http://www.gamespot.com/articles/blizzard-sues-overwatch-cheat-maker-claims-million/1100-6441493/
Here's a question:
Do you think being a cheater should make you legally liable?
It's not a question of should it be illegal, it is. Every piece of software every released that isn't open source explicitly states in the terms of use that you agree not to circumvent or modify the games code. It's actually kinda nice to see a company actually enforce it for once. Although not a chance in hell they'll get seven figures out of it.
>>343977052
Probly something in bnet tos that says so, so not really a surprise.
>>343977052
Being a cheater?
Not liable to be sued. To be banned, yes, but not sued, as that breaks ToS.
Making the cheats?
Now you're the one altering the software, which does make you liable. Downloading just applies changes others have made, whereas making those changes is what's illegal.
Legally define "cheating".
>>343977052
Glad to see:
1. Blizzard is finally admitting that hackers exist
2. Not waiting multiple seasons before doing something about it
>>343977860
It's actually been defined already in this thread.
>>343977907
So why are people getting banned for exploits present in the game without modification?
>>343977984
I'm not holding your hand through the whole thread, if you actually wanted an answer and not a reason to argue on the internet then you would have taken your question to Google, as this kind of thing has been happening for a very long time.
>"Defendants' sale and distribution of the Bossland Hacks in the United States has caused Blizzard to lose millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue, and to suffer irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation"
I hope a judge throws the book at the hacker, then throws the book at Blizzard for filing a SOPA level bullshit claim.
Tens of millions of dollars lost? The game is the reason people are leaving. Fix that shit.
>>343977804
Sounds reasonable to me.
>>343978132
>this kind of thing has been happening for a very long time.
Great explanation, I can see law school paid off for you.
>>343977052
>Do you think being a cheater should make you legally liable?
Good luck on suing those hundreds of thousands of dirt poor kids who live in favelas and chinese gold farms. You'll spend ten times as much resources finding them, then you will ever get from them.
>>343978304
Great literacy, I can see elementary school paid off for you.
>>343977416
>terms of service
LMAO
>>343978386
>I won't bother to explain my stance
>Wow how did you not understand my stance?
>>343977860
Legally speaking 'Cheating' isn't really a federal offense, it's a matter to be dealt with by the game's company. It more or less is the implementation of altered software to give you an advantage over the opposing team, often in magnitudes that make the chances of the other team winning astronomical.
'Legally' nothing much can be done about it, from the standpoint of lawsuits and such, but it does break Blizz ToS, and as such is ban-worthy.
The big issue is when they find the someone who made the implemented changes in the first place. Just downloading it only breaks ToS, but when you alter the software yourself you're effectively taking Blizzards game and attempting to (Sort of) make it your own, opening the way for Copyright issues and Civil Cases, which can cost atrocious amounts of money just getting to when you're up against someone like Blizz, who can practically shit out a good lawyer to take the case.
>>343978167
That's very true.
But remember that lawyers have to bring an argument to the table and on a legal prosecution like that, a judge is less likely to be moved by a butthurt fanbase than by a loss number pulled out from their ass.
Not saying it's right, just saying it's "normal" or "understandable" that they use such bullshit arguments, because the true one is even less receivable.
>>343977416
TOS isn't legally binding.
>>343978491
I did explain my stance, but you're not able to read.
>>343977052
Yes, but I really don't like all these hacking cases going down under copyright lawsuits.
Laws are based on precedent and tend to be vague, the last thing anyone should want is constant wave of precedent that says
"User modified software for their own gain, this is a copyright violation"
That is going to destroy a lot of shit. I don't feel like getting sued when I modify a non-multiplayer game or software slightly to make it better
>>343978318
Exactly the same as pirating. You don't need to sue every single pirate, you just need to sue enough to give them the rest cold feet and a clenched anus. The possibility of consequences is the next best thing to consequences.
Blizzard is just going all out with over meme. Marketing, deleting porn, now this.
>>343977052
Yes. We should also require online gamers to contribute their social security numbers or be banned from online interactions forever.
