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."
Considering how most American slashdotters (myself included) consider the DMCA to be a violation of our rights, I hope everyone will understand the urgency of my plight...I need somewhere to post this cheat code...
;-)
left-right-left-left-B-A-left-down-trigger-left-B
I can only hope Slashdot has the resources to protect my free speech.
Really, though...the DMCA sucks, but I can't see cheat codes being a violation while game makers keep putting them in on purpose. Aren't they the ones writing code to do different things when we enter the codes in? What next, prison time for opening an easter egg in Word?
Here's a link to the archived site, before it was taken down.
IDDQD
Now sue me.
I hope at this point, some enterprising and idealistic lawyer will finally take a stand for the right of the individual to use and modify his property as he sees fit.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
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
Nowhere in TFA or the ninjahacker page (Even though I only skimmed it) are cheat codes mentioned. The article says "hacking into popular games... to change their codes" which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with cheating, sounds more like cracking/reverse engineering. You guys are exactly right in saying using the DMCA against cheat codes is ridiculous - hence why this has nothing to do with it.
to stop using proprietary software. There are a lot of amazing free software game projects that need our support (like e.g. WorldForge) that not only allow but in fact encourage hacking. Proprietary crap is good for uneducated people who want to have a one-size-fits-all black box. For thinking people who want to learn by tinkering, free software is the way to go.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
If you look at those caches, the greatest number of people on the site was 88 in mid-2003. The lawsuit is almost certainly designed to test the boundaries of the DMCA in courts, rather than to stop 20-odd people from fucking around with their DOA costumes.
a couple of hundred people sharing nudey skins for Xtreme Volleyball now becomes the WHOLE INTERNET!
way to protect your IP there Tecmo...
Clearly, this is a pathetic attempt to stir up a bit of froth for what is essentially a dog-shit game.
no-one will get sued, 14yr olds will break their xboxes trying to make the naked women do handstands.
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
I haven't been able to access the site, and the article doesn't say much, but how is hacking games to have new graphics breaking copy protection? Or is there another part of the DMCA they're using? Unless they were distributing hacks to disable CD checking, then maybe, but if they're just altering gameplay, how is that breaking copy protection? Heck, if the patches are done normally, they wouldn't even need to contain any copyrighted material.
Digital Franklin says: He who would give away essential software liberty for a temporary safety from l33t h4x0rz deserves neither.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
They aren't being sued for the cheats, they are being sued for making skins (including a bunch of nude ones that TECMO doesn't seem to like) for these games.
Apparantly they had to reverse engineer the games to make these skins and therefore they are being sued under the cover of the DMCA (natch).
Personally I think it's a bitch that modifying something that you've paid for, to add value to it so that others are more likely to want to pay for it in the future is seen as a suable offence by TECMO. Bioware, Id, Valve and others make it as easy as possible to make mods since the community efforts can add considerable value to the product at zero cost to the developers.
Counterstrike anyone?
The company specifically stated that one of the things they objected to was the custom skins availiable on the site. A spokesperson said the company is seeking $1,000 to $100,000 in damages for every custom skin swapped over the website. More information in this register article
The Ataris named a song after that cheat code. Are Konami going to sue The Ataris? Will the RIAA step in to protect their artists rights? What about Atari? Who are they going to sue?
Oh God, I'm being sucked into a whirlpool of recursivity!
There are nude skins for AA ???
Eww.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
No one should be made a criminal in this case. No one is getting hurt. The game makers aren't losing any money. The gamers aren't doing any harm as I can see.
Does anyone know exactly which hacks Temco is suing over? Hacks that only affect how you experience the game is one thing, hell, I own a Gameshark myself simply because I hate the 20 hours of leveling you have to do in RPGs. Hacks that affect online play are a completely different ball game. Online gaming can be ruined when codes hit the wild. I'm sure a lot of people remember when the SOCOM gameshark codes were released and suddenly there were thousands of invulnerable players running around firing automatic sniper rifles.
Yes, developers can implement systems to combat online game cheating but to be honest, they shouldn't have to. Unfortunatly we live in a world where a good percentage of parents never successfully taught their children to grow up and stop acting like idiots. It's a shame that going after individual cheaters isn't viable and cost effective, like gun manufacturers, the people who release these codes shouldn't be held accountable for what people do with them.
This is one of the reasons I will never buy a console. Console games are geared to be throw-away games. i.e. You spend $50 on a FPS, and you are stuck with whatever maps the publisher sees fit to let you have. Even those games on the Xbox that have downloadable mods. Mods on Xbox live see: here are limited to publisher produced material. This means that you will never see a candyland map for Uneal Championship, or the gigantic burger joint map for that matter.
