Epic Sues 14 year old for cheating in Fortnite

[hums005]

11 minutes ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Didn't something similar to this happen a few years ago too?

There was a lawsuit over a PlayStation “game enhancer” — a console hardware hack — as early as 1999. In 2008, Blizzard sued over World of Warcraft bots. There have been lawsuits over cheating in RuneScape, MapleStory, and most recently, Overwatch. For its part, Epic Games — the maker of popular video game Fortnite — launched a slew of lawsuits in October against cheat makers and hosts of forums and channels where cheats are distributed.

Epic Games v. Rogers is a little different from the rest of the cases that were filed alongside it. In fact, it’s different from every other video game cheating lawsuit before it, partly because it dives into a legal gray area that usually passes as normal, allowable conduct (when you’re not being a flagrant jerk about it, anyway).

[hums005]

12 minutes ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Didn't something similar to this happen a few years ago too?

This is last years issue. They haven't been able to come to a compromise yet. My guess, the parents would have asked some outrageous amount for their troubles. and Even if EPIC wanted to let the case drop as the kid was a minor, that would make it a problem and neither party want to back off now and the case is just going on and on.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, hums005 said:

atleast till he is 18 and can be held accountable for his actions on and offline, he is protected by the law and preconception that kids and teenagers are idiots and dont have the sufficient thinking ability to choose right and wrong. Which is absolute nonsense ofcourse.

The law typically protects children from legal accountability based on the very real situation where they simply do not have enough life experience/lnowledge to be able to differentiate situations and make intentional decisions knowing the outcomes or laws surrounding them.  As far as I know no legal document or discussion has ever centered around kids lacking thinking skills or or having a low IQ as reasoning for this.

[Blebekblebek]

I've watch too many judge judy with child being a perpetrator.

While the kids are not going to be held responsible then it's the guardians responsibility to bear it.

If your argument just because they were kids so they are free from consequences then you are wrong.

 

Also the other argument their parent doesn't consent, is just an excuse

 

There are kids who accidentally kill someone because they are driving their parents car (or even their own car) without parents consent. does it make their parent not responsible for it? heck no.

 

This is why west society is so mess up in parenting, they really don't understand responsibility.

 

I'm not saying the lawsuit is justified, but the excuse....

[hums005]

Just now, mr moose said:

The law typically protects children from legal accountability based on the very real situation where they simply do not have enough life experience/lnowledge to be able to differentiate situations and make intentional decisions knowing the outcomes or laws surrounding them.  As far as I know no legal document or discussion has ever centered around kids lacking thinking skills or or having a low IQ as reasoning for this.

But I bet they were thinking it 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Hell, I think EA's EULA for Battlefield 3 had a clause about the "purchaser" not "owning the software" and that EA could "terminate the agreement at their discretion".

That's fairly standard stuff.  You should read the EULA for every game or piece of software you "own", most of them will say that you don't actually own it, that you merely have the right to use it until they withdraw that right. 

[ARikozuM]

14 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

That's fairly standard stuff.  You should read the EULA for every game or piece of software you "own", most of them will say that you don't actually own it, that you merely have the right to use it until they withdraw that right. 

Which is shit. Software should be owned, not distributed or shared by said owner, but it should be owned by the purchaser.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Software should be owned

 

You mean "Software should be free", right? 

 

 

[hums005]

Just now, Captain Chaos said:

 

You mean "Software should be free", right? 

 

 

Thats a whole another argument and Some people just cant handle ads. He is referring to the EULA of Battlefield or something reffering to the purchased product as owned by the creator and not the Buyer. 

[Ryujin2003]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Just because you know he plays the game, doesn't mean you know he's cheating in it. Those are two different things.

Oh I understand that, and that wasn't my argument.

 

Quote

She had never authorized him to play Fortnite, which meant that the EULA was not binding on her son.

 

My argument is her child had access to an electronic device. Doesn't matter if its a game, porn, or a Dr Seuss book, the parent is responsible to restrict access to the child. This child is above the age of 13, which is the online age of consent unfortunately. Doesn't matter if she gave him explicit permission or not, he had access to it. If she didn't want him to she should've restricted his access. Simply not knowing isn't a valid argument... And my parental suspicion is that she is only trying to protect her child (don't blame her); however, if she didn't give him permission, she should've been supervising more. He's responsible for his electronic interactions at the age of 13+ in the US.

[Phentos]

4 minutes ago, hums005 said:

Thats a whole another argument and Some people just cant handle ads. He is referring to the EULA of Battlefield or something reffering to the purchased product as owned by the creator and not the Buyer. 