Now we don't have to worry about hackers, so therefore we spend less on bandwidth for MMOs because we have to encrypt every single packet sent between the server and its users.
So we'll have danker games.
>>343978514
My point is that it's possible to cheat without altering the software.
> it does break Blizz ToS, and as such is ban-worthy.
Obviously. Blizz can ban people without reason if they want, it's their game.
>taking Blizzards game and attempting to (Sort of) make it your own, opening the way for Copyright issues and Civil Cases
I can only see this being the case if the modder is distributing the game, if he's only distributing his patch I can't see any copyright issue.
There's no law that says you can't alter software.
>>343977052
>This lawsuit is only possible because in a previous successful lawsuit, blizzard argued that the computer copying the game from the hdd to ram constituted an illegal copy.
Wow.
Wow.
>>343978831
Deleting porn was not about the porn itself you silly.
It was about people getting paid while using their assets.
>>343978638
You literally refused to explain your stance. Maybe you don't really understand it.
>>343978167
It's a scare tactic. Lots of Civil Cases involve them, more or less to try and force a settlement before actually going to court. By stating 'millions or tens of millions' it attracts more people and increases the potential for the defendant to get fucked over no matter what.
>>343978243
Thanks.
>>343978603
That's what the 'Accept' button at the bottom is for. Very much binding. It's why most online games have them in the first place.
>>343978752
The big thing about precedents is that it's more or less up to the judge's interpretation. One would hope that judges could tell the difference between harmless mods and actual hacks.
>>343979002
Tell me what you think my stance is.
>>343978763
>you just need to sue enough to give them the rest cold feet and a clenched anus.
Oh yeah, because that worked great for the RIAA, remember?
>>343977052
Cheaters are scum and I'm fine with whatever crack down they get.
>>343978842
>Download mod for MW2 that allowed the use of dedicated servers
>Get VAC banned for hacking, dropped from your clan and black marked forever
It's really not as simple as you think it is, "hacking" is a pretty broad term. Your idea is massive overkill.
>>343978969
Liberating isn't it?
Now that we're all pirates we can do whatever we want.
>>343979031
I'm not going to hold your hand through the whole thread herp derp.
>>343978901
The issue is that it's 'his patch' of 'Blizzard's game', which in itself is an online game that maintains strict patches. By distributing their own copy of a patch, they're effectively cutting in on Blizzard's patching.
>>343978985
Correct. It's why SFM stuff was the only stuff getting taken down.
>>343979235
Yeah, it is.
But it eliminated it in South Korea.
>>343979024
>That's what the 'Accept' button at the bottom is for. Very much binding
No, it is in fact not legally binding even if you do click accept. Valve could put on their latest steam TOS you can be summoned to suck off Gabes teeny weenus, but you don't actually have to do shit.
>>343979024
>Very much binding. It's why most online games have them in the first place.
No EULA has even held up in court.
>>343979339
So you don't know why you think I'm arguing with you? Because you can't read.
>>343979235
Exactly that happened to me.
The stain on my honor is real.
I felt so disgraced when someone said 4 or 5 years later "lol you're marked as a cheater" ;_;
>>343979341
By distributing this post you're stealing money from Moot.
That's how retarded that sounds.
>>343977865
yeah this ain't diablo where the only thing affected would be soj value. the whole game is on the line if hackers fuck shit up.
>>343977052
Their argument is shit and vague, how is using a cheat tool that let's you see where your enemies are directly connect to losing millions?
By ruining the experience of the game?
>>343978603
You're an idiot.
>>343979135
the difference here is people do not want cheaters in their games. pirates provide a service. cheaters provide a pain in the ass.
>>343979545
Name a single case when EULA has held up in court.
>>343979135
Dunno about that, I actually see people in this very website saying "pls buy me X game I can't pirate it because I live in yuropoor".
>>343979669
Yes anon, because no one likes to cheat ;^)
>>343979707
That's because they're too bloody stupid to pirate.
>>343979543
>People start talking about the game being full of hackers
>Word of mouth starts to make potential buyers decide against purchasing.
>Why should I buy a game full of cheaters?
I explicitly didn't purchase DayZ after pirating and trying because of all the cheaters. So, don't think it doesn't happen.