I have a few hundred megs of Maps for games like Unreal Tournament, Doom 3, Red Faction, Starcraft, etc, etc, etc. that were created by fans. I have a friend who is really into Morrowind, which is over 3 years old, and mods that offer nudity, god mode, extra locations, extra equipment, skins, and anything else some fan has the imagination and inclination to produce. He has been playing this game off and on for 3 years... I'm still playing Neverwinter Nights.
And for the game companies: attack your customers at your peril... We don't care about IP, we don't care whether you are too puritanical for nude skins, or whatever. A new game is a toy to us that will be used as we see fit. If you want to clamp down, many people simply won't buy from you. I sure as hell won't. And furthermore this makes me feel like I have made the right decision in avoiding the console market altogether.
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
Mattel has been suing people for doing this for a long time now. They often lose but they don't care; they keep doing it.
...like it wouldn't have been "offline" anyway after getting front-page mention on /.!
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
And in other news, authors of books are now filing suit against readers who dare read their books backwards or in random order, or even reassemble the words present in the book in their minds.
The whole concept of intellectual "property" sucks. I had an idea - pay me. I'm glad I don't live in the US. But I wish the US would stop trying to impose its laws on other countries.
You can't copyright a story - only the particular words that you choose to describe that story. The order of those words also matters, since you can't claim the actual words as yours. And you can't patent an idea or a concept, only your particular application of it. And there is no way that you can enforce a law that says I can't take something apart (be it software or otherwise) to see how it works, so I wish the US would stop making unenforceable, ridiculous laws. What the law SHOULD do is prevent me from taking your software, altering it slightly, and rebranding it as MY software and making money off it. And that's ALL. How I choose to let MY computer execute YOUR code is my business not yours.
If reverse engineering something had always been "illegal" we would not have several types of car. What? You mean a Ford and a Nissan BOTH have FOUR wheels and a 1600cc engine and 4 doors and they both have spark plugs and use gas? Oh let's sue each other...they stole our idea...
But then I guess for economic purposes all that matters is that the money changes hands. Perhaps the US will be successful at having the first law-suit driven economy...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If you think car companies don't sue each other left and right constantly, you're living with your head in the sand. They sue from things as trivial as naming (Porsche 911 has a "1" in the middle digit because Peugeot owned car names with zero as a middle digit -- the original 911 was a 901)
Car makes sue over grill designs, interior designs, ergonomic innovations, brake system designs, motor design. The lists go on and on.
And clearly nearly 200 years of industrialized history has demonstrated your conentention that those laws can't be passed or enforced are completely incorrect. There are lots of good books about IP cases in the 1700's and 1800's. Hell, the history around the invention and implementation of the telegraph puts all this stuff around the Internet to shame.
The point of DMCA is to restrict what end users can do with/to your software purchases...
Note: *YOUR* software purchases.
The way it is going, it seem that in the future, you will not own what you pay for anyomore, you will just pay for the right to use somebody's product, what you can do with your stuff depends on the manufactor's good will.
You know there are basic rights that every person has, as well, like the right to life, etc. So no, you can't modify a computer program from your own home so that it takes over all the hospital computers through the internet and disconnects all the monitors in the intensive care unit. This affects the rights of the patients. I can't take a CD and break it in pieces and try to stab your eyes out when you visit my house. This affects your rights.
You are trying to compare one case (being able to modify something) with a completely different case (being able to infringe on someone else's rights).
But tell me, how are YOUR rights affected when I mod a computer game on my computer, in my house? How are they affected if I give out a program (a proprietary program no less, that is protected under copyright law) so that others can do this easily too? Does this damage you in any way? If it does, you have to prove damages...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...Japanese automobile manufacturers have launched a coordinated legal attack against car owners that modify their vehicles.
"Adding nitrous systems to the fuel injection and 'coffee can' mufflers to the exhaust systems are clearly actions that violate the DMCA," said Hiroshi Yagasaki, lead attorney for Toyota.
Taking a page from the RIAA, investigators have been hired to watch for teens entering automotive parts stores to purchase after market parts for compact vehicles. Fake auto parts websites have been set up to net offenders who would order parts online.
"These young hooligans are clearly stealing from the car companies by circumventing our state-of-the-art protection schemes, which we call 'The Hood'."
Commander Taco was not available for comment.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
http://web.archive.org/web/20040210040258/http://w ww.ninjahacker.net/
All your Sybase are belong to us.
i think the posting of such modifications is similar to the posting of Game Genie codes (which another member has also mentioned), which can alter the course of gameplay by either directly altering a game's code or it's RAM.
