Free Game Company Sues 14-Year-Old Over 'Cheats' Video -- Claiming DMCA Violation (bbc.co.uk)

Bizzeh shared this report from the BBC: A mother has written a letter in defense of her 14-year-old son who is facing a lawsuit over video game cheats in the US. Caleb Rogers is one of two people facing legal action from gaming studio Epic Games for using cheat software to play the free game Fortnite. The studio says it has taken the step because the boy declined to remove a YouTube video he published which promoted how to use the software... "This company is in the process of attempting to sue a 14-year-old child," she wrote in the letter which has been shared online by the news site Torrentfreak.

Ms. Rogers added that she had not given her son parental consent to play the game as stated in its terms and conditions, and that as the game was free to play the studio could not claim loss of profit as a result of the cheats... In a statement given to the website Kotaku, Epic Games said the lawsuit was a result of Mr. Rogers "filing a DMCA counterclaim to a takedown notice on a YouTube video that exposed and promoted Fortnite Battle Royale cheats and exploits... Epic is not OK with ongoing cheating or copyright infringement from anyone at any age," it said.
Cory Doctorow counters that the 14-year-old "correctly asserted that there was no copyright infringement here. Videos that capture small snippets of a videogame do not violate that game creator's copyrights, because they are fair use..."

Comments

The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is worse than Hitler.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is worse than Hitler.

No. Hitler was responsible for many millions of people dead. The DMCA is a law about copyright policy.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Fat, drunk and stupid IS a way of life.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the democrats hear you say that.

Hollywood doesn't approve.

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it is unfair to Hitler to compare him to this awful abomination DMCA?

Re:The DMCA

[ShanghaiBill]

Hitler was responsible for many millions of people dead. The DMCA is a law about copyright policy.

Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.

Re: The DMCA

[hackwrench]

Death ends suffering. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Re:The DMCA

[ChoGGi]

The video may not be copyright infringing, but I recall Blizzard making claims cheat tools are.
Maybe momma shouldn't have written a letter admitting her little shithead was using a cheat tool...

I don't really care who loses, this one's fun all around :)

Re:The DMCA

[Dutch Gun]

That was sort of my feeling as well. Screw the DMCA, but screw cheaters as well. And screw parents that defend their misbehaving little spawn no matter what they do.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop there?

The DMCA is worse than Hillary Clinton.

Just kidding, it's not.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a law suit against a minor will result in legal obligations on the part of the guardians? That would be reason enough for them to defend the kid.

On the other hand, a DMCA suit is clearly the wrong way to prevent cheating. I suspect the company knows it doesn't have legal grounds for the suit, and is just abusing the legal system to strong-arm the kid into taking the video down. Or just to scaring the parents into forcing the kid to.

Be that as it may, I was on the fence about whether I wanted to pause on my Warframe playing to try Fortnite out. Now that they have pulled this asshole abuse of the legal system move, I will avoid the game and anything else by Epic games.

Re:The DMCA

[LeftCoastThinker]

That's the thing here. The kid is in the wrong for spreading cheats, and he can be sued for damaging Epic's business (I believe Blizzard and others have successfully done this in the past). Epic is in the wrong for trying to use DMCA, which does not apply in this case. They should have gone to court and gotten a cease and desist order, at which point the kid (and YouTube would have had to pull down the video or be in contempt of court). The parents are in the wrong for defending their cheating little shit instead of grounding him for a year, forcing him to post an apology on YouTube and just calling Epic on the phone and letting them know it was handled.

As it stands Epic is liable for filing a false DMCA (not that there is really any recourse there), the kid is liable for damaging Epic's business, and the parents behavior largely explains the kids behavior.

Re:The DMCA

[gnasher719]

Is worse than Hitler.

What an utterly idiotic and pathetic thing to say. If the DMCA required this young boy to commit suicide to avoid himself and his family to be arrested and convicted to death by hanging, then it would still be stupid. Not utterly idiotic anymore, but stupid.

Re:The DMCA

[gnasher719]

Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph [sic] just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.

The DMCA didn't protect Hitler. He's dead. It protected the State of Bavaria, Germany, which is officially the heir to Hitler's estate (no relative came forward who wanted it), and which was very unwilling to give anyone permission to make copies of the book.

Re:The DMCA

[MrL0G1C]

It amazes me the level of hatred aimed at cheating, the level of seriousness to me is less than that of littering - a cigarette butt. It's not a crime in the UK where we don't have the god awful DMCA laws, it's just something annoying that sad people do, probably mostly kids. People need to get some perspective.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheating in a game with more than one person playing shows a complete ignorance of kantian ethics -- the sort of ethics that says you should be honest, pay your taxes, share your toys with your siblings, and so on. It's pretty clearly and obviously a moral failure that a wise parent might reasonably object to.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Hitler was eventually stopped. Once the DMCA is stopped, Hitler will be the worse of the two; however, the DMCA is an ongoing problem, and those are always worse than the problems of the past.

Imagine you break your leg. Your leg heals and you can walk fine, no after effects or ongoing damage as a result of the break, you forget about it and you move on. Then, you stub your toe. That stubbed toe is worse than your broken leg, because the broken leg is a problem of the past and your stubbed toe is an ongoing problem. When your toe stops hurting, your broken leg was the worse injury, but in the moment when you're dealing with the stubbed toe and not the broken leg, you're less likely to see it that way.

That's not to say that what Hitler did wasn't atrocious and horrible, but it is in the past and dealt with and done.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

i can see trump and his republican congress all wearing "hold my beer" t-shirts. beware.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

What damage? It's a free game, they can't claim monetary losses, as there were no potential monetary gains. The court doesn't really recognize any other form of damages when dealing with a business.

Re:The DMCA

[thegarbz]

the level of seriousness to me is less than that of littering

Well it's not world ending, but cheating in online games to me is more than littering. It's more like letting your dog shit on the path and not cleaning it up. It annoys everyone around you and spoils the environment for all, not to mention directly affects the person who comes in contact with it.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just like... your opinion man.
Making a video where you tell people how to cheat is and should be considered free speech. I personally don't cheat and I don't condone cheating but that isn't relevant, the principle of free speech is much more important.
Anyhow, if Epic is concerned that cheating is ruining the experience for non cheating players they should take steps to make cheating impossible in their game, not going around trying to censor 14yo kids exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't.

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It shows that the game code sucks, just that. If it is a online game shouldn't be difficult to make robust code that uses server side checking. The fact that cheating is even possible shows that programmers didn't do their jobs well.

Re:The DMCA

[mikael]

More details on the cheating tools used would be helpful. The first seems to be aim-botting (which is using AI scripts to automatic aim weapons). The other is stream-sniping which involves intercepting someone's else servers communication to see their screen and make annoying comments on their strategy.

https://kotaku.com/epic-is-sui...

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The cheating involves "aim-bots" to automatically target weapons and watching the screens of other players by picking up their location and motion commands. The local PC has to receive this data in order to render the scene correctly.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no liability for filing a "false" DMCA, only for filing a DMCA for something falsely represent as yours. So the kid's liable for damaging Epic, the parents are responsible for the kid, and Epic gets to go to court.

Note, the simple fact that the kid filed a counterclaim gave Epic the kid's name and address, allowing them to sue him. That's baked into the counterclaim process. You assert that you're not violating copyright and allowing the copyright holder to contest it in court if they choose.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

As it stands Epic is liable for filing a false DMCA (not that there is really any recourse there), the kid is liable for damaging Epic's business, and the parents behavior largely explains the kids behavior.

No. Epic is a company, as in NOT liable for filing a false DMCA. Everything else is true. Only people have liability that matters.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume they make their money on in-game purchases. The "free" just means that no initial investment is required by the consumer. As their money comes from in-game purchases (which presumably will by-and-large be purchased by people playing the game), anything that negatively affects their player base by decreasing the quality of the game can legitimately be considered monetary loss.

Why the parent was modded +5 insightful is beyond me.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more angry with the game developer for doing such a shit job with their game that any child can easily cheat it. The kid did nothing wrong. This is totally on Epic Games.

Also, Blizzard were a bunch of whiny assholes. They were tried to sue people to cover up for their own cluelessness.

Re: The DMCA

[aliquis]

Well. What isn't worse than Hitler was?

Redundant information.
Everything is. Great guy.

Re:The DMCA

[angel'o'sphere]

It is pretty hard to imagine a situation where a 'cheat tool' can be a copyright infringement.

Re:The DMCA

[angel'o'sphere]

Hae?
The cheats in question are most likely build into the game.
And as long as it is not a multiplayer game, who cares what other cheat tools he is using to 'to have fun'?

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is free. There is nothing lost. I know you fancy yourself a neo-brownshirt, but try to keep some perspective on what is important in life.

Re:The DMCA

[angel'o'sphere]

The DMCA did not protect anything in that case.
Perhaps you should stop using the abreviation which you obviously don't know what it means. Hint: the D in DMCA stands for digital.
Books written nearly 100 years ago are not digital ...

Re: The DMCA

[mwvdlee]

Ah yes, the old "Perfection is easy" argument.

NASA use multiple versions of the same functionality to triple-check each other because they understand that no code can be perfect. If they can't afford to make "robust" code, why do you think a games company can?

Besides, perfection isn't even enough; the code would need to do additional things beyond being absolutely perfect; it should be able to somehow magically discern between humans playing a game and computers playing the game in exactly the same way.

Re:The DMCA

[mwvdlee]

Your fallacy is confusing "value" with "money".
Even if it were completely free (it isn't), the game still holds value in other forms; advertising space ("free" as in "search engine"), reputation ("free" as in "sponsored event"), market research ("free" as in "free sample").