>>343979382
There's also a part of reasonableness in law. Or so I hope.
It's reasonnable to not change a company's product and technically make it your own, but it's (hopefully) not to be bound to suck a fat nerdy cock because you wanted to play a game on steam.
>>343979776
some people do like to cheat, that is true, but not the majority as is evidenced in almost any multiplayer game.
>>343979385
It's not a matter of it going to court. It's a matter of effectively having someone say 'Okay here's the rules of the game and if you break them we're punishing your account'.
>>343979382
The difference is between fair ToS and unfair ToS. You barely ever see unfair ToS because you get people call it out for being unfair, and generally that might be when courts get involved. Games generally have similar ToS because they want things to be as simple as 'If you cheat we're deleting your account'. It's 'Legally Binding' between who accepts it and who provides it.
>>343979370
Source or that's bullshit. I'm guessing bullshit.
>>343979776
You greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average hacker.
Just think: HALF of all hackers are even dumber than the average. How many of those do you think would bother if they needed a VPN or something to hack? A fraction maybe.
>>343979024
Speaking of precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.
>>343979851
Either way, it's not legally binding.
>>343979857
Early days of napster the "majority" didn't know how to pirate either, anon. RIAA suing did absolutely jack and shit. You know what actually did cut down on music piracy? Services like iTunes.
>>343979670
http://contract-law.laws.com/agreement/end-user-license-agreement
Note the section that states "legally binding."
>>343978985
>It was about people ... using their assets.
FTFY
Copyright law doesn't stop at nonprofit use.
>>343980004
Your analogy is kind of falling apart don't you think?
You're implying that hacking is on it's way to become the standard and that to combat it there should be services that give the same satisfaction as hacking.
Maybe your analogy is just shit.
>ActiBlizzard jews are at it again
Oh boy. What a bunch of fucking bullies they are.
>>343979501
Yes, but as the post doesn't break the ToS, nor does this really stop JapaMoot from making money, so it's not illegal.
>>343979994
Somewhat fair, though that is quite different from an online game where hackers detract from the interest and sales of the game.
>>343980004
Services like itunes and spotify are destroying the music industry though. Not that it's a bad thing, just less money for everyone involved.
>>343980004
Anon, I don't think these companies are paying lawyers to come up with these just for funsies. Might be hard to nail someone in court for violation, but that doesn't mean it isn't a legal contract.
>>343977052
As long as the guy who made the hack isn't a retard, literally nothing will happen
>>343980269
>t. Butthurt Hacker
>>343977052
Does it represent a breach of the software license agreement? Probably yes.
However, what are you referring to by saying "legally liable"? To acually be liable for damages you have to be proven responsible of the damage and even more, you have to prove that the damage actually existed and how much it's worth. This is a specially tricky task when it comes to this case of scenarios.
Blizzard argues copyright infringment and unfair competition, but those feel like Blizzard's Lawyers were just trying to force-fit an scenario that doesn't fit anywhere in the current law system into something that's already established.
Blizzard argues that it costed them "millions" in revenue, but that seems really hard to prove.
Let's see what the Court says anyway. American Courts can prove to be really unpredictable in this kind of situations.
TL;DR: Yes. You can, but the damage, its monetary valuation, the causal nexus between the cheating and the damage and the unlawfulness of the action itself have to be proved.
>>343980132
Fine, it's a legally binding contract that has literally never held up on court.
>>343980226
>You're implying that hacking is on it's way to become the standard
No, you imbecile, I'm simply pointing out the fact that scare tactics accomplish fuckall except make your company look like the fucking devil because Timmy the fledgeling script kiddie got sued for a gorillion dollars and his hard working grandparents can't possibly pretend to pay.
>>343979024
>That's what the 'Accept' button at the bottom is for.
It's only as legally binding as a formal contract between two parties is. ToS's are thrown out of court all the time for a multitude of reasons, that's why they're not traditionally considered binding.
>>343980537
>t. Buttlicking Blizzdrone
You can't fucking sue somebody for hacking your shitty game. But I guess with the right amount of jew money you can in clapistan.
