Australian Federal Court Grants Publisher of GTA V Game Right To Search Homes of Five People Accused of Making Cheat Software (bbc.com)

The publisher of video game Grand Theft Auto V has been granted the right to search the homes of five people accused of making cheat software. From a report: The court order allowed Rockstar Games and its parent company, Take-Two Interactive, to search two properties in Melbourne, Australia, for evidence related to a cheat known as Infamous. The Australian federal court has also frozen the assets of the five, who have not yet filed a defence. The cheat went offline six months ago. It allowed players who paid about $40 to manipulate the gaming environment, generate virtual currency and use a "god mode" feature that makes players invincible.

Comments

Raiding cheaters seems excessive

[Hentes]

Was patching the game not an option?

Re:Raiding cheaters seems excessive

[bobbied]

Ah yes, Civil litigation and disclosure is a pain in the A...

Depending on what the lawsuit is about, this search may be well within bounds, legally anyway. I suspect that the making of money off of another's copyrighted software and selling customers "features" that where not generally available may have depressed the revenue of the game developer.

I figure that there are two questions that justify this discovery... 1. We need to know if they developed their "hack" using any copyrighted information or did they just reverse engineer it? 2. How many customers did they actually have and how much money did they collect from them?

Do note, that this is just discovery and both litigants are afforded large latitude in deciding what they want to obtain. As long as there is a plausible legal reason the search may turn up relevant information it will be allowed. Yes, this is a fishing expedition and yes it seems a bit draconian at times, but in the Civil Litigation world, it's how the rules are written.

So this ruling doesn't mean the "hackers" are somehow being unfairly treated by the courts. It's just civil law doing it's thing.

Re:Raiding cheaters seems excessive

[ShanghaiBill]

And why doesn't the police do the raiding?

Because it is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution.
The police are not involved.

Re:Raiding cheaters seems excessive

[Lije Baley]

GTA V seems to have much less server-side control than most multiplayer games. There's such a huge disconnect there that they can't even tell when somebody gave themselves a billion dollars overnight. I'm guessing it was an architecture choice to save them hosting costs, or some other form of "being cheap", but whatever the reason, client-side hax have been rife since the beginning. Rockstar seems to have done all they can on the client, short of verifying code in-memory, and pretty much still just relies on player reports leading to suspensions, and eventual bans.

Re:Raiding cheaters seems excessive

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on what the lawsuit is about, this search may be well within bounds, legally anyway. I suspect that the making of money off of another's copyrighted software and selling customers "features" that where not generally available may have depressed the revenue of the game developer.

Rockstar's lawsuit in the USA based on copyright grounds was quickly kicked out of court (this type of thing isn't a copyright violation or crime here) and so they switched to charges of fraud and unauthorized access under the CFAA for violating their EULA.

Obviously Australia has different copyright laws than the US, so it's hard saying what grounds they are going with there, but it's quite possible there are also fraud charges involved along with copyright charges.
That might explain the extreme nature of the raiding.

As I mentioned in the US this isn't a copyright violation due to our first sale doctrine.
Once a legal license to a work is sold (IE you bought and didn't pirate the game) you are legally allowed to do anything you wish to that one copy, the only exception being making another copy of it to distribute.
You can sell it, modify it, destroy it, anything but duplicate it - and even that isn't a blanket rule.
You can make a copy that is explicitly allowed by a short list of exceptions, like a backup that you don't distribute, and a copy for time shifting (not sure how that applies to software if at all, but still)

This in essence makes what you would call "a single player game mod" 100% legal here.

The issue is "multiplayer" when using game servers you don't own.
Usage of such services is covered under a different non-copyright-related license (an EULA is one type of those) which if violated, the service is not required to service you anymore.

Some weird wording in our Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal law here, in essence makes violating an EULA a federal crime and a fairly serious one.
Violating an EULA means you basically accessed a service fraudulently, with no rights to do so, and is partially retroactive if your access is revoked after the fact.
Think "hacking charges" from the press.

The US performs raids on suspects accused of CFAA violations all the time and has a ton of president set for it. Many do think it's used a bit heavy handed at times but still, there it is.

It wouldn't surprise me if Rockstar is using a similar legal argument in AU independent of any copyright violations claims AU law might also allow.

private company search?

[Moblaster]

Hold on -- a private company can be given the right to search somebody's home in Australia? They have literally been given the legal right bust into multiple private citizens' homes? WTF? Is this life imitating art or some kind of crazy distopian future?

Re:private company search?

[Windowser]

In Canada, it's called a civil search warrant.
It was used last year against a Kodi addon dev
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine...

Re:private company search?

[The Snazster]

Hold on -- a private company can be given the right to search somebody's home in Australia? They have literally been given the legal right bust into multiple private citizens' homes? WTF? Is this life imitating art or some kind of crazy distopian future?

Per accralaw.com: Intellectual property rights cases present a unique situation. In such cases, a search warrant may also be obtained and implemented even if the evidence sought is to be used in a civil or administrative case. This is a special rule applicable to intellectual property rights cases and is similarly applied in other countries where it is also called an Anton Piller Order, being based on the remedy provided to the complainant in the English case entitled Anton Piller KG vs. Manufacturing Processes Limited and Others. In the case, the complainant showed that the defendant would likely hide or remove evidence against him. This justified the court allowing the complainant to inspect the defendant’s premises for evidence. Unlike in a criminal search and seizure warrant (criminal search warrant) where law enforcement officers apply for its issuance with the court and, once issued, enforce the warrant, a search and seizure warrant in a civil case (civil search warrant) is applied for by the complainant and is implemented by the court’s sheriff with the assistance of a neutral third party called a commissioner. The complainant is permitted to be present during the enforcement of the civil search warrant. Similar to criminal search warrants, civil search warrants are also issued without notice to the defendant. The element of surprise is, therefore, preserved. What is unique about civil search warrants is that it may require the defendant to disclose to the sheriff serving the writ the location of the evidence sought to be seized. In other words, the defendant is somehow “forced” to reveal evidence that may be used against him. However, one should expect that the defendant will not be willing to comply with a civil search warrant and simply allow the sheriff, commissioner, and the complainant to enter his premises and seize evidence. Thus, it is usual practice to request for the assistance of law enforcement officers in order to ensure the defendant’s compliance with the civil search warrant and keep its implementation orderly and peaceful. To avoid abusing a civil search warrant, a complainant must comply with a number of requirements before one can be issued. Among the requirements that the complainant seeking the issuance of a civil search warrant must comply with is showing sufficient proof that he will suffer irreparable damage; and that there is a possibility that the defendant will likely hide, remove or destroy evidence in his possession. The complainant is further required to post a bond. These requirements are not needed when seeking the issuance of a criminal search warrant.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's expected in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

To be judged by a kangaroo court.