Re:The DMCA

[slashrio]

Wasn't that the definition of American lifestyle?

Re:The DMCA

[hairyfeet]

Yeah they could do that OR...just spitballing here...they could fix their buggy ass code that allows cheating in the first place and call it a day...how about that?

Let us be honest here okay? The kid is pointing out the house is on fire, removing the kid? Not gonna put out the fire. If your game is easily exploitable by cheat tools then you have MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS than some 14 year old kid because how do you think the fricking kid found it? Think he coded that shit?

Until they patch the code you should consider every player a cheater because its obvious these dumbasses have NO fricking clue who is cheating or who is not. after all if they did they could just slap a permaban on every cheating fucknuts and that would be that right?

Re:The DMCA

[mwvdlee]

Do the cheat tools manipulate any copyrighted code or data in violation of the license?
Does the video promote distribution of such tools?
I agree such an interpretation of copyright is bullshit, but it works for sites posting links to bittorrents.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

As of this moment, it's fully free-to-play. Whether they choose to monetize it at some point in the future (the game's FAQ seems to indicate that they do) is immaterial; if the video is still up (and the courts agree that it's infringing) when they decide to monetize, then it will become an issue.

I'm familiar with the game and, thus, have some insight that you appear to lack. That is why my comment was modded Insightful.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not "fully free-to-play". ONE game mode (PvP) is free to play during the current development cycle, the other is locked (PvE). If you truly were familiar with the game you would know this.

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell us, tell Disney.

Re:The DMCA

[meerling]

The issue in this case isn't that he was showing video of the game, rather he was showing how to use a particular cheat tool, which he also specified how to obtain, to inject code into the live game to cheat. The violation is the code injection. Of course the company doesn't like people cheating or encouraging others to cheat either, as that messes things up for everyone.
As I recall, several cases have already been won on copyright infringement against code injection cheats already.
The kid was stupid, cocky, and the company was legally required to go to court or drop it completely, something that would hurt their ability to deal with others doing this kind of thing. As to him being a kid, my understanding is they weren't able to find that out until they fired off the lawsuit.

Then his mom decided to triple down on the kids double down, and shot her mouth off at the company in her letter.
The response that would have made this entire thing go away would have been, "those videos will be removed and not uploaded again, and as he's too young to play the game, he won't be allowed to.". But no, she's too stupid or arrogant to figure that out. (Yes, there was a posting of the letter.)

I don't like companies sueing people, or taking down let's play videos or other fair use, but the courts have already said that code injection without permission isn't legal. The kid is screwed. But don't feel bad, he's a cheater that's been recruiting more cheaters, and his mouth wrote a check his ass can't cash, and his mom cosigned it..

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, it's not as bad as Hitler. I'd say it's more comparable to the tyrannical abuses of Charles I.

Re: The DMCA

[Zero__Kelvin]

You have been around here long enough to know that ridiculous drivel gets nodded up and informative and insightful posts get nodded down regularly. I am not commenting one way or another on the quality of your post, but merely saying that you should know better than to try to claim that upmods are proof of quality.

Re:The DMCA

[jeremyp]

The game is not free. If it were free, the company developing and running it would quickly go out of business since it must have at least some expenses.

Presumably the game makes money through advertising or selling players' data. Either way, if nobody is playing the game because of all the cheaters, the company's revenue stream will dry up.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheating in multiplayer games is deciding that your happiness is worth more than other peoples. It shows a complete lack of character that will undoubtedly manifest in other areas of that person's life, wherever they think they can get away with it. Pretty much the same as littering, from a moral standpoint.

This kid wasn't merely cheating, he was encouraging others to do so and telling them how in exchange for views and thus money from YouTube. The DMCA is probably the wrong avenue to pursue this, but I'm fine with him being taken to court. If someone posted a video showing the "best places to fly tip in national parks" I'd be 100% OK with them being held accountable for that too.

Finally: it's quite likely that what this kid did IS against UK law: he probably violated the game's TOS, which would revoke any license he had to duplicate or access the game, in exchange for views and thus money from YouTube. It'd be a civil matter rather than a criminal one as it is in the "land of the free", but still illegal. It's against the law to walk into a bank wearing a motor helmet (a genuinely victimless crime), because the terms of entry are that you don't, so in doing so you are tresspassing. In neither case is it important that the injured party charged money for access to the thing they imposed conditions on - it's still illegal to ignore them. Generally such trespasses are dealt with by a warning, which in this instance the kid thumbed his nose at, so I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

Re: The DMCA

[dougdonovan]

idiots...they should hire him.

Re:The DMCA

[brainnolo]

Sir, should I ever need a lawyer I will make sure to contact you. Yours, The Devil

Re: The DMCA

[BronsCon]

I was talking about the moderation of my own post. Did you maybe mean to reply to the guy above me who was actually complaining?

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Hah! Well, I was half joking and half serious. While comparing a copyright law to the act of killing millions of Jews is a bit of a stretch (the point I was trying to highlight with the joke), problems you're currently dealing with are always worse than problems you've already dealt with (the point I was trying to highlight with the bit about the broken leg and stubbed toe, which supported the joke). Once both problems have been dealt with, the severity of the events comes back into play.

Of course Hitler is the worse of the two, but one also must consider that, until last January, the DMCA was actively defending Hitler's work. Being a current problem and defending one of the worst past problems we've dealt with? It's pretty hard to not put it near the top of the list of current atrocities when you look at it from all angles. Hell, when it's dead and gone (hopefully that will happen), it won't be far behind Hitler himself on the the list of past atrocities, ordered by severity.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Was the cheat for PvP or PvE mode? Why, it was for PvP mode, of course! Nobody cares about other players cheating in their single-player or co-op games, bro; a PvE cheat wouldn't have made news and certainly wouldn't harm the company in any way unless they were offering real-world prizes for certain achievements, which they're not.

We're talking about a cheat that gives one player an advantage over others in PvP, thus PvE, which is solo or co-op and not against other players, is completely irrelevant.

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is free to play you idiot. I don't see one ad. That's what proxy servers r for.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is literally worse than thirteen Hitlers.

Re: The DMCA

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, but it's really not that important.

Re: The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Of course it's not, you were wrong so you want to drop it. This is what happens when you (not you specifically; the three of you here who feel the need to constantly come at me) decide to take what you think is an easy shot before you've take then time to actually process what I've written.

Honestly, if I didn't set my own work schedule, I wouldn't have time to deal with you all; but you're entertaining and, thus, worth my time. Much cheaper than going to the movies.

Sad, really, that you've taken this direction, though. I used to respect you.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

By driving other players away from the game through cheating (a violation of EULA), the kid is damaging the reputation of the game and of the developers and publishers. This is a fully reasonable and traditional lawsuit, with the possible exception of state laws protecting minors - in which case the suit should be against the parents.

Re: The DMCA

[Zero__Kelvin]

I wasn't wrong dumbfuck. You tried to claim that being modded up was some kind of proof your post was insightful even though you should know that there is often no such correlation. I tried to give you a pass for being too stupid to understand that and let it drop, but you just couldn't rest until you proved you were an idiot one more time.

Re: The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Oh, you see, I wasn't claiming that upmods were proof of anything; so, when you said you were "merely saying that you should know better than to try to claim that upmods are proof of quality", I assumed you replied to the wrong post. One gains insight from experience, I have experience with the actual game in question. However, as I am sure you will agree, even legitimate insight does not ensure a quality post, thus I was still not speaking to the quality of my post but, merely, as to why it might have been moderated Insightful. Follow?

Re:The DMCA

[doccus]

Wasn't that the definition of American lifestyle?

Er...the "walmart lifestyle"? 'cept they're not always drunk...

Re: The DMCA

[Zero__Kelvin]

"That is why my comment was modded Insightful."

enough said ... Have a nice day.

Re: The DMCA

[BronsCon]

You do the same, my friend.;)

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

I didn't say their suit wasn't valid or warranted, I said they'll have a hard time proving damages. I agree with everything you said.

Re:The DMCA

[LeftCoastThinker]

Free to play |= free. Epic spent well over $50M in development of Fortnite which started at least in 2011. Their monetization/game payback may well be ruined by cheaters. I take cheating just as seriously in online games as if I were on the ball field. The only difference is the opposing team won't come beat your ass up for cheating online, but it is still a big issue. Companies invest millions in online games, players invest their time and effort, and cheating little shits can ruin it and should be banned and sued. As a culture we should shun anyone who would cheat someone else, out of money, time or anything else, and that is what online cheaters do, and in doing it they damage the entire community.

Cheating in single player offline games is a totally different issue. If you want to cheat in your single player games, I am pretty sure no one gives a shit.

Re:The DMCA

[LeftCoastThinker]

Whoever modded you insightful is a complete moron. Epic invested over $50M in the development of Fortnite and has spent years developing it (since at least 2011). Free to play |= free. They may not have rolled out their monetization strategy yet, but if cheaters ruin the game and chase off the player base, they stand to lose all of their investment and the cheaters would naturally be on the hook to pay them back.

What cheaters like you clearly do not understand is that cheating in nearly all circumstances damages the online community in some way, which in turn damages the game that relies on that community staying healthy and growing. An online game with no players is a dead game. Companies invest a lot of time and money to make games successful, but with online games, you also have to have the player base and players who will invest their time in the game. If cheaters ruin that, the game is over.

I am sure that even you would not tolerate cheating in a game of football or basketball, why would you tolerate cheating in your online games? The only difference is, cheating in real life is likely to get you an ass kicking, whereas virtually you just ruin others play experience and then the game company comes after you with a huge lawsuit for ruining their game and bankrupts your ass for the rest of your life.

