how what they did it or reverse engineering works.

 

Also if you do some reverse engineering you'd understand how wrong your terminology is.

One question I had would be regarding the EULA itself (as they supersede copyright law and fair use regarding reverse engineering). Would the EULA hold up in court if there is no evidence that those reverse engineering the code had ever agreed to said EULA? Is simply downloading the software in question without execution or prompt from the EULA be enough to trigger said EULA?

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 The first report simply claims they reverse engineered and modified it.  That alone doesn't mean they did it that way.  It's simply a claim.  Anyways, bye.

 

Why would you have a discussion about something that wasn't claimed? If the only information we have is that they are making such an accusation, then that accusation or the likely outcome of that accusation is all you can discuss. 

 

5 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

One question I had would be regarding the EULA itself (as they supersede copyright law and fair use regarding reverse engineering). Would the EULA hold up in court if there is no evidence that those reverse engineering the code had ever agreed to said EULA? Is simply downloading the software in question without execution or prompt from the EULA be enough to trigger said EULA?

 

You can't download the game without checking the "I agree with the ToS" which includes all the relevant CR information.

[jubjub]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

One question I had would be regarding the EULA itself (as they supersede copyright law and fair use regarding reverse engineering). Would the EULA hold up in court if there is no evidence that those reverse engineering the code had ever agreed to said EULA? Is simply downloading the software in question without execution or prompt from the EULA be enough to trigger said EULA?

Ah yes. They would have to prove that they agreed to the EULA in some way that was legal and also broke it. However the other problem with any of this is that they have to prove damages, then you are given what the judge sees as fair compensation for the damages because this is a civil case.

 

Now to the triggering EULA part. If it can be proven that they had to use the game or do any actions that would trigger the EULA to reverse engineer the game in the way they did it there is a case for breaking the EULA. If the defendants can prove they were able to do it without triggering the EULA then that couldn't be held against them. The problem here is that you have to prove you not only could do it without triggering the EULA but also without breaking other laws, which could be very difficult.

[jubjub]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Why would you have a discussion about something that wasn't claimed? If the only information we have is that they are making such an accusation, then that accusation or the likely outcome of that accusation is all you can discuss. 

 

 

You can't download the game without checking the "I agree with the ToS" which includes all the relevant CR information.

You can obtain the game without downloading it from the website and there are also limitations as to what is and isn't valid in a ToS or EULA. You also then need to prove damages for breaking the EULA which is difficult in certain situations. You also would need to prove how you didn't break the ToS in one way that would probably break it in another way, but that could come with reduced damages.

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, jubjub said:

What is wrong with making cheats for games? Selling them or using them I get, that's bad. But why is the act of making them bad? They're fun to make and let you learn a lot of cool things + you get a cool way to show what you can do.

1 hour ago, jubjub said:

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.

Sounds like someone got triggered by my post.  As for your questions, there's nothing wrong with making them.  Using or distributing them however, that's just wrong.  The poster I replied to never made that distinction, and given that I wouldn't expect someone to make these cheats and never actually use them, I made a natural (albeit apparently mistaken) assumption that they were made to be used.

3 hours ago, jubjub said:

But at the end of the day, please please don't start calling for outlawing of any of this because you keep losing games to cheaters. There's a lot more at stake than a few people getting unfair advantages in games.

How did your post go from a response to me (which had nothing to do with the law or any legality of cheats) to a plea not to outlaw cheats?

1 hour ago, zberry7 said:

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.

Since you didn't make any distinction, it sounded like you were saying you wrote cheats to be used, not just for educational purposes.  Perhaps I simply assumed incorrectly without cause.  Then again, perhaps it might be worth explaining that point in the future, so as to avoid such confusion next time.

[Zodiark1593]

8 minutes ago, jubjub said:

Ah yes. They would have to prove that they agreed to the EULA in some way that was legal and also broke it. However the other problem with any of this is that they have to prove damages, then you are given what the judge sees as fair compensation for the damages because this is a civil case.

