Hackers sued for tinkering with Xbox games

[ET Awful]

In the first case of its kind, a California video game maker is suing an entire community of software tinkerers for reverse engineering and modifying Xbox games that they legally purchased.

. . . .

According to the complaint, Greiling and Glynn were webmasters of ninjahacker.net, an online forum dedicated to creating custom content and modifications for certain video games. Also included in the suit, filed January 21st in Illinois, are up to 100 anonymous users of the site, whose identities the company vowed to unmask.

"e believe it is our duty to uphold the integrity of our work," said John Inada, general manager for Tecmo, in a statement. "Hacking of this kind will not be tolerated and we intend to take all necessary measures to protect our intellectual property."

The lawsuit claims the ninjahacker.net users decompiled the code to several Tecmo titles, including Ninja Gaiden, Dead or Alive 3, and Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, and figured out how to create their own "skins" that change the appearance of game characters. They swapped modding techniques and hundreds of custom skins over the website message board.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10466

I just thought this was an interesting one. I think the case should be tossed out as quickly as the judge tossed Fox's suit against Franken, but that's just me :).

[DS1]

1. Someone buy those kids a damn playboy, of give them

"girlfriend getting" skills :eyes:

DA series is nothing but a T&A show

[ET Awful]

3. I agree, but it's the principle of modifying the program for personal use

that makes it an interesting case, not the particular game in question.

They aren't selling the mod, they aren't marketing it in any way other than among their own little enthusiast enclave. Seems like it would fall under fair use guidelines to me.

Also - the same type of mods, as mentioned in the article, are also done to games like Halo, etc. with no complaint or notice. Only Tekmo (who makes some of the worst games on the planet) are whining.

[CornField]

10. My first thought when I read this article was of The Sims

One of the reasons that game was so popular was because they made it so easy for the users to modify and personalize. There are even some sites which sell their Sims creations. EA Games and Maxis aren't suing anyone -- they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[ET Awful]

15. Yup. They even mention the Sims in the article.

Hell, I was making custom skins for playing Doom and Quake when they first came out years ago. It's nothing new.

[DS1]

17. We're in agreement there, I wasn't commenting on the case

moreso the fact that this is soo lame

( not that I wouldn't have done the same thing :D )

[nookiemonster]

2. Yeah, creativity is a bitch.

/sarcasm off

[CornField]

4. Learning by example will not be tolerated

Even tho many of us in the computer field today made our start by tearing things apart, hacking into software and tinkering with code... this type of learning by doing is no longer acceptable and is not a component of NCLB. They should be spending their time being taught the damn tests.

[TroubleMan]

5. This is so fucking stupid....once you buy a game you should be able

to do anything with it that you please, other than to make a bunch of copies and sell them for profit.

The RIAA, software companies, and game companies are getting out of control with this bullshit. In no way did these kids hurt the profits of the companies. In fact, it's the opposite...mods often make a game more popular.....just look at Counter-Strike.

This is just so fucking stupid....once I buy it, it's mine and I can fucking do anything I want to it.

[ET Awful]

6. Exactly.

This would be like a book publisher suing someone for drawing moustaches on pictures in a photo book. :)

[DrWeird]

7. And here I was, thinking of buying an X-box with my tax refund.

Feh. Screw you, microsoft.

[ET Awful]

9. Read again, it's not Microsoft.

It's one game manufacturer (Tekmo, whose games suck anyway). It has nothing to do with MS.

[DrWeird]

11. You know what?

Screw you, microsoft.

[ET Awful]

13. So, if it was the PS2 version of the game that these kids had hacked

and modded, would your post read "Screw you, Sony" instead? Even when an unrelated company filed the suit?

[DrWeird]

14. No, if that happened, I'd say...

screw you, microsoft.

[ET Awful]

16. I see. :)

Just clarifying.

[Briarius]

8. they're using the DMCA too

thanks Clinton :eyes:

[ET Awful]

12. I'd feel comfortable making a bet that the case gets tossed out on

a Summary Judgment motion in the very early phases of any litigation.

[TroubleMan]

18. I just hope they fight it and don't settle

nt.

[sendero]

20. Don't count on that.

Any time you "buy" software (and a computer game is essentially just software), you are not buying anything more than the right to use it.

Damn near all EULAs (End User License Agreements) have a stipulation against reverse-engineering. The reason? If they are using some proprietary technology, they don't want you taking it apart and discovering how it works.

IMHO, the company should have first approached the folks involved and asked them to cease and desist. If they refused, the company would have to decide if suing was in order. Fact is, these kinds of add-ons make many games more popular than they would otherwise have been. The company might well be tripping on it's own dingus by suing.

Do I think the laws concerning intellectual property (of the software variety) are fair to the consumer? Not really. I could go on and on about Microsoft and how corporations probably spend 20% of their IT budget dealing with MS's fuckups - but what the hey. Nobody asked me. And I have my own treasured way of dealing with software licenses. :)

[ET Awful]

21. Yes, and covered under the right to use it is the right to us it how

you see fit so long as you are not attempting to make a profit off of the work of others or replicate their intellectual property.

The defendants in this case were modifying for their own use, not to sell at a profit, not to steal ideas and not to present a like product to the market.

[sendero]

24. The license agreement..

... does not distinguish reasons for reverse engineering, it merely prohibits it.

[ET Awful]

26. Yes, but with no proof of damage, there is no case.

The most that a court could do is revoke the license to use the software. There is no provable damage to the company, so the only thing that has happened is a breech of a the license agreement which would negate said agreement.

This means that the EULA could be revoked and the right of the defendant to use the software revoked, but with no damages evident, there is no case to be made.