OTOH, go ahead and cheat all you want in your offline or single player games, but I don't think you have a clue how the courts would view this.

Re:The DMCA

[LeftCoastThinker]

No, you are 100% wrong. Epic has ALREADY invested millions in the development of the game. Anything that damages the game or player base can be judged against that investment. Just because a company allows you to use their software and is not currently monetizing it does not give you carte-blanc to do whatever you want.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

What cheaters like you clearly do not understand is that cheating in nearly all circumstances damages the online community in some way

Quite presumptuous of you, don't you think? Honestly, what makes you think I'm a cheater? Hint: I'm not and I don't purport to support this kid's actions.

Epic would be wise to seek an injunction against the kid to force the video offline and prevent him from releasing similar videos in the future, and drop this lawsuit until they're ready to monetize the game, then sue for damages if the behavior continues despite the injunction. You know, when there are actual provable damages and they have a chance of being awarded something.

Re:The DMCA

[BronsCon]

Epic has ALREADY invested millions in the development of the game. Anything that damages the game or player base can be judged against that investment.

That's not how it works; the game still exists, he hasn't stolen it from them, forced it offline, or done anything else to remove it from Epic's possession -- they still have 100% of the work product of their investment; and they're not monetizing it so they're not losing sales as a result of the kid's actions. There are no provable damages. Note my use of the word provable, as that makes all the difference in court. I'm not saying the actions of cheaters don't damage the game, they most assuredly do, but the courts will want some proof of the value of the damage. Epic jumped the gun on suing this kid and, while IANAL, I do have a fair amount of legal background and expertise and I'm confident the judge will advise them that they should have, instead, sought an injunction. This lawsuit will delay that, unless they file that separately, as they aren't currently seeking any sort of injunction and, near as I can tell, haven't so much as reached out to the kid (or they'd have known he was just a kid and filed against the parents -- an error they have since corrected) or even sent a simple Cease and Desist request; hell, it may well prevent them from obtaining such an injunction if the courts believe they are acting in bad faith.

Just because a company allows you to use their software and is not currently monetizing it does not give you carte-blanc to do whatever you want.

I never said it did, now, did I? No, I merely pointed out that they'll have a hell of a time proving damages in court.

I love how everyone replying to me is attacking the kid, and me at the same time, as though I was defending him when, in reality, all I was doing was pointing out the legal reality of the case: they have no provable damages. That doesn't mean they're unharmed, or that the kid wasn't wrong, it just means they're highly unlikely to see a positive outcome at trial. That's all.

Y'all read too much into shit.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing anyone but mass-murdering genocidal dictators to Hitler shows that you have no grasp of history.

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the game is required to have certain information clientside or else it would be completely unplayable or highly unstable. It's like peeking at face-down cards during poker; the cards are there, they are present, but are hidden unless you go out of your way to look at or otherwise identify them in some manner. This is an inherent problem in real-time games, but in turn-based ones everything can be concealed from each player.

Re:The DMCA

[XxtraLarGe]

Perhaps you should stop using the abreviation which you obviously don't know what it means. Hint: the D in DMCA stands for digital.

I thought the D in DMCA stood for Disney?

Re:The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

By all means feel free to point out all the online shooters that are cheat free. I mean, making a cheat free game is SO easy! It's not like the product is in the hands of an adversarial coder who will reverse engineer and dig into your code to find the smallest mistakes to exploit... oh, it is?

Clearly Epic should be writing perfect code. That's easy, right? Games are a small project so it shouldn't be hard, yeah? Oh, they aren't? Hmm...

Re: The DMCA

[Ocker3]

Apparently he didn't create the hack, he just streamed a public demonstration of it and told people which website he got it from.

Re: The DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, shut the hell up with that basic logic. Software companies are evil, and if they didn't want me to kill them with a bullet to the brain, they should have grown stronger skulls.

Re:The DMCA

[ausekilis]

The developer is EPIC Games. You may have heard of them.. They build and license the Unreal Engine, which has been used by Gearbox for Borderlands and their Batman titles and dozens of other games, including their own Unreal Tournament. They are also former developers of the Gears of War series (until that was bought by Microsoft).

I'm not sure what the revenue stream is for Fortnite, but as a company they certainly aren't Gazillion entertainment. They make money elsewhere.

Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

The studio is suing b/c the kid refused to comply with their DMCA notice. While there is a legitimate debate over whether the DMCA notice was justified, the age (or health, political views, sexual preference, etc) of the alleged defender is not an issue.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the age is part of the issue. You cannot expect a child to read and understand a takedown notice.

Re:Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Registered Coward v2]

The studio is suing b/c the kid refused to comply with their DMCA notice. While there is a legitimate debate over whether the DMCA notice was justified, the age (or health, political views, sexual preference, etc) of the alleged defender is not an issue.

Depends on contract law. I some places a person under a certain age cannot enter into a legal contract and thus any language in an EULA that prohibits publishing cheat codes might be unenforceable since no contract existed. Even if it was, snippets would be fair use and not a copyright violation. My guess they want dto scare the kid but just experienced an epic fail.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Epic is a stupid pile of shit, yes.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[ShanghaiBill]

Of course the age is part of the issue. You cannot expect a child to read and understand a takedown notice.

Except that the kid effectively filed a counterclaim to the takedown notice. How could he have done that if he didn't understand it? He also posted a Youtube video where he discusses the case, and seems to have a pretty solid understanding of what is going on.

I hope he wins, but his age does not reduce the legitimacy of Epic's lawsuit. The law applies to everyone.

Also, why is an American legal case about an American law only being reported on by a British website?

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me until you said --

The law applies to everyone.

CAP === 'messes'

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

But THINK of the CHILDREN!

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[sjames]

Kids manage to do a LOT of things without understanding the implications. That's why they have a special status in legal matters.

There would be a good case for nullifying the notice (not sent to parent/guardian), the counternotice (not filed by legally competent person) and the lawsuit (incorrectly filed, arising from nullified notice and counternotice).

This is the sort of confusion that happens when law degenerates to lobbing grenades over the wall rather than first engaging with the other party and then getting the courts involved only when that fails.

As for the rest, they may be within their legal rights to sue the parent (+/- the null documents) but that doesn't make it morally right or socially acceptable.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[F.Ultra]

The law does not apply to everyone. Now I don't know how it works in the UK but where I live you cannot take a 14-year old to court no matter what they do. This is not to say there children below the age of 15 can do what ever they like without consequences but they cannot be tried in a court of law (or a civil court).

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean... The children playing the game right? Poor bastards... Yeah, think of them!!!

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... IANAL but I don't think that's how it works.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[aliquis]

Because globalism.

People in the UK even though their great empire may be less ignorant ran people in the US I suppose if this surprise you.

Then again why is British coverage of it on an American ... whatever you want to call this site nowadays?

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[angel'o'sphere]

Dude, in the US there are states where 12 year olds can get executed for murder.
Other states prosecute 10 year old boys for sexual assault when they help their 8 year old sister to pee.
The ten year old in that case was brought into court with chains at the feet and hands cuffed to his back ...
The USA is the country of absurdities, most specially in regards to laws or court rulings.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[meerling]

I knew about this the other day from reporting that's in the US.
The copyright part is about the cheat, it's using code injection, something the courts have already nailed people for. The kid has very little chance of winning as there is precedence, and it's against him.

It's true I hate the cheaters, but I also don't think altering anything in memory of your own computer is a copyright violation, but the courts have declared that it is, so it's kind of not a fair use since it involves breaking the law as it is currently interpreted.

(ianal)

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[F.Ultra]

Yes it does. Back in 1998 two boys (age 5 and 7) where determined by police to have murdered a 4 year old boy. Since they where both under the legal age or 15 the case was never tried in a court of law. Which in itself perhaps was not good considering that later research have pointed to them being completely innocent (and a court case might have been able to find that out).

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[F.Ultra]

I have never understood why the US have been so angry towards Iran and other such hard core sharia countries when they obviously share a lot beliefs. Or perhaps it's that very thing that creates the conflict.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans only care about money. They have no souls, no social skills, no respect for nature and no zeal for life. They are dreary and uncultured.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Point 1: MYTH. The supreme court completely abolished executing minors in 2005, and even ignoring that the state minimum is 16. After the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 all juvenile offenders who were executed were 17 (except one who was 16) at the time of the offense and all of them deserved it.
Point 2: I searched this and after winding up on multiple FBI watchlists and I found absolutely no reference to a case where a ten year old was brought to court in chains, or being prosecuted for helping his sister use the bathroom. So I'm going to say Forwards-From-Granny tier levels of MYTH.

Re: Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age

[Anonymous Coward]

Two weeks later you still don't cite. I guess we can consider you to be a filthy liar.

They said they didn't no?

[speedplane]

The attorneys for Epic games just filed a document with the court saying they did not know he was 14.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[sjames]

They have known for at least a week now. They are free to offer a simple out of court settlement such as "Pinky swear not to do it again and we'll drop the whole thing." They haven't done so. So, they are, in fact, knowingly suing a 14 year old over cheating in a free to play game.

Further, they initially filed a DMCA complaing (an allegation of copyright infringement). They now claim that they are obligated to sue since he filed a counter-claim. But the suit isn't for infringement. Thus, they knowingly filed a DMCA complaint where no infringement existed.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are free to offer a simple out of court settlement such as "Pinky swear not to do it again and we'll drop the whole thing."

The 14 year old can't enter into that sort of agreement; that's the whole point of the story.

