Slashdot Mirror
Tecmo Sues Game Hackers Under DMCA
blueZhift writes "This Reuters report on CNet states that Tecmo has filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act accusing the site owners and perhaps some users of game hacking site www.ninjahacker.net (now offline) of knowingly infringing on their game software. This should be another interesting test of the DMCA and just how far it can be pushed to restrict what end users can do with/to their software purchases. This might ultimately affect the legality of cheat devices like the Game Shark and even the mere sharing of cheats or exploits."
Hooray for google. Click on the caches.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
I.e. you can't drive your car at 200MPh - that is to say, you can. But it's against the law.
You can't mod your car with a spoiler that's twice the width of your car - that is to say, you can. But it's against the law. At least driving on public roads with one is.
What's being argued here, now, is that you can't hack the game and distribute the hack. That is to say, you can. But it may be against the law (the DMCA one).
Btw.. the article referred to is rather short, and people seem to think this is about sharing cheat codes. Not quite.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/02/09/news_6118
We are the target market for these companies and you should take your outrage to them. Here is some contact info. Remember to be polite but firm :)
Public Relations
PublicRelations@tecmoinc.com
Customer Service
CustomerService@tecmoinc.com
Game Counselor
GameCounselor@tecmoinc.com
Business Accounts
BusinessAccounts@tecmoinc.com
Public Relations
PublicRelations@tecmoinc.com
Corporate Opertunities
Jobs@tecmoinc.com
Webmaster
Webmaster@tecmoinc.com
Contact Us Via Snail Mail:
Tecmo Inc.
PO Box 5553
21213-B Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Contact Us Via Fax or Phone:
Phone: 310.944.5005
Fax: 310.944.3344
Contact Us Via Email:
Contact@tecmoinc.com
Using copyright law is NOT an acceptable angle of attack on the cracks, as copyright shouldn't govern what the recipient of IP can do with it once it's received (beyond preventing redistribution).*
THEre's nothing to stop the server operators from using any of the many anti-cheat tools to detect modified copies, and prevent them from taking part in network play. Use a technical solution, not a legal one.
*I'm an anti-IP nut and don't believe ideas can be owned, so I don't believe in the concept of copyright anyway. But at least keep it consistent with its intended purpose.
No, it is they who are priviledged: priviledged to be able to put a product to market that they may or may not be lucky enough to have me actually PAY for.
You've got everything backwards; they are at the consumer's mercy, not the other way around. You are correct that I do not "own" the software I "buy", but I own the right to use it, and you are incorrect when you say they can revoke it at any time. They cannot - when you buy the software, you have entered into an agreement. As soon as they take your money, they OWE you the right to play that game or use that piece of software. If it requires online access through one of their servers, they OWE you servers that are operational so you can use the product you paid them money for. And, in fact, I can do most anything I want with it, so long as it does not infringe on their rights granted by copyright law.
Some licenses do mention "no reverse engineering". There are two main points to mention in that regard:
1) Reverse engineering is a well recognized, legitimate activity within copyright law. Both copyright law itself, as well as the DMCA have exclusions for reverse engineering. Acting like it is a bad thing is absurd.
2) Very few companies prohibit reverse engineering in the EULA (Blizzard is one that I know of that does prohibit it). This is because they know that reverse engineering is (generally) protected, so long as it does not facilitate unauthorized distribution of the software (hence, the DMCA).
Lastly, to make an argument that someone should EXPECT for a EULA to contain wording that removes their rights, to which they should adhere, without ever SEEING the contract BEFORE the sale takes place is completely inane. This is a reflection of the *sad* state our copyright system has fallen into. You're a consumer, you should be fighting for your rights. As the adage goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The moment we (as a population) stop caring about our rights, is the moment they will be taken away.
Do not forget:
"Beware those who would deny you information,
for in their hearts they dream themselves your master."