[sendero]

31. I'm pretty sure..

... that the sole reason for this suit is to "defend" their EULA. In other words, to preserve their rights under the EULA in case someone in the future does want to reverse-engineer for damaging purposes.

I tend to agree with you that proving actual damages is doubtful. Nonetheless, the defendant(s) have to hire lawyers and spend money they might or might not have, and that will certainly discourage other violaters of the EULA.

[ET Awful]

32. If the Defendants prevail, as is likely, the Plaintiff will be responsible

for ALL costs incurred as a result of their frivolous lawsuit.

[sendero]

34. Sorry...

... I don't agree that it is a frivolous suit. I'll bet you a beer that the plaintiffs win, or the case is settled.

I don't think it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove damages to win the case. The EULA doesn't say "you can't reverse engineer to steal our secrets", it say "you can't reverse engineer".

[ET Awful]

36. I'll take the bet.

With the condition that only a settlement which upholds your position will earn the beer. There is a possiblity of a settlement being paid by the company to avoid counter-suit for filing a frivolous lawsuit (which is exactly what most attorneys I know would do at the same time as filing a Motion for Summary Judgment).

[sendero]

37. You're on...

..... but you have to come to Dallas to collect. I understand that if I win I have to go somewhere :)

[ET Awful]

38. You'll love Boston. We have real beer here. :) :) :) n/t

[Az]

25. Ever read the back of a game?

You don't actually own the game. Its licensed. The creator still owns the game according to intellectual property rights. As such you can use it but you can't tinker with it.

[ET Awful]

27. That is incorrect.

You CAN tinker with it, this is part and parcel of having the software in your posession. This applies to games, business software, operating systems, etc.

The only time you can NOT tinker is if you are attempting to market the modifications or steal the content.

Yes, I have read the "back of a game." I've also read the EULA for everything from games to corporate level accounting systems.

[Az]

29. But these people were distributing their tinkerings

And that is what ran them afoul of the law.

My position is that licenses such as these destroy the very nature of society. But they are currently the law. And I will not be suprised to hear the courts come down on the companies side.

[ET Awful]

30. But they were NOT distributing them for profit, but only amongs themselves

all of whom had a license to use the product. Thus, there is still no commercial value, no financial damage to the Plaintiff, and no actual damage to the Plaintiff.

No damage = no case.

[Az]

33. Tell that to MP3 peer to peer file sharers

No profit is being made by distribution but law suits ensued none the less.

[ET Awful]

35. That is a very different issue, as should be obvious.

In that case there ARE financial damages as sales of the product are being affected.

In this case, they are NOT giving a free copy of a product to a non-paying party, thus robbing the company of profits, they are exchanging ideas to make the product more enjoyable.

As I said above, in this case, each user had a legitimate license to use the product. That is decidedly not the case with peer to peer sharing of music.

To compare it to peer to peer file trading is intellectually dishonest.

[Az]

39. The company may have an interest

In providing their own mods to the game. Within the context of the license they are able to enforce this wish.

[progmom]

19. Next up, Honda sues Civic owners

...who lower the suspension, modify the exhaust, add some killer rims and ground effects.

I mean really - once you have sold the product, you have no further claim to it, do you?

[Az]

22. This exemplifies the flaws of intellectual property rights

In the past before such concepts were around creativity flowed from copying and modifying other people's work. Its simply the way our brains are geared. We see something and copy it. Along the way we may make discoveries that vastly improve its use for ourselves.

Intellectual property rights deny the public the full value of ideas. Each year they are extended further and further leaving the public completely dependent on the Corporations that hold the rights. This further leaves We The People with no practice in tinkering or understanding the workings of the things around us. Which in turn leaves us ignorant of what is being peddled to us.

The original time frame of a copyright was 7 years. In this time a creator could derive profit from their invention. After that it was supposed to enter into the public domain as part of the public good. This has been killed by Corporations and their constant law suits to push back the time.

[Solon]

23. What's next...

Did ID Software sue the guys, like myself, who made WAD files that were in some cases even better than the original games? No of course not, they even found a way to profit from it, look at the Master Levels CD or Plutonia, sequels and add ons to Doom that ID software made a shitload of money off of. Hell they released the source code to the community, and now their are ports and source modafications that have improved and modernized an old game, with OpenGL graphics and full 3D enviroments. I like PrBOOM and Rise3D myself. Hell, in many cases, the software makers themselves have given away tools that can be used to modify their games, like Bioware did with Neverwinter Nights. This is a frivolous lawsuit, if the game is bought, and the user wants to modify it to add or take away something, then they should have the right to do so, this is about the User's freedom of expression, does it really matter what the medium is?

[ET Awful]

28. Close.

It's not freedom of expression, it's fair-use. Freedom of expression isn't exactly a legal standing, more of a general acceptance thing. Fair-use is a legal basis for such activities.

As I said above, if they are not selling a product, are not inflicting monetary damage (whether through lost profits, releasing competitive derivative products, etc.), there is no case.

I agree, it's frivolous.

[NorthernSpy]

40. next: sue everyone who makes notes in the margins...

... of the books they own. After all, they're altering the text that is someone else's sacred intellectual property. :eyes:

Once upon a time, when you'd laid down good money for something, you were then free to use the item, alter it, toss it in a drawer and forget about it, give it to someone else, stuff it up your nose -- whatever. No one could stop you, because you'd paid for it and it was yours.

This "intellectual property" hoo-hah has gone WAY too far! The ordinary consumer has had his centuries-old property rights stripped away by big business and their servants in the gummint.