On the other hand, a favourable judge could order the mother to make her son remove the offending videos. Being a minor has its perks, but it also means that a parent is legally responsible for their actions.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Megol]

As the child isn't considered an adult it is the mother that have legal responsibility. But as the person that did the things EPIC think are against the DMCA directing the suit towards the child that will in practice be swapped by the proxy (mother) it shouldn't make any difference.

Unless my understanding of the legal system in the US is wrong that is. Wouldn't be surprised.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[sjames]

They are free to drop the suit. They haven't. End of story. They are knowingly suing a 14 year old (through a parent). The court filing is hust to ammend the suit with the mother's name and the kid's initials. They are affirmatively suing a 14 year old for cheating in a free to play game.

Parents should take note that letting their kids playing Epic games is a liability, at least until Epic becomes less sue happy.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[sjames]

I well understand that. OP was trying to apologize for Epic, claiming they just "didn't know" they were acting like scumballs. I pointed out that they damned well know it now and it hasn't apparently changed their plans.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[apoc.famine]

"We sued someone and didn't even know how old they were."

If you know that little about who you are suing, isn't that grounds for it to be thrown out immediately?

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Aighearach]

No, your understanding of the US legal system is wrong. I am not a lawyer, so so is mine! But here is my understanding.

Parents are financially responsible for their children. Legal responsibility does not otherwise pass through to them. The contract is either valid for the minor, or it isn't. Contracts with children are often valid to the extent that the service was provided, but provisions restricting the cancellation of the contract don't apply. Also, the company is usually required to have to considered the person's age and if the contract was reasonable for a child. So if a child orders a steak dinner, it is reasonable to expect them to pay for it. If they order a $5000 "world's biggest cake" then the service provider would likely need to verify the order, either by verifying ability to pay, or talking to his parents.

For example, cell phone charges in a game are not valid if the child might not have realized they were making repeat purchases. But simply buying a game is a legit charge. Children can enter into financial contracts, but there is an increased requirement of reasonableness, and a decreased expectation that they understood what they were agreeing to. If everybody agrees they understood a contract, and the contract is reasonable, then it is valid.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Suppose you walk into the office tomorrow and you find a bunch of graffiti on the wall, signed by the artist with their name, address and telephone number. You can then sue the artist, who may later turn out to have been a twelve year old.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[dcollins117]

My understanding is that you file suit against a minor he is appointed a "legal guardian" (usually a state attorney to assume responsibility for the lawsuit) by the court. I think the mother may have financial responsibility but not legal responsibility for the actions of her children. IANAL, though.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that there are copies of that video and we get the streisand effect (the video gets posted all over the internet)

Re:They said they didn't no?

[meerling]

Well there the issue that he disputed it, so he's already saying he will do it again. And his mom chimed in backing him up, so they can't expect her to do her parental duty and prevent him from doing something he's not supposed to be doing that illegal act he recorded in the first place on a game he's not supposed to be playing because he's too young.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[sjames]

He disputed that it was a copyright violation (and he was probably right). The mother also disputes that it is a copyright infringement and that there are any actual damages. That doesn't at all mean she wouldn't be willing to insist that her son not do it again in order to avoid a protracted legal battle. It may even be that the son has decided Epic are a bunch of lamers anyway by now.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are suing a 14 year old kid, through his legal guardian, for violating the terms of use and driving other customers away, damaging the reputation of the game and hindering any further possible development or monetization options.

If a company is giving away free healthy food, and a kid comes along and tries to relabel or resell the free food, it is perfectly reasonable for the company to sue the kid (or their guardian). Now, it's not a perfect analogy, of course, as physical and digital goods don't match up, but the issue here is the damage to the reputation and brand, not the actual loss of a sale to the kid.

Re:They said they didn't no?

[sjames]

So you're saying they illegally used the DMCA when their real issue was brand disparagement?

They may have a case

[mattventura]

Not sure if it went anywhere, but Blizzard was trying to sue a cheat producer a while back. Basically, the logic was "the EULA is a license to use this copyrighted work, if you break the EULA then you no longer have a license, thus cheaters are pirates". So making a video on how to cheat could very well be some kind of contributory copyright infringement. Not saying I agree with it or that it's not an overreaction, but I'm certainly not going to rush to defend an avowed cheater, 14 y/o or otherwise.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

Their EULA also says that a minor has to have their parents permission to accept it. He didn't have it and clicked I Agree regardless These EULA are trash and can't be enforced. The parent isn't required to sign anything to prove they provided their consent. Any good lawyer would be able to disregard it entirely. Not to mention, local laws have precedent over these EULA.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

Are such shrink wrap licenses enforceable?

Re:They may have a case

[war4peace]

Then people would upload footage from other players, thus no longer breaking the EULA.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

The Blizzard thing was to sue someone to prevent them from selling cheat software for World of Warcraft. They don't even need to do that to DMCA a video from YouTube. All video game footage is inherently derived from a copyrighted source and can't be posted without the permission of the copyright holder. (This was decided in court cases that date back to the 90s and VHS "tip videos" that game manufacturers wanted to shut down to force people to buy their own hint guides.) All Epic has to do is say that they own the original copyrighted work (and they do), and they can tell YouTube to take down any video of their work.

The lawsuit came because the kid tried to counter the DMCA claim, which means that Epic has to respond by filing suit. The kid WILL lose: Epic owns the copyright on the game and all footage of it.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

14 or 85, torture all cheaters to death. It's the only way to be sure.

Re: They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Only the dumb think so.

Re:They may have a case

[mattventura]

It's a free to play game in this case, so I doubt there's really even a shrink wrap license to begin with. But for the sake of argument, let's say that the license issue is a non-starter. If you get banned, you're no longer authorized to access that computer service, and unauthorized access to a computer system is illegal under its own set of laws. IANAL so I don't know if this logic has actually been put to the test in court.

Re: They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion

Re:They may have a case

[Megol]

If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. He not only demonstrated that he:
1) Used the software without accepting the EULA (he couldn't legally do that himself and the mother say she didn't accept it).
    Proof: videos of him playing the game.
2) Broke the EULA which is the only thing that permits use of the software.
    Proof: videos of him breaking the rules of the EULA.

The only way to legally use the software is to agree with the EULA.
If the kid didn't have permission than he was involved in piracy - a criminal act.
As he isn't considered an adult the mother will have to take responsibility of the crime.

The DMCA thing is shit (and the idea behind the DMCA is and have always been). Doesn't change simple facts.
Hope the family doesn't add to their legal problems by not acting responsible.

Re: They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright license is a license by the copyright holder to others to... copy. Since it is the game company who made the copy for this gamer to use, they have nothing to revoke. This gamer isn't making copies of their game, he isn't violating their copyright and any "license" they dreamed they gave to him doesn't apply. He doesn't need their license to USE the copy they gave him. And, as someone else pointed out, small snippets of game play usd in an original work, are fair use, they are the multimedia equivalent of a quote with citation.

Even the evil part of DMCA about circumventing protections doesnt apply here because the kid didn't circumvent protections in order to make a copy.

They also cant resort to the old computer abuse act and say he is illegally obtaining access to their servers, because that also isn't true.

They can block him from using their servers, that's pretty much it. They are so lame.

Re:They may have a case

[Megol]

This isn't a shrink wrap license. But the answer is: sometimes, generally not.

This is a case where one have to accept a license with rules in order to get the right to use the software. Something completely different.

One could make a comparison with some open source licenses including the GPL (yeah, I know better than open source FREE yada yada).
One can't legally do something against the copyright without getting permission.

In this case the permission is given by accepting the license and doing some action to indicate that one have indeed read the crap and accept it. Then one can use the copyrighted software as long as one follows the rules given in the EULA.
In the GPL case it is restricted to distribution of the software, but the same thing applies. By distributing GPL software one by that action indicate than one indeed have read the rules and accept them. And one can continue to distribute the software as long as one follows the rules given.

Re:They may have a case

[OrangeTide]

the EULA is a license to use this copyrighted work,

Except I don't need an EULA to use a copyrighted work. Copyright law applies to my right to copy it. DMCA applies to providing information, services or products that are used to circumvent copyright. Interpretation outside of this is suspicious and can lead us into absurdly extreme hypothetical legal situations.

I can certainly agree to an EULA in exchange for something. Violating that EULA is not a copyright violation but a civil law case. Damages are possible. Revoking my access to products or services is typical with any sort of contract violation.

Not a totally accurate analogy, but it is like a landlord charging a tenant with criminal trespass (or breaking and entering) if they are a day late on their rent payment. It makes a weird logical sense if you interpret the law in an absurd way, but that's not how late payments generally play out. (eventually if you're removed and keep returning, it becomes a criminal issue between you and local police department and no longer a civil matter)

Re:They may have a case

[Aighearach]

No, it is a free game, if he didn't have a license to play it, they can kick him off that is all.

You don't have to have special contractual permission to do things for free. If you didn't provide any "consideration" (=money) to play the game, then the terms are only what they're allowed to do, it is just notice of their policies, it isn't a contract at all.

They can call it a "license" till they are blue in the face, but if you're not republishing their work you don't need any "license."

Also, their DMCA request was bogus and has nothing to do with EULAs.

"Free" software can be "used" however long it remains functioning. That's just the way it is. Sorry. It isn't enough to put a sign on your software that says, "Payment of $35 due if you use this software past 30 days." That doesn't create a requirement to pay anything! It is up to the software creator to build the software to cease functioning. OTOH, if you pay $5 for a 30 day paid trial, and it says the same thing, well then you do have a contract since you paid money and received something for it, so now they can hold you to the $35 payment.

"Piracy" is a criminal act because it involves theft of physical property on the high seas. Pirates are best dealt with by throwing them overboard, IMO.

Re:They may have a case

[thegarbz]

Blizzards argument was that the cheat modified the game and thus was in breach of the EULA of the copyrighted work.