That's typically interpreted as the company who controls the software's IPs and rights "owns" the software, such as the source code and the software's assets, while the end user "owns" a limited use license for it.

 

Though this limited use license can technically be revoked at any time, almost on a whim, this rarely happens without advance notice and probably some form of compensation. A unilateral revocation of a user's license if they have been completely compliant with the EULA's terms would be a PR nightmare of epic proportions for the company in question.

[hums005]

Just now, Phentos said:

That's typically interpreted as the company who controls the software's IPs and rights "owns" the software, such as the source code and the software's assets, while the end user "owns" a limited use license for it.

 

Though this limited use license can technically be revoked at any time, almost on a whim, this rarely happens without advanced notice and possibly some form of compensation. A unilateral revocation of a user's license if they have been completely compliant with the EULA's terms would be a PR nightmare of epic proportions for the company in question.

Making the even offline version(single player) unplayable, that was unheard of at the time and started the controversy. Lawyers will find a way to make even playing a fully licensed single user purchased game illegal as per their EULA if it came to that for winning their case.

[Phentos]

3 minutes ago, hums005 said:

Making the even offline version(single player) unplayable, that was unheard of at the time and started the controversy. Lawyers will find a way to make even playing a fully licensed single user purchased game illegal as per their EULA if it came to that for winning their case.

And that is usually within their power. Even more so if the EULA contains a clause wherein the end user waives right to arbitration if they consent to the EULA's terms. And most of them do have that clause. 

[Rune]

Good. Make them learn early to not be dipshits and maybe the world will be a better place.

[NMS]

6 minutes ago, Rune said:

Good. Make them learn early to not be dipshits and maybe the world will be a better place.

Crime is a crime. Cyber one or not. And age should NOT be an issue.

[Master Disaster]

This story is 6 months old....

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

1 hour ago, TheSLSAMG said:

Epic Games wants to have a shit-show it seems.

 

I'm fine with discouraging people from cheating but an IP and HWID ban would probably be enough, even if he was promoting a hack tool.

totally agree with this,  not sure how deep it is , but if he did it for some sort reward of selling it for cash and such , then it would've made sense.

[Kamjam21xx]

Thats shitty....

That kid probably is or is going to be so scared, and not understand whats going on... wtf is wrong with people. You dont go after children like this.

 

I was thinking of getting that game, not anymore though.

[NMS]

5 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Thats shitty....

That kid probably is or is going to be so scared, and not understand whats going on... wtf is wrong with people. You dont go after children like this.

 

I was thinking of getting that game, not anymore though.

So because he is a kid he can get away with a cyber-crime?

That's not how the world works.

 

And if you're going to put a blame on someone, put it on the parents for failing to raise the child properly.

[Kamjam21xx]

3 minutes ago, NMS said:

So because he is a kid he can get away with a cyber-crime?

That's not how the world works.

 

And if you're going to put a blame on someone, put it on the parents for failing to raise the child properly.

Yeah, if anything fine his parents. They can choose not too, which any normal person should do.

 

Its immoral. 

[NMS]

4 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Yeah, if anything fine his parents. They can choose not too, which any normal person should do.

 

Its immoral. 

Any normal person should be raising their child properly IN THE FIRST PLACE so something like this does not happen.

[Kamjam21xx]

5 minutes ago, NMS said:

Any normal person should be raising their child properly IN THE FIRST PLACE so something like this does not happen.

Which doesnt negate that the that he is a 14 year old who commited a joke of a crime, that shouldnt be prosecuted in court like this. Thats stupid.

 

Your standards of parenting are irrelivant. Hes a kid. If that someone was 18... then sure by all means. You dont sick company lawyers on children having fun playing video games. 

 

Youre a bastard.

[Princess Luna]

This is a repost, this story is from last year, I remember watching a Pretty Good Gaming video about it, on further looking someone even already liked the original thread up there so...

[Tcrumpen]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I just realized that this sounds like a case from a few months ago? 

 

Unless I'm clairvoyant... Nope, still can't figure what women want.

Women can't figure out what women want so don't fret there

[NMS]

13 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Which doesnt negate that the that he is a 14 year old who commited a joke of a crime, that shouldnt be prosecuted in court like this. Thats stupid.

 

Your standards of parenting are irrelivant. Hes a kid. If that someone was 18... then sure by all means. You dont sick company lawyers on children having fun playing video games. 

 

Youre a bastard.

My advice to you is to not have kids if you'll raise them as criminals.