>>343980464
It's a powerless legal contract. You can force people to click "Okay I give up my right to sue you because I really want to play CoD9", but if you give them a case, they still can and will.
>>343980216
But it stops people from making money out of it. I didn't look into it much, but wasn't the deleted stuff made by people who got money out of it? Through Patreons, selling them, stuff like that.
>>343980598
>Never held up in court.
I think you should Google Vernor v. Autodesk. Just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Now can you shut the fuck up and let the adults speak?
>>343980762
This isn't about someone hacking, this is about someone making the hack you faggot. Normal hackers just get banned because they break the ToS. Guys who make it are the ones doing the actual altering of software, and since it's not their software they can be sued.
Read the thread you retard.
>>343980598
>Fine, it's a legally binding contract that has literally never held up on court.
Not him, but never is a really strong word that you should avoid using in this kind of context.
Especially when you're wrong.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case21.cfm
>>343980762
That all depends on what jurisdiction they're making the suit from, and a lot of software legislation isn't written from a user's perspective.
>>343980894
It stops all kinds of use, not just the money-making kind. Unless it's done for at least one of a narrow set of uses considered "fair," e.g. commentary, parody, education, etc. then creating a derivative work of a previous author's still-copyrighted work requires some form of permission.
>>343977416
Violating ToS isn't illegal anon.
>>343981036
>despite the inclusion of a restrictive license agreement
Oh hey, look at that. Not whoever you're arguing with btw
>>343981215
Which is why a lot of r34 is listed as parody, as they can avoid issues that way just in case someone comes knocking.
>>343981102
Terms of Service are not the same as an EULA.
>>343981307
Yes, it is. It's just not a criminal act, so people aren't arrested for it. Just fined/removed from access.
>>343981405
>it's totally a parody guys
>b-because we say it is
>>343981576
I don't think you understand what illegal means in that context. Anyways, (you)
>>343981581
Pretty much.
>>343981215
Ah you're right. Funnily enough I had a talk by partners at the firm about IP yesterday.
Not my sector, but I learned that you can get IP rights even in colour and form. At first I thought that was bullshit, and then I was the first to recognise respectively whiskas, Milka and Cadbury simply by looking at different shades of purple and being told that it was catfood and 2 chocolate brands, so I guess it makes sense.
>>343981102
> infringed and diluted plaintiff's service mark, violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Gee.
I mean sure, they decided to uphold the TOS, but that was not exactly the big complaint there, just a way to kick them harder for the other stuff.
The problem is obviously that they allow gambling and exchanging of in game items for money.
This is what should be illegal in the first place.
If there was no real money action houses or anything like that then this would in no way call for legal action.
The problem is obviously not cheating. For one defining cheating is really hard (if not impossible), as you don't really alter the code of the game when you cheat. What is circumventing code? If code is written in such a way that it allows you to cheat then you're not circunventing anything. You're just doing what the piece of software you bought (and you should own) allows you to do.
Everything is fucking wrong with this and you retards defending blizzard is incredible. This is a step back in our personal freedom.
>>343981876
>This is a step back in our personal freedom.
The Videogame consumer base loves to get fucked in the ass, it's incredible.
>>343981876
>plays proprietary, freedoms-denying video games on a proprietary, freedoms-denying operating system
>cares about freedom
>>343982072
It's because of retards like you that we don't actually own our games nowadays. Fucking corporate cocksuckers.
>>343981876
M8 what the fuck are you on about. You can't exchange items in OW. There aren't any auction houses.
Cheating is easy to define. It's altering the game itself outside of normal parameters to give one person or persons an advantage.
Go back to meming with your buzzwords.
>>343981506
No. They are not the same, but I don't see why the differences hat separate them would make one enforceable but not the other when there's very much just a diference in content.
>>343979235
Yes I am sure the majority of VAC bans are gud bois who du nuffin.
>>343982254
>Owning an online game
Fuck off.
>>343981876
>If code is written in such a way that it allows you to cheat then you're not circunventing anything.
That would be true if that was the case, but oftentimes, it's not.