On the other hand making a video about how to cheat is fair game.

Re:They may have a case

[pots]

The parent didn't describe the case entirely accurately. The claim that Blizzard made was that in order you play the game you need to make a copy - you copy from your hard drive to RAM. This copy is authorized if you're abiding by the EULA, but not authorized if you're in violation of the EULA. Thus they claimed that this particular botting software was a copyright circumvention tool.

The court agreed with them, and so that's how it is.

Re:They may have a case

[barc0001]

But if they have a point then so does the boy's mother when she says he isn't legally able to accept the EULA. Because, you know, he's not an adult. Hopefully Epic pushes this hard, and then the case gets picked up on the defense by the EFF and goes all the way to trial because I'd love to see the look on the C level execs' faces at Epic when the court rules that he didn't breach the EULA because he couldn't agree to it legally, and OH BY THE WAY, Epic (and all other game companies) need to put measures in place to stop non-adults playing their games or remove their EULAs entirely if they want non-adults to play them.

That would indeed be Epic.

Re:They may have a case

[barc0001]

"If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. "

That's not piracy dumbass. That's Epic allowing someone to 'sign' a contract despite not legally being able to. And that is a huge can of worms for Epic and all other game companies to one day deal with as in that situation EPIC IS AT FAULT for allowing it. Just like if your 12 year old kid walks into a phone store and signs a contract for a phone. If that happens someone is in legal shit, and that someone is the phone store.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

The court agreed with them, and so that's how it is.

That is a lie. The case has not yet been heard. If the ending judgement is such that moving bits from a hard drive into RAM constitutes copyright infringement, be prepared for an epic storm of lawsuits.

Re:They may have a case

[pots]

The case is from 2009, how has it not been heard?

Also: what do you mean "lie"? Even if there have been some bizarre legal shenanigans to reverse what I said there, at worst it would be a mistake. You seem to be unnecessarily insulting.

Re:They may have a case

[meerling]

EULAs are questionable and I don't think they've gone all the way through a good case yet, but that's besides the point.
The courts have already nailed several cheaters for violating copyright by injecting code into the game in memory to alter it (to cheat). Wanna guess what the cheat the kid was showing does? That's right, it injects code. So with several cases as precedent for that exact thing, yeah he's screwed.

Re:They may have a case

[meerling]

The issue isn't the license, it's the copyright violation from the use of the cheat tool.

Re:They may have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, the logic was "the EULA is a license to use this copyrighted work, if you break the EULA then you no longer have a license, thus cheaters are pirates".

When did they return the (now former) player's money?

Re:They may have a case

[mattventura]

I know reading TFH is hard but it's a free game.

Because at least Hitler...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had the good sense to off himself. The DMCA/senators who voted it in on the other hand...

There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[dryriver]

Aside from the small indy developers, all the big guys are run by MBAs from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other business schools. These people do not understand how to make good games. They do not understand that if you want 60 - 100 Dollars from a kid or teenager for a game that their ADULT PARENTS have to work to pay for, you have to actually provide something in return. All they understand is how to MONETIZE piss-average games with very, very simple game mechanics that 1 or 2 experienced coders could actually write on their own in under a year. The reason they GAMIFY everything in all the big games with ranks, achievements, micro-payments, unlocks and so forth is because there is virtually NO content in these games. These games are mashups of game mechanics invented back in the 90s, with some pretty 3D graphics and sound effects thrown in. And by the way, the people that create the actual 3D artwork, animation and other "content" for these games work under very bad conditions, with little job security, long hours, crunch periods and other nastiness.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[dryriver]

To add one more important detail to this rant, the PVE edition of the game in question - Fortnite - costs 150 Dollars to buy: https://www.epicgames.com/fort... So much for "free to play". No wonder young kids addicted to "achieving something" in these games are looking for ways to cheat.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

The small makers are turning to shit too.

Everything is now early access and forever beta never finished shit.

Along with the thousands of cookie cutter titles that look like they belong in the 90's

The golden age of gaming is over.
Now we're in the aol age of gaming. credit card required gameplay equipment.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the small indy developers,...These people do not understand how to make good games.

So.. aside from the studios making good games, no studios are making good games?

Look, AAA games have been shit for a decade and a half. Maybe more. You want good games, buy from the mid size guys. Obsidian, Larian, InXile, others like those. Or even small guys like Harebrained Schemes, Almost Human, etc. They make good games, DRM-free, no online activation, no micro transactions, no "loot boxes" shit. Fun games, massively better than the Skinner-box shit from the AAA guys.

There are excellent choices out there. Don't support the shitty studios and then complain that modern games are shit.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[damnbunni]

The game costs $40 to buy.

There is a $150 edition, but that's actually THREE copies of the game, plus some other crapola.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't like either the product/service or the price and terms under which it is being offered, then they shouldn't play it. Find another product or work on their own. Is that so hard to understand? It's not like Epic has a monopoly on some basic platform that everyone uses.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[dryriver]

>>> Along with the thousands of cookie cutter titles that look like they belong in the 90's Those titles were actually INNOVATIVE in the 1990s. The mechanics were new. The graphics and sound were new. Today's "cookie cutter" copies are trying to sell old game concepts to new teens and tweens who were not around in the 1990s and thus often do not realize that they are being sold an OLD car posing as a NEW car. Sad.

Re: There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the world of retardware game engines for millennials.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[dryriver]

Except that kids under the age of 18 are not adults often DO NOT have the good sense to recognize that they are being sold shit in a nice package. These games are essentially software TOYS sold to kids who pay for those toys with their parents' money.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

14 year old boys are experts on video games and how much they're worth, they can make those evaluations much better than their parents can. BTW from the name "Caleb Rogers" I'm guessing we're not talking about some disadvantaged youth.

Re: There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[dryriver]

The game engine itself actually lets you build just about any game mechanic you can write out in code. But the bar of what constitutes "clever game mechanics" has been set so low in recent years by trashy AAA games that repeat 90s crap over and over again that these "millenial developers" probably have no clue that BETTER MECHANICS are actually possible. What game can you show me in 2017 that has mechanics so new and brilliant that young developers can actually learn from the mechanics?

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the small indy developers... All they understand is how to MONETIZE piss-average games with very, very simple game mechanics that 1 or 2 experienced coders could actually write on their own in under a year.

Don't forget about all the small, independent developers monetizing shovelware on mobile applications, including main targeting kids. You can't blame this on MBA-types. And maybe you got luck in the past, but I remember plenty of bad games from the 80s, made by very small teams using misleading advertisement and basically made their money from people not realizing they were buying crap until it was too late. So don't act like this is a recent phenomena, as I remember saving up allowance and getting screwed over 30+ years ago by crappy video games.

As much as people want to spin a yarn that supports their issue du jour by citing the existence of half-assed products and predatory tactics of business, those shitty products and practices have existed for a long time in many forms. It seems far more likely that making a quick buck the laziest way possible is a fundamental temptation of nearly all people, regardless of if they are wearing a suit a big corp or self-employed one-person operation, regardless of the market they are playing in, and regardless of decade.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[sehryan]

But you don't have to buy the PvE version to access the PvP version. You technically download them both, I think, but the game's logic doesn't let you access vanilla Fortnite, just Battle Royale.

So it is, in fact, free to play.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Calydor]

Someone should introduce the millenials to a SNES emulator and a stash of ROMs. Just sayin'.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[pezezin]

The millenials were born between the early 80's and the late 90's, so many of us already played the SNES and the Megadrive back when they were the hottest thing on the streets.

Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left

[Anonymous Coward]

muhmuhmuhmuhlennialllssss are a made-up demographic used by the media to stir up anger towards a non-existent concept. There are no "Millenials", there is no "avocado toast", and they're not killing businesses. They're a bogeyman that makes grown men jump at shadows and fake news rub their hands together and say "We can manufacture outrage and monetize it!"

I did not agree to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

so it sounds kinda odd.

Fix the fucking game!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of legal action they should taking coding action to prevent these sorts of abuses from being possible...

I learnt as a kid if you don't want someone to take something don't leave it where it can be taken... leave your bike on the street it will be stolen... write shitty code it will be hacked..

PSA on behalf of "the internet"...

Thank the kid and close the holes....

Re:Fix the fucking game!!!

[CaffeinatedTech]

That was my first thought. Must be cheaper and better publicity to go to court than to fix it.

Re:Fix the fucking game!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every cheat can simply be patched away. For the most part, sure, you can prevent lots of hacks by simply not trusting the client with anything. You don't let the client tell the server what's in your inventory, what your ammo count is, etc.

There are some things however that you just can't prevent, no matter how hard you try. Things that aim for you, things that reveal information that is otherwise critical for the game to know but aren't readily known to the player, IE: Wall hacks.

They could implement gameguard or something like that, but those aren't foolproof. Those programs are also known to be invasive and frankly, dangerous for one's computer at times.

There comes a point where it has to become handled socially.

Re:Fix the fucking game!!!

[rhazz]

Instead of legal action they should taking coding action to prevent these sorts of abuses from being possible...

They do, constantly, just like most other developers of popular online games. They also ban the accounts of people they detect cheating. The problem is simply one of reality, in that game developers only have a limited amount of control over the application running on the client machine, and can't simply prevent that machine from running every other program. In the case of fortnite it is somewhat compounded by the fact that the game is free to play, and a ban isn't particularly effective against determined cheaters, especially ones that would monetize their cheating by making youtube videos. Being banned from a free game just costs a little bit of time.

Here is the Youtube channel

[fleabay]

This is a link to his video talking about the Lawsuit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Here is the Youtube channel

[Fly Swatter]

Why would I give him more yucktube views, hes apparently a cheater.