 

Now to the triggering EULA part. If it can be proven that they had to use the game or do any actions that would trigger the EULA to reverse engineer the game in the way they did it there is a case for breaking the EULA. If the defendants can prove they were able to do it without triggering the EULA then that couldn't be held against them. The problem here is that you have to prove you not only could do it without triggering the EULA but also without breaking other laws, which could be very difficult.

Fair Use can be a valid defence in lieu of agreement to the EULA in that the defence reverse engineered the code to obtain interoperability with another software. In this case, interoperability with cheating software.

 

Without bringing up the EULA in some way and proving the defendant had agreed to and breached the EULA, I don't think Epic Games will have a case.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

You can obtain the game without downloading it from the website and there are also limitations as to what is and isn't valid in a ToS or EULA. You also then need to prove damages for breaking the EULA which is difficult in certain situations. You also would need to prove how you didn't break the ToS in one way that would probably break it in another way, but that could come with reduced damages.

Where can you get the game from that doesn't require you to sign up for their account or agree to their terms?  Also while there are somethings that can't be in ToS or EULA's (which don't really mean anything in some countries),  copyright law and DMCA with regard to reverse engineering are permitted.  They really only have to show the mod in question could not have been written without knowing the source code, this is enough proof.

 

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Fair Use can be a valid defence in lieu of agreement to the EULA in that the defence reverse engineered the code to obtain interoperability with another software. In this case, interoperability with cheating software.

 

But said interoperability with cheating software devalues the game, ergo fair use does not apply. 

[jubjub]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Sounds like someone got triggered by my post.  As for your questions, there's nothing wrong with making them.  Using or distributing them however, that's just wrong.  The poster I replied to never made that distinction, and given that I wouldn't expect someone to make these cheats and never actually use them, I made a natural (albeit apparently mistaken) assumption that they were made to be used.

How did your post go from a response to me (which had nothing to do with the law or any legality of cheats) to a plea not to outlaw cheats?

Since you didn't make any distinction, it sounded like you were saying you wrote cheats to be used, not just for educational purposes.  Perhaps I simply assumed incorrectly without cause.  Then again, perhaps it might be worth explaining that point in the future, so as to avoid such confusion next time.

Because I was replying to you and the post in one to avoid spam. Sorry if I tricked you into reading my post, wasn't the intention (I don't regret it tho :P).

 

It's also not his fault that you instantly assumed someone who makes cheats is doing it for bad intentions. That's a lack of understanding from your end not something we should fix.

[Zodiark1593]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

. 

 

 

You can't download the game without checking the "I agree with the ToS" which includes all the relevant CR information.

In the event I give you a flash drive containing the software (assuming the ToS was present before the original download occurred), and had you reverse engineer it, I would be the one in breach as you wouldn't have had the opportunity to view and agree to the ToS.

 

Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove it was me that provided the copy. In the case of a business, if an individual from the outside had provided the software to a company for reverse engineering, precedents would have to be set.

[jubjub]

Just now, mr moose said:

But said interoperability with cheating software devalues the game, ergo fair use does not apply. 

That's subjective however and would have to be proven. 

 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Where can you get the game from that doesn't require you to sign up for their account or agree to their terms?  Also while there are somethings that can't be in ToS or EULA's (which don't really mean anything in some countries),  copyright law and DMCA with regard to reverse engineering are permitted.  They really only have to show the mod in question could not have been written without knowing the source code, this is enough proof.

 

 

Again, you should read my post on the first page. You have a lack of understanding for how reverse engineering and cheats work. There's no "source code" at all or "code" in a traditional sense that is used.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, jubjub said:

It's also not his fault that you instantly assumed someone who makes cheats is doing it for bad intentions. That's a lack of understanding from your end not something we should fix.

Perhaps not, but I would argue that many people wouldn't naturally assume that one would write cheats and never use them.  Ergo, it would be in his best interests to clarify that in the future.

 

I could also say the same of you, that you assumed I was opposed to writing cheats for a learning experience, when I was simply concerned they were being used for an unfair advantage in multi-player.  The assumption game goes both ways, my friend.  

[MadSprite]

So to clarify:

Epic Games was able to find two associates of a paid subscription service that profited off of unfair play on Fortnite.