Modern cheating programs actively circumvent and work around game code for their intended uses, and that is clear cut violation.
Also creator intent is a factor.
If there is third party code
And if that code allows you to do something outside the realm of creator intent
AND if that code gives you an unfair advantage over other players
Then that's cheating.
Done and done.
>>343982035
No, it's just that neo/v/ is full of retarded millennials that think companies owe them something.
>>343982254
>calling Richard "Gentoo Isn't Free Enough For Me" Stallman a corporate cocksucker
>>343981867
It's just the first case I found, but there are certainly others around if you look. A five minuto search on Google Scholar should give you plenty of examples.
>>343982295
In the case you linked, the Terms of Service applied to the email service, not a piece of software. Hotmail can be accessed from any mail client, so it's a completely different case.
>>343982410
And then you get banned for cheating, not sued
>>343982764
Sure.
Unless you're creating the programs with which to cheat.
Then you can get the PANTS sued off you
>>343982631
Missing the point, buddy. Mail programs, even web-based, are software. And, anyway, if you buy Overwatch over Steam I understand that using your Steam account you could access the game anywhere. Would that satisfy your criteria? Would that mean that a cloud-stored software is not software at all?
At any rate, the way in which what the agreement refers to is stored makes no difference when it comes to the legallity of the agreement. Would be enforceable either way.
>>343982764
Unless you wrote the invasive code. At which point you've committed copyright violation. And you can very much be sued.
>>343982970
The question is if you should get sued. Not if you do.
>>343979385
That's complete bullshit.
>>343977052
> Sits in cs go right now. Hacker on the enemy team or flusha busy tuning his chair for the major.
See this thead....
Mad and butthurt cause I am LEM and I get a cheater every 2nd game and there is nothing I can do about it and valve does not give a flying fuck too.
>>343983017
>Mail programs, even web-based, are software
Hotmail didn't write the software used to send the spam emails. The terms of service applied to the service Hotmail provided: an email account on their servers. The Terms of Service applied to that, not to any software touched by the defendant.
>>343983117
Yes. If you distribute software that is a copyright violation then you should be sued. If you made it for your own personal use and don't use it in multiplayer, then no.
>>343982970
>>343983108
Just because you make a program that hacks the game doesn't mean you are violating copyright. If anything, anyone using that program would be violating copyright every time they use it
>>343983179
>>343979994
I can see that, but I don't think the precident would hold in the case of online multiplayer games like Overwatch.
For that, it's not just a case between the code creator and the program itself, but also with the potentially thousands of people the code adversely affected second-hand.
Also, barring ALL of that, I'm sure there's something in the game's TOS about modifying or adding to game code which would be very much admissible in court.
That's why most hack makers are Russian. Good luck suing them.
>>343983406
Missing the point. The point of it was that click-wrap agreements of such nature ARE legally binding. If it's a sofware, mail service, whatever is not really relevant after that.
No, merely saying "it's not exactly the same case" doesn't mean you get to throw all the conclusions out of the window.
How dense are you?
>>343983553
I assume you've got someone next to you reading for you since the level of stupidity on display here is extreme
>/v/ discussing law without any actual knowledge about law
>people literally think that the minute you click Agree anything that on the ToS is legally binding no matter how abusive
>people literally think that the ToS is completely irrelevant
As a law student this thread was a great read.
Thank you /v/
>>343978831
They should spend their money on developers, not lawyers.
>>343984285
Then that just begs the question on why they would write up a ToS in the first place.
>>343984340
Why spend on devs when they can shit out whatever they want and sell millions
>>343984285
No one is saying that. People are saying it's basic contract law, which it fucking is.
The bar is a joke now. Congrats, you'll be an another attorney. Enjoy working 70 hours a week for $35k.
>>343984109
Software licenses such as EULA's are only effective because copyright limits what you can do by default. The only way for a software license to "kick in" is if a user does something not already permitted by copyright law, such as make a copy. Running the program to play the game does not require any special permission, so an EULA doesn't apply.
If you're thinking that hacking a game creates a derived work and requires permission, see >>343979994
>>343984514
To cover their asses against stupid people. It's obviously not legally binding, you can't negotiate terms or sign a contract with the click of a button.