Re:Here is the Youtube channel

[dryriver]

But then the Streisand Effect doesn't work anymore and Youtube goes out of business. =( Sniff.

Re:Here is the Youtube channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much cheaters screw up the multiplayer gaming experience, I'd rather have this kid actually suffer some kind of consequence. As it stands, people like you are just emboldening him to keep doing what he's doing.

Re:Here is the Youtube channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's just a kid, and treating him as a criminal is just awful.

If he can log into the game without age verification then it's the companies fault. end of story. He's not old enough to be held liable for any TOS or crap like that. Furthermore, most TOS click-through agreements would not stand up in court for adults either.

The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[dryriver]

Many moons ago, software industry lobbyists went to court in the U.S. claiming that software "cannot be bought or owned" by the paying customer. They claimed that the buyer can only attain a "limited LICENSE to USE a software product under CERTAIN conditions". The legal argument behind the whole LICENSE aspect was that because CODE is copied from one component in a computer to another during use - from floppy disk to RAM to CPU for example - the software user is essentially making a COPY of the software just by running it on a computer, and thus needs a LICENSE to do so. Somehow this resulted in today's EULAs, where, basically, the software manufacturer has all the RIGHTS in the world, and the paying software buyer has does not even - legally - OWN the copy of the software he or she paid hard cash for.

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are playing a free-to-play online multiplayer game, at what point can you claim to own anything?

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[dryriver]

Bad attempt at derailing what I wrote. I pointed out where EULAs in general come from, and that they have a very shaky legal basis.

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Anonymous Coward]

And they failed to get any special exemptions for Eula, existing contract law and first sale doctrine still applies.

A contract applied after the sale that you canâ(TM)t read and are not given any consideration for limiting your rights is no contract at all. Itâ(TM)s called a contract of adhesion and generally not enforceable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Anonymous Coward]

Only posing a question. I'm playing LoL as I write this. Is it fair for me to cheat, for example to have software to accurately click my cursor to ensure I always hit my skillshots, or to press keys faster an more accurately than any human could?

What's my incentive to not cheat? To be a decent human being? This is the Internet! I feel Riot would well be within their rights to revoke my access to the game. What rights? Those in the EULA.

A properly written EULA enshrines fairness and common sense as a legal contract. There are plenty of shit EULAs out there, but without the concept of a EULA, there would be chaos.

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Megol]

But not in this case. If this EULA isn't legally binding the users have no right to download or use the software!

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Rockoon]

Thats like saying "If property rights didnt exist, you would have no right to take my things!"

You are giving an argument from opposite world.

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[ravenshrike]

Except no one's saying that Epic doesn't have the right to revoke his access to the game, but nice strawman.

Re: The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Did you read what you wrote?

Re:The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it would be possible to create DMA accessible CD-ROM drives and map the code on the disc directly into memory without ever making a copy, especially a firewire drive.

The copy from RAM to CPU is silly and it is not really a copy. It would be the same as having a license to a book but not being allowed to use your eyes to read it.

Corey Doctorow is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair Use is only established when the use of copyrighted material expand the market for the work such material is taken from.

Video game cheating probably does not expand the market for the game in question.

Re:Corey Doctorow is wrong

[dryriver]

You work for the video game industry, don't you, AC? ;-)

Re:Corey Doctorow is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so wrong, my friend:

Under the fair use doctrine, it is not an infringement to use the copyrighted works of another in some circumstances, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, or educational use.

It would be trivial for the 14 year old to argue commentary, crticism or educational use in this case, most likely the last.

Godwin'd in one post.

[mark-t]

What's I find interesting is that it's actually been modded up as insightful.

I shudder to think what the implications of that are.

Re:Godwin'd in one post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling things 'Hitler' or 'nazi' that you do not like is in fashion. As is using it to mock those who use it as a fashion statement it is fashionable. They do not think through the idea of what Hitler was and the Nazi party he created. They think if they can label someone with that stain they can devalue what they have to say. They really do not understand they devalue the lesson from WW2 with cheap talk and sweeping generalizations.

Who in their right mind

[rsilvergun]

Would play a game you could get sued for. Yeah, yeah. Don't cheat. But whose to say they won't Sue you anyway?

Re:Who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably shouldn't drive, either. Someone might sue you for something.

Re:Who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

The very hardcore:

Super Challenge Mode: Click this button to initiate the greatest challenge we have to offer.

A team of high-priced lawyers will now look for some reason why you ought to be sued, then proceed to do so. If we win, we get all your money and then some, your house, and your car. If you win, you get a permanent 3x bonus to XP gain from all sources, 25 Federal Reserve Notes worth of premium currency, a shiny new hat for your in-game avatar, and your name in a displayed special font & color, both in-chat, and above your head.

Re:Who in their right mind

[Aighearach]

My auto liability insurance will hire and pay the lawyer if you sue me for damages related to my operating a motor vehicle.

Re:Who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

My auto liability insurance will hire and pay the lawyer if you sue me for damages related to my operating a motor vehicle.

Nope! You didn't read the fine print.

Re: Who in their right mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Just try to run over some people and see how well it will turn out for you as a person.

Pro tip: It won't turn out well.

Well, copyright is literally legalized crime:

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were legal, then I myself could use the same logic copyright holders use, right?

So when I get hired by a couple of poor sods who pay me with money that they worked for, I can then make copies of that money, and "pay" some morons with those mere copies (aka fraud|theft|...), who, in return, must give me real actual goods, where they had to actually work for every single good. And I will have a law forbidding anyone else from making copies of that specific money (aka artificial scarcity). If anyone does it anyway, will I harass him with letters demanding outrageous amounts of goods and work (aka racketeering), and I'll call him a sea-faring rapist thug in large public advertisements that children can see.

Err, wait, I meant:

So when I hire a couple of poor sods to work for me, and create some information (data/software), I can then make copies of that information, and "sell" those mere copies to some morons (aka fraud|theft|...), who, in return, must give me real actual money, where they had to actually work for every single dollar bill. And I will have a law forbidding anyone else from making copies of that specific information (aka artificial scarcity). If anyone does it anyway, will I harass him with letters demanding outrageous amounts of money (aka racketeering), and I'll call him a sea-faring rapist thug in large public advertisements that children can see.

Re: Well, copyright is literally legalized crime:

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way you put it.

The only issue here is...

[nashv]

...legal. Not ethical.

Being 14 yeard old does not make your infringements invalid. It simply means that the consequences are somewhat milder. I don't know what the defense is here exactly. May be they are making her child a scapegoat. So what? Her entire defense is 'oh, why me? they are doing it too!' which is essentially a 5 yrs old's defense tactic used for a 14 yr old infringer.

I think this is well beyond the point of defending any wrongdoing on the 14 year old's part. Now its just a pathetic attempt by a desperate Mom to defend her kid. Actually, challenging the validity of a 14 yr old's agreement of any contract/terms of service would be a more valid legal argument.

The kid needs to wisen up.

Re:The only issue here is...

[loonycyborg]

From what I gather they sued only because he filed a counter notice. I think they shouldn't have because fair use doctrine does cover such cases: he was basically showing snippets of original work for the purpose of commentary. Even if it infringes EULA, it doesn't automatically become infringement of copyright.

Re:The only issue here is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The kid doesn't even have to challenge it. Every minor in the United States has the right to rescind a contract, at any time for any reason. Epic would have to sue _him_ to prove the validity of the contract.

They wouldn't be able to, of course. No judge is going to throw the book at a 14-year old boy for fucking with a shitty video game in his basement.

This stems from a problem with Youtube itself...

[PhantomHarlock]

The lawsuit itself is actually a result of a huge problem with YouTube's DMCA takedown system.

Youtube tries to stay out of taking sides itself in any DMCA claim, to avoid liability. Here's what happens when you use the DMCA takedown system on YouTube, which I have done so myself to remove clear infringements using my content:

You are someone who thinks there is an infringing video on youtube. You submit a DMCA takedown claim via an automated interface on YouTube.

If the claim is not responded to, the video in question is taken down. HOWEVER, if the recipient of the takedown claim files a counterclaim, the ONLY way you can counter that counter claim is to provide YouTube with evidence that you have taken legal action against the recipient, i.e. FILED A LAWSUIT.

So basically, for little guys like me with no money for legal action, you are basically up a creek. Most of the time when I file a takedown notice for clear infringement (someone just re-uploaded my video in its entirety) it's gone and doesn't come back. But one time someone decided to submit a counter claim making arguments for fair use that would assuredly fail in a court of law, but youtube again will not take sides and will leave the video up unless I provide evidence to YouTube that I have taken legal action against the counter-claimer.

In this case, since the people who submitted the takedown notice are a company with lawyer power, they CAN start a legal claim and basically MUST do so to get youtube to take down the video when the video's owner refuses to do it themselves.

There is no decision making or moderation on the part of YouTube. They just pass the buck.

Now in this case, I would be on the side of the defendant, because it appears to be a case of fair use, as is any footage of videogame play, companies trying to get you to agree to a dubious license when playing the game nonwithstanding.

But YouTube's way of handling these situations has helped bring this lawsuit upon the defendent. There is further mediation option or decision making on the part of YouTube. If you are a little guy who owns content that has been legitimately bootlegged you are screwed. If you are a big guy who owns content you have to sue. there is no moderation via youtube.

Let's hope it goes to trial

[Anonymous Coward]

This case would be the only precedent we could cite over gameplay videos being fair use.