Taking civil action (guilty unless proven innocent), they will charge the associates to recoup costs and demoralize the Addicted Cheats service (which is under DMCA takedown by Epic).

Quote

The two defendants apparently used this service

This is proof that they did indeed accept the Eula and are now facing legal action for breaking it, there are no other defendant charged who did not play or created the aimbot program.

Since they are identifiable persons of the operating group, Addicted Cheats, responsibility would rest on them that they indeed reverse engineer Fornite unless they can prove that they did not by identifying the actual programmer, another associate (not yet identified) as part of Addicted Cheats. 

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

In the event I give you a flash drive containing the software (assuming the ToS was present before the original download occurred), and had you reverse engineer it, I would be the one in breach as you wouldn't have had the opportunity to view and agree to the ToS.

 

Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove it was me that provided the copy. In the case of a business, if an individual from the outside had provided the software to a company for reverse engineering, precedents would have to be set.

In which case, you would be in breach of the ToS/EULA by providing the software illegally.

[jubjub]

Just now, Jito463 said:

I could also say the same of you, that you assumed I was opposed to writing cheats for a learning experience, when I was simply concerned they were being used for an unfair advantage in multi-player.  The assumption game goes both ways, my friend.  

I didn't assume anything of you, I acted based on what you said about him which isn't an assumption, it's going off what you said.

[jubjub]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

In which case, you would be in breach of the ToS/EULA by providing the software illegally.

But that would have different damages.

[mr moose]

Just now, jubjub said:

That's subjective however and would have to be proven. 

 

Again, you should read my post on the first page. You have a lack of understanding for how reverse engineering and cheats work. There's no "source code" at all or "code" in a traditional sense that is used.

In a court the judge only has to be satisfied as to what is the likely cause based on professional testimonials, they do not need absolute proof. You can accuse people of not understanding how cheats work until the cows come home, however that does not change how the law works. 

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, jubjub said:

I didn't assume anything of you, I acted based on what you said about him which isn't an assumption, it's going off what you said.

*sigh*

Given that my statement consisted of one line - stating that I'd hope they were for single-player games - I'd say the rather long diatribes that both you and zberry7 went into over it was well beyond a simple reaction to my post.  

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

In the event I give you a flash drive containing the software (assuming the ToS was present before the original download occurred), and had you reverse engineer it, I would be the one in breach as you wouldn't have had the opportunity to view and agree to the ToS.

 

Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove it was me that provided the copy. In the case of a business, if an individual from the outside had provided the software to a company for reverse engineering, precedents would have to be set.

except the defendants had game accounts, thus they had to agree to the ToS,  regardless where they  get the game from.

[jubjub]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

In a court the judge only has to be satisfied as to what is the likely cause based on professional testimonials, they do not need absolute proof. You can accuse people of not understanding how cheats work until the cows come home, however that does not change how the law works. 

Except it is easily disproven that they used source code to create the cheat and any professional who said otherwise would ruin their reputation and potentially career.

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, Jito463 said:

In which case, you would be in breach of the ToS/EULA by providing the software illegally.

Yes, mentioned that would be the case. The point of debate is whether or not said company would be in the wrong for taking the software for reverse engineering. While I copied the software illegally myself, I did not directly do the damage.

 

Had I merely passed along the software and the company developed the cheating programs on their own accord, it would be difficult to prove I had a hand beyond the single count of infringement. (Evidence may be email instructions, or witnesses to conversations, etc).

 

The precedent I would refer to would be whether the company performing reverse engineering has a duty to ensure no EULA or ToS (that would waive fair use rights) exists and that the software was obtained in a legal fashion.

 

 

[mr moose]

Just now, jubjub said:

Except it is easily disproven that they used source code to create the cheat and any professional who said otherwise would ruin their reputation and potentially career.

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.

 

4 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

 exists and that the software was obtained in a legal fashion.

 

It is kind of outside the actual case, however if we entertain the idea that it mattered how they got the game and that they didn't have an EULA or ToS to read, it would be up to the courts to decide if receiving game code that was illegally re-distributed* counts for copyright infringement. 

 

*because the ToS says you can't transmit, sell, copy etc etc any of the material or content contained in the game download.