>>343984514
I literally just said that it isn't completely irrelevant, just that everything there isn't legally binding just because you click agree.
On the question on why companies do things like that is really easy to answer.
They'll enforce their bullshit ToS when it's convenient and unless you're willing to spend a ton of money to sue them they'll get away with it.
>>343984612
>No one is saying that.
You should read the thread.
>The bar is a joke now. Congrats, you'll be an another attorney. Enjoy working 70 hours a week for $35k.
so salty
>>343984285
Look, kid. I know you feel all great now that you're a law STUDENT. Feeling pretty confident, huh?
But we're discussing contractual law here and trying to explain some basic terms of this clusterfuck to people who didn't go through law school because they really have no reason to know any of this.
No one seriously discussing this even said whatever you think they said.
Go back to reading, I'm sure you have a lot of that to do if you're still in law school. Unless you're a bad student in which case, don't go around acting all smug because you'll soon become an attorney that will be getting outclassed by the ones that actually spent their time studiying instead of shitposting on 4chan.
>>343985101
>Is in law school
>Spends his free time on neo/v/
Thats really fucking sad.
>it's a /v/ thinks it knows anything about the judicial system episode
>>343985394
Why is that?
>>343985316
I was just commenting on how hilariously wrong 90% of the posters here are as far as what is and isn't legally binding.
>>343985394
Hey, nothing wrong with being in law school and browsing 4chan.
It was actually pretty cool when my last boss revealed he was a /tg/ stuff fan, as I am. Got me my 2nd internship with him.
>>343985101
>I literally just said that it isn't completely irrelevant, just that everything there isn't legally binding just because you click agree
Yes. That's right, but the only things that actually don't apply are the ones that the Court or the Law might declare as abusive and therefore illegal. But that doesn't mean you get to ignore the rest of the ToS. In my jurisdiction you only invalidate the illegal clause and the rest of the contract is still binding as long as the invalidated clause wasn't escential to it.
And in my jurisdiction a law has to say that such clause is illegal, which is not that common. The illegality of contractual terms is an exception, not a general rule.
>>343985759
>Yes. That's right, but the only things that actually don't apply are the ones that the Court or the Law might declare as abusive and therefore illegal. But that doesn't mean you get to ignore the rest of the ToS.
Why exactly are you trying to argue with me when that's my point to begin with.
>>343977052
Blizzard can't do shit against the creators (if they are smart enough to make the cheats, they are smart enough to hide their identity).
Blizzard knows, that Overwatch is dead as soon as cheater are common and they are in full panic mode
For actual cheaters? No. Ban them, sure. Though I can't agree that blizzard has apparently rebanned anyone who rebuys Overwatch immediately without them even cheating again, as that's literally taking money and then making them fuck off. Ban them from rebuying/readding the game to their account if you're gonna kick them out permanently, but being able to rebuy it and add it just to get banned without breaking the rules a second time is flat out bullshit and should be considered thievery. Though admittedly I don't know how common that case is.
Now, more on topic, the case in question is some group making and selling/distributing hacks, so they can feel free to sue the fuck out of them as that shit ain't legal. Rule number one about game modifying a game is not to fucking sell that shit, and that's without the cheating or the fact that this is an online multiplayer only game.
>>343986028
I don't know m8. I wanted to know what it was like in your jurisdiction. I presume you're American?
>>343986623
Bollocks, if they can prove the hackers had an affect on the sales of the game due to unwanted software tampering, they can sue for damages, loss of revenue, etc. The hackers are based in Germany, not bumfuck nowhere, and far as I know German law allows for the kind of case to be brought forward.
>>343981576
>>343977416
Goddamn you are stupid.
>>343986838
>if they can prove the hackers had an affect on the sales
This is the hard part which I doubt they can actually do. Anyone running into hackers would have already bought the game and I haven't heard of Overwatch having a fame of being filled with hackers stopping me from buying the game
>>343986623
The creators identity is well known. How else do you think they filed the suit? You think they listed the offender as "some guy on the internet."