Works only if you distribute part of the binaries

[Anonymous Coward]

For many crack you distribute part of the binaries, or for cheat circumvent part of the protection mechanism to modify the program. In case of the cheat that is the circumvention which was the problem. Here the boy does not distribute anything whatsoever, so in a fair world epic would have a hard time. unfortunately they have a lot of money and lawyer and thus can outspend the family into poverty.

Any way since when fortnite is free to play ? Fortnite is buy to play with loot box, the worst of all worlds, and a poor game at that.

Re: This stems from a problem with Youtube itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can file a John Doe lawsuit against the YouTube name in small claims court and send YouTube a copy of that. It'll cost you fifty to a hundred bucks plus some time. If you copyright isn't worth that much, it's not so much that you are up shit creek, but you want someone else to wipe your ass for you.

Don't use YouTube, get your own website and then you can sue YouTube along with the infringer.

I play Fortnite

[Trax3001BBS]

I like Fortnite, it's very much like PUBG. I don't like cheaters. If this causes concern for others so be it, maybe they will stop.

That said I've not seen any cheats/cheating in Fortnite. I shoot someone and they kill me - I'm able to see the damage I inflicted as I become a spectator at that point. And always satisfied it being a good kill.

Re:I play Fortnite

[rhazz]

Unsurprisingly I started encountering cheaters after the pvp mode went free-to-play. They are there, though the last time I played it was still pretty rare to encounter one.

It's just a game, people

[Botnet-of-People]

Do I need to duck? I really can't understand why there would be a big uproar or even a little growl about video game cheats. Cheating in elections or cheating your spouse, now those to me are SERIOUS matters. Video game cheats? Meh. Note: I don't like athletes who cheat using performance-enhancing drugs not because they cheat but because they promote the pop-inject idea that there's a chemical compound that can fix any of life's problems. I don't mind an athlete who can cheat without drugs, since I considering cheating to be an art form.

Re:It's just a game, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I need to duck? I really can't understand why there would be a big uproar or even a little growl about video game cheats.

Would you want to be at a movie and have a bunch of annoying pricks talking on phone? Someone else yelling? Then someone telling you a bunch of spoilers?

It would probably be pretty hard to enjoy the movie. You probably wouldn't be very happy about it.

Well a bunch of loser cheaters can ruin the game for everyone too.

Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[NimbleSquirrel]

One of the key elements of this case that people seem to be overlooking is that this kid registered an account (supposedly without the required parental consent), cheated in the game and got banned. Instead of stopping, he did it again and got banned again. He then did it again... and again... and again. He got banned 14 times (according to Epic Games; the kid admits to being banned, but says 'it was like 5 or 10 times'). It is clear he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he kept on doing it.

This kid also made multiple video streams that showed people how to perform the cheats as well as showing the cheats in action. This is the part that raised the DMCA claims, as Epic Games claimed that the cheat videos were an unauthorized derivative works. The kid's response was to file counterclaims (although it is clear from his lawsuit response video he has no clue what filing a counterclaim actually meant). He even created a second YouTube account to get around claims/bans. Again, it is clear he knew that he was doing something wrong, but kept on doing it. This left Epic Games with no other legal alternative but to sue.

The letter from the kid's mother doesn't even try to deny the claims from Epic Games, and she even admits he was cheating. Her defense boils down to "he was 14 years old so the rules don't apply". While the law states he cannot enter into a contract, that does not mean he cannot be legally liable for his actions. On top of this it is clear that the mother also has a legal responsibility here. She says she didn't consent to him installing the game, but that does not absolve her of the responsibilities for policing her son's actions. It is very clear from the kid's response videos he has absolutely no understanding of the repercussions of his actions and is just relying on mommy to leap to his defense.

I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.

While I normally hate DMCA cases, there is very clear evidence for the kid's utter disregard for the rules (especially if you watch his videos in response to the lawsuit), so I think he (and his mother) deserve to have a lesson. I doubt the letter to the Judge will be very persuasive here. It is not any kind of formal Motion to Dismiss the case, and many judges don't like it when people try to sidestep process.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Travelsonic]

Disregard for the rules yes, but I fail to see how that enables - morally - sound grounding for potential abuse of the DMCA unless it can be demonstrated that the actions actually do violate the DMCA, of course.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull poohie, Epic Games had alternatives. Like fixing their game. It's publicly available, they don't do any age verification so it's their fault.
This sort of stuff isn't new. It happens all the time, but most gaming studios just fix their game instead of taking kids to court. What's new is Epic Games ridiculous response.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[bsolar]

I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.

I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.

You seem to imply that to invoke fair use you need to have a proper copyright license first. Fair use is meant to allow in specific cases to re-use a copyrighted work or parts of it *without* a proper license. Even assuming the kid had no license at all, fair use is still possible.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[NimbleSquirrel]

...I fail to see how that enables - morally - sound grounding for potential abuse of the DMCA unless it can be demonstrated that the actions actually do violate the DMCA, of course.

The use of the DMCA to take down cheating howto videos is a novel concept that has yet to be tested. However, the only way to demonstrate that his actions do violate the DMCA is in Court. There is no other way. This does not automatically make it abuse. Abuse would be if a court found that concept invalid and Epic Games kept using it for DMCA takedowns anyway.

The only other reason that people seem to be claiming this as abuse is that the kid is 14 years old, but Epic Games had no way of knowing his age when filing the suit. When the kid filed the DMCA counter-notice with Youtube, Epic Games had 10 days to file a suit or drop the claims. It is highly likely if they knew he was 14 years old at that time, they would just have dropped the claim instead of risk bad publicity, but it is too late now.

As I stated in my previous post, I don't believe there is a Fair Use defense here at all. Even though the kid is a minor, there is an argument to be made that he (and/or his mother) has some kind of legal liability. I don't think Epic Games are out to crush the financial future of a 14 year old kid. That would be immoral, now they know his age. But they are making a point that they are serious about dealing with cheaters.

What I do think is going to happen here is a settlement, just like Epic Games just reached with another cheater. I guess it depends if the kid's mother is going to try and fight this.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[HermMunster]

It is an abuse. The dmca is pretty specific. If epic doesn't own the video then they cannot use the dmca to issue a takedown. To say otherwise is to cheat. Epic will first need to prove they own the video. The court would also have to hear the case where epic would have to prove it is an actual cheat. It would further have to prove harm as in monetary loss.

They have a long road ahead. They can't just pick on some 14 year old kid by threatening his family's well being. Remember the kid didn't write the cheat software, he is just showing how it is used.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does take a long time for kids to learn their lesson

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[jordanjay29]

While being 14 doesn't excuse his behavior, being 14 is part of the reason for his behavior. At 14, the brain isn't fully developed, and decision-making abilities are very different from those of adults. Adolescent brains don't always consider the consequences of their actions, even if they have encountered them before. This is one of the reasons that minors cannot legally enter into contracts or make a lot of important decisions for themselves and require a parent or legal guardian to act on their behalf. The argument that the 14 year old child didn't know what he was doing may be hard to swallow, but it's more likely he didn't understand the full ramifications of his actions, from day one.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works.

Your "argument" has no bearing on whether or not the usage is fair. The phrase "fair use" is not a random assemblage of words, it has a specific legal meaning. It is, admittedly, open ended, but that actually works against your position - society and the courts can broaden the definition at any point without violating the "ex post facto" provision.

All exercises of fair use rights are unauthorized derivative works, with respect to the copyright holder, so you can not claim that something is not fair use because it is unauthorized. Note that fair use works are, however, authorized derivative works from the perspective of the legal system.

The kid was in the wrong, but not legally. The game company should have implemented competent security for their product. It's no different from having a swimming pool without a gate - kids are going to use it - without permission - and will not understand that to be wrong. An EULA next to the swimming pool does not change things.

There is no doubt that this will be considered fair usage. The attorneys for the plaintiff will doubtless be censured for being stupid enough to name a 14 year old as the target of a lawsuit - and any claims that they didn't know the child's age will be viewed as negligence and incompetence: they should have done their research first. This could even be considered unethical practice of law: bogus lawsuits make people scared of the legal system and hence create an artificial demand for the services of lawyers, placing the legal profession in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to allowing lawyers to engage in such behaviour.

The kid's parent was also negligent and irresponsible, but not in a manner that creates a basis for punishment through the legal system.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cheat is considered a modification of Epic's Intellectual Property, and that modification is not authorized by the game's EULA, then any publication (such as a YouTube video) of the unauthorized derivative work created by those unauthorized modifications would be an IP violation, and thus subject to DMCA takedown.

It isn't a solid case, since the rules about what constitutes a derivative work a very fuzzy, but it is hardly baseless. There is no need for Epic to "prove they own the video" since they clearly, but the admission of all parties, own the original work. There is only the question of whether or not mods and cheats constitute derivative works.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was banned "5-10" times, he knows fine well that he's a little shit, and his mother lets him get away with it. This kid will go straight from school to prison and will have a criminal record with multiple convictions by the time he's 20. Both of them are garbage.

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[NimbleSquirrel]

I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.

Violating the EULA and TOS means that he had no right to capture the game footage that he did. This is the whole point. This is exactly what Epic Games are now going to argue in court. His only defense to the copyright claims in this instance is Fair Use.

There are four things judges look at to see if it is Fair Use:
1) The purpose and character of the use. The kid was capturing the video to show off the cheat mods, and to show others how to cheat at the game as well.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work. The kid was capturing gameplay footage a Copyrighted game (of which the Copyright extends to imagery and soundtrack).
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. The footage was solely of the game, and showing off his unauthorized mods to it.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market. Even though the game was free, the unauthorized cheat mods had significant impacts on other players (causing many to leave the game).

Re:Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour.

[NimbleSquirrel]

The phrase "fair use" is not a random assemblage of words, it has a specific legal meaning.