The Game Genie "codes" were just a means for obfuscating the true nature of it's game alterations, but in essance it was doing the exact same thing as the posted modifications.
NES WORLD, which summarized the Nintendo vs Galoob Game Genie case, offers this information which (to me at least) seems very relavant and perhaps in the least not bad news for NinjaHacker and co?
http://www.nesworld.com/law-0005.htm
"After trial, the district court found:
(1) The "Game Genie" does not create a "derivative work" within the definition in 101. "[I]nherent in the concept of a `derivative work' is the ability for that work to exist on its own, fixed and transferable from the original work, i.e., having a separate `form'. . . . The Game Genie does not meet that definition." Id. at 1291. (emphasis in original).
The court distinguished Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., stating that "Midway's result, if not its analysis, appears to have turned on the fact that the licensee arcade owner, not the copyright holder, was making money from the performance of the altered game, a violation of section 106(4) (copyright holder has exclusive right `to perform the copyrighted work publicly')." Id.
Under the facts of Midway, that court "was willing to `stretch' the acceptable definition of a derivative work." Id. The Galoob court, however, was not willing to "stretch" the definition of "derivative work" where the performance was non- commercial and was confined to the homes of purchasers of legitimate copies of the videogame.
(2) "[E]ven if the Game Genie did create a derivative product, the doctrine of `fair use' enables consumers to use the Game Genie for their personal enjoyment, 17 U.S.C. 107, and therefore allows Galoob to sell it." Id. at 1286. In its analysis of fair use, the court "relied extensively," id. at 1292, on Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. -- particularly in its emphasis on the first statutory fair use factor, the purpose and character of the use. The court found that the non-commercial, nonprofit nature of the use by the alleged direct infringer, the videogame purchaser, created a presumption of fair use. Id. at 1293.
On the fourth fair use factor (effect on the work's potential market or value), the court said it had not been shown that the use supplanted demand for Nintendo's works, that any actual or reasonably likely market was injured, or that use of the Game Genie in ways that arguably infringe Nintendo's copyrights would diminish the overall demand for Nintendo games. Id. at 1294-98. Nor did the remaining fair use factors weigh in favor of Nintendo. Id. at 1293-94.
(3) "Galoob's use of copyrighted video games for purposes of testing or marketing the Game Genie does not violate any of Nintendo's rights under the Copyright Act." Id. at 1286.
(4) A permanent injunction in favor of Nintendo would not be warranted even if the court had found copyright infringement because:
"1) Any presumption of immediate and irreparable harm resulting from the alleged infringement was rebutted;
2) The presence of the Game Genie in the market benefits the public by expanding personal consumer utilization of purchased games; and
3) Assuming infringement, adequate remedies exist at law." Id. at 1298."
"Progress comes from the intelligent use of experience."
From 1999-2000, I was one of three hackers working furiously to uncover the inner workings of Monster Rancher 2, another game published by Tecmo. After the months of work, Tecmo made it very clear to us that they frowned upon our activities. I personally had a very cordial relationship with Tecmo's PR dept. through my Monster Rancher fansite, and though the PR department admitted that there were developers who appreciated our level of enthusiasm and work, the official company stance was quite the opposite as they were afraid that we would somehow reveal trade secrets to their competitors. Though we continued to actively post information about the game's internals on the monster-rancher.com message board (now defunct, as the domain has since been acquired by a competing site), Tecmo forbid us from posting similar information on their own message boards.
Some time after I had left the scene, I visited with the old board briefly to find out that the game hackers were now asked to not mention specific memory locations (you could refer to the "lifespan register", but not to "0x800B...."); I do not know what inspired this new policy, but knowing the site's owner and board administrator personally, I suspect that Tecmo's dissatisfaction of hacker activity had grown more vocal. Never once did we make or distribute new skins for monsters or any game modification other than altered save files, so our situation was a little different than that of www.ninjahacker.net, but this is indeed sad, and rather chilling that this could have happened to us had people been using the DMCA in such a manner at that time. In the past, Tecmo has had an amazingly good relationship with owners of fansites across the web, and domains like "monsterrancher.com" still remain in possession of the fans. Why they would sue fans for making game skins... I don't know. All that I can say is that for years, Tecmo as a corporate entity has never been happy with those of us who want to explore their products a bit more thoroughly.
Just because someone bought a copy of a book, doesn't mean they can change a few words and modify a couple of chapters, then release another version of it and not expect me to stay quiet.
True enough. On the other hand, if someone chooses to highlight/underline/cross-out passages of the copy of your book that they own, they are well within their rights. And if someone found some typos or grammatical mistakes in your work, or even had some suggestions for an alternate ending, they can legally post such things online. All of these cases are much more germane to the topic than your example.