Indeed it does have a specific legal meaning. You have a point that, by definition, "fair use" is an unauthorized use. But not all unauthorized uses fall under the "fair use" defense. This is why there is even a four step test that judges use to determine if something is fair use:
The purpose and character of use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The kid made the video to show off the unauthorized cheat mods, and show other how to use the cheat mods. The video was specifically of the game (a game he used in breach of EULA and TOS, and a game did not have permission to play, according to his mother). The content solely of the game, and was not incidental to something else (as in the Lenz vs Universal case). The effects of the kid's cheating, as well as showing other how to cheat, negatively impact other players gameplay (even though the game itself was free, causing players to leave is a negative impact).

Considering this, it is pretty hard to spin this in a way it could be fair use. For a start, to any judge, it would fail the first test.

The attorneys for the plaintiff will doubtless be censured for being stupid enough to name a 14 year old as the target of a lawsuit - and any claims that they didn't know the child's age will be viewed as negligence and incompetence: they should have done their research first.

They did do research, but that can only tell them so much. This is why they use the statement 'upon information and belief' when identifying the other party (take a look at the actual filing). They have since revised their claim to state that they will only be referring to the kid by his initials. This is legal. Interestingly, they also point out that the mother has provided far more identifying information in her letter to the Judge that was outlined in the original legal filing.

And

[ArchieBunker]

signed into law by a Democrat!

Re:And

[meglon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Both chambers had a Republican majority.

https://www.senate.gov/referen...

To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

That should be plenty of information to help you understand why your comment probably looks pretty damn stupid to anyone who actually knows anything about government.

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be plenty of information to help you understand why your comment probably looks pretty damn stupid to anyone who actually knows anything about government.

I've found *very* few Americans actually understand how their government works, and rely instead on blaming the President for everything Congress does.

Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow here

[pots]

This kid puts up a video showing people how to use cheating software. Cheating software has been previously established to be a copyright circumvention tool, thus the kid was clearly committing secondary copyright infringement.

Doctorow could have pointed out that this was dumb, that this was another example of why the DMCA is bad, but instead he claims that there was no copyright infringement going on and talks a lot about how the kid is fourteen years old (as though that were important). He also makes much ado about the lawsuit - what does he expect Epic to do here? A lawsuit is the correct and appropriate legal remedy.

Re:Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow here

[HermMunster]

Untrue. The prior suits were over the sale of cheats, re: the blizzard lawsuits. Yes blizzard is right in saying it violates the anti circumvention part of the dmca. And blizzard could show harm in those cases. However, the kid is NOT guilty of secondary copyright infringement anymore so than if he were to write a letter about it or speak about it to others.

Re:Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow here

[pots]

He made an instructional video for how to implement cheating software. Properly it should be called tertiary infringement, since he's one step removed from secondary, but I don't think that's an actual legal term. His video is a tool to help implement the cheating software which is a tool to help the player commit copyright infringement.

I suppose that the question comes down to whether the video qualifies as a tool or as speech, but given that it exists only to help accomplish a given task, and not to communicate an idea, I find it difficult to picture this as a speech issue.

Re:Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow here

[Anonymous Coward]

A _monetized_ video on how to cheat. So, selling DMCA violating materials. Also, evidence of repeated CFAA violations.

So, he really did violate a bunch of horrible laws, but, he's also a cheating, abusive, troll, so I'm not sure I care if he loses. That makes this a win win case. I win if there are fewer cheaters, I win if he manages to water down the DMCA and CFAA.

Are lawyers really the way to handle this?

[Lohrno]

It would seem to me that the money spent paying their lawyers might have been better spent building anti cheat methods. Or better had been spent doing it from the start in the first place...

Re:Are lawyers really the way to handle this?

[Trax3001BBS]

It would seem to me that the money spent paying their lawyers might have been better spent building anti cheat methods. Or better had been spent doing it from the start in the first place...

I run Windows and with it PowerPro http://powerpro.cresadu.com/ it's always been like that.

I've played a lot of games in my time, and run their cheat protections. Epic games (Fortnite) is the only one to block PowerPro, makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:Are lawyers really the way to handle this?

[quarrel]

powerpro certainly looks like it hooks other programs.

Either way, this won't be an Epic Games thing as much as a Battleye thing (the anti cheat used by fortnite).

Youtube is simply following the law.

[meglon]

No; it's not because of "YouTube's DMCA takedown system," it's because the law is written with exact steps that are to be taken when a notice, and counter-notice, is filed. Youtube is simply following how the law tells them to do things.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.co...

Backup your bs with proof OrangeTide... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Backup your bs with proof OrangeTide https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11425437&cid=55663429/

APK

P.S.=> See you there (somehow, I don't think I will & you will continue to embarass yourself as you did starting garbage with me - I am going to let YOU finish YOURSELF boy)... apk

Re:Backup your bs with proof OrangeTide... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't normally toot my own horn, but I would like to point out that I did predict your behavior in advance.

Re:This stems from a problem with Youtube itself..

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I kind of like that copyright claims are resolved by the courts, not Google.

Re:This stems from a problem with Youtube itself..

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no moderation via youtube.

Nor should there be. The DMCA has basic requirements they have to follow in order to not be subject to liability. It does not require them to provide a pro bono dispute moderation service to the millions of youtube content producers.

When you file a DMCA takedown notice, you are claiming a violation of civil law. The remedy for that is a lawsuit. If it's not worth the time and money to you, why bother in the first place?

I've written it before and I'll write it again

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to cheat at a video game, you lead a very sad life.

I hate to give them ideas but...

[elvesrus]

Part of me wonders if the CFAA is applicable in these kind of situations.

Epic is not OK with cheating at any age?

[peppepz]

Humanity is not OK with suing children at any age.
Deal with cheating the way it's meant to be done, and if you really care about the public image of your company, drop that lawsuit already, instead of making up supposedly unwritten, omertà-like rules of business life in order to justify your antisocial behaviour. DMCA is not a tool for businesses to suppress things they don't like.

"Free Game Company"?

[gustygolf]

That's Epic MegaGames.

You know, the ones that have been around since the 1990s. Jazz Jackrabbit, anyone? Unreal Tournament. Gears of War.

They release one free-to-play title and suddenly they're a "Free Game Company"?

Re:"Free Game Company"?

[quarrel]

Their biggest earner is I assume as creator of the Unreal Engine- they must be making a mint off pubg.

--Q

PR Nightmare

[DaMattster]

Epic is behaving with epic stupidity. They've just created a public relations nightmare. Because suing a member of their primary demographic just makes so much goddamned sense ....

Re:PR Nightmare

[lucaiaco]

At all, the majority of players hate cheaters, and I am myself quite happy that this is happening. Being 14 years does not give you immunity, especially if your infringement has been repeatedly pointed out. Suppose this kid was a client of your store, but every time he comes to visit (without buying anything) takes a crap on the floor. What are you going to do, not call the police because he is 14 years old? And when you call the police, do you think other clients would be mad at you because you tried to stop someone of their age?
You are clearly not a gamer, and you clearly have no idea of how a 14 years old age think.

Re:PR Nightmare

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy: ban them from coming into the store. Enforce it with a security guy at the door.

Oh, you're too cheap to pay someone to do that? Well that's your own problem.

Re:PR Nightmare

[rhazz]

Cheaters are not their primary demographic. Their primary demographic is quite happy to see a cheater who is trying to propagate cheating get a little fucked up. I'm a gamer, and I have kids, and they will be taught very, very serious lessons about cheating in online games. I think an adequate punishment for cheating in an online game will be no computer games for a month and a permanent ban from the game they cheated in.

Misuse of dmca

[HermMunster]

What Epic did is a misuse of the dmca, and the kid is right to fight it. Epic does not own the copyright to the video nor the cheat app. I dislike cheat apps immensely but I dislike more that Epic is itself cheating by abusing their position in misusing and abusing the dmca.

Posting UNIDENTIFIABLE ac now OrangeTide?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & provide proof of me picking on YOU for YEARS as you said - you can't. If I had issues w/ you I'd have bookmarked it & I never have before YOU came in calling me a "git" (fool) starting hassles!

I predicted you were a LIAR there LONG BEFORE your bullshit & this proves I was correct about you FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a LIFE!

* You're a liar OrangeTide - this PROVES it (you ran from it & continue to do so) https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11425437&cid=55663429/

(... & I knew it was only a matter of time before you "f'd-up" in that debate - this proves that much & that you are indeed, a liar! You work @ NVIDIA my ass (not that that would matter - I can be @ Apple or Microsoft RIGHT NOW if I wished but I'd rather be retired & my money working for ME (Not he other way around as a wageslave))).

APK

P.S.=> What's the matter OrangeTide? Cat got your tongue UNABLE TO BACKUP YOUR BS LIES?? Yes, lol - & POSTING UNIDENTIFIABLY too??? Priceless + CLASSIC... apk

Execute everyone involved in DMCA enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Death to all unamerican scum. We really need to purge society of these control freaks.

Re: Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow her

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking piece of shit.

This has nothing to do with infringement. He didn't infringe shit. He didn't violate any copyright laws. He cheated at a fucking game and put a video up about it. Big fucking deal.

This along with other reasons is why I don't play Epic/EA/Big studio games. They don't respect their customers among other things such as loot boxes.

Fair use...?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Videos that capture small snippets of a videogame do not violate that game creator's copyrights, because they are fair use...""

Is the kid monetizing his youtube channel? if so, fair use doesn't cover it.

Re:The 'walmart lifestyle'

[slashrio]

Doesn't that apply to 99%? ;)

fair use anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like either a derivative work or parody...