Sued for modifying games

[girv]

Hackers sued for tinkering with Xbox games

"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."

Full story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/tecmo_sues_xbox_game_hackers/


Aren't we lucky that Amiga games companies are either long gone or don't care that we're breaking their protections and modifying their games :rolleyes The US DMCA has to be one of the most abused laws ever!

[keropi]

how LAME and LOW can some companies go.... they also ask 1000-100000$ for every skin made... LOL

[TheBoss]

The case is an attempt to stop the community... Tecmo cant win if it goes to court because its legal to reverse engineer as long as its freely for everyone which is so and no pirating swapping is going on in the forum... Everyone who swaps material there all own the game itself... ninjahacker.net should sue Tecmo for sueing them :D

[Akira]

Aren't we lucky that Amiga games companies are either long gone or don't care that we're breaking their protections and modifying their games :rolleyes
SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

You will wake up APC&TCP, maybe :P

[girv]

Tera-disclaimer-saurus: I'm no lawyer, this is just my laymans reading of the legal texts. You have been warned!


On the subject of the legality of WHDLoad, patches and patching, the (not very) Learned Mr. Girv puts on a funny wig and writes:


US DMCA

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works

On October 28, 2003, the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The four classes of works exempted are:

[snip]

(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

[snip]

Seems pretty clear then! The European situation is not quite so clear cut...


Europe:

Council Directive 91/250/EEC (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi%21celexapi%21prod%21CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett)
of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs
(the proposed EUCD ['Euro DMCA'] does not apply to computer programs and in any case has not been passed into law yet ... I think)

Whereas the exclusive rights of the author to prevent the unauthorized reproduction of his work have to be subject to a limited exception in the case of a computer program to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer;

Whereas this means that the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of a copy of a program which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by contract; whereas, in the absence of specific contractual provisions, including when a copy of the program has been sold, any other act necessary for the use of the copy of a program may be performed in accordance with its intended purpose by a lawful acquirer of that copy;
If you lawfully acquire a program you can do whatever you need in order to use it, including modifying the program to fix errors and bypassing any reproduction prevention mechanisms (copy protection) that prevent you from using it? Thats the way I read it, and this position is supported by Article 5:

Article 5 - Exceptions To The Restricted Acts

1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Article 4 (a) [girv: making copies of a program] and (b) [girv: only the rightsholder(s) can modify a program] shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
However there is no mention of the legality of creating and/or distributing programs that modify programs (ie: WHDLoad patches) so I guess this is a grey area. Its maybe covered under Article 6:
Article 6 Decompilation

1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorized to to so;
(b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in subparagraph (a);
(c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.

[snip]
I would argue that a WHDLoad patch is "information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs". The initial definition of "interoperability" in the directive includes "all elements of software and hardware" in the system, so in this respect the Amiga hardware and WHDLoad would be "other programs".

In that case a WHDLoad patch developer would be allowed to decompile (disassemble) the game in order to obtain the "information necessary to achieve the interoperability" (the patch) provided they had lawfully obtained the game in the first place. I believe Article 6 Paragraph 2(b) would further allow them to distribute the information (patch) to allow others to achieve the same interoperability.

Interestingly there is no mention however of specific exemptions for obsolete systems. Article 8 - Term Of Protection defends the rights until 50 years after the author's death!

In summary (m'lud) I think WHDLoad development and patch usage is legal on both sides of the Atlantic provided that you have lawfully acquired the games being patched. Distribution of pre-installed images is not legal I'd say, but then we knew that already.

Oh this is fun...

[jmmijo]

Hackers sued for tinkering with Xbox games

"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."

Full story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/tecmo_sues_xbox_game_hackers/


Aren't we lucky that Amiga games companies are either long gone or don't care that we're breaking their protections and modifying their games :rolleyes The US DMCA has to be one of the most abused laws ever!

We have lawyers/barristers to thank for this, both because they helped draft this rediculous law and are the ones now abusing the hell outta it :mad :mad :mad

[Akira]

I think WHDLoad development and patch usage is legal on both sides of the Atlantic provided that you have lawfully acquired the games being patched.
But in most cases, the patchers receive the images from donators, not owning the games themselves. Don't they?

[girv]

@Akira: yep :(

The owner of the disk can sell the disk to the patcher (thus authorising the patcher to have a copy) then buy it back again when the patching is complete, so perhaps there is a legal loophole there that can be used.

On the other hand, who cares? :D

[girv]

We have lawyers/barristers to thank for this

I think you mean "blame" there ;)

[jmmijo]

I think you mean "blame" there ;)

Yep, I guess it depends on whether or not you benefit from said litigation or not ;)

[Akira]

The owner of the disk can sell the disk to the patcher (thus authorising the patcher to have a copy) then buy it back again when the patching is complete, so perhaps there is a legal loophole there that can be used.
Sure, we all SELL them to you.

Don't we, chaps? ;D

[Adeptus]

US DMCA

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works


(I hate the way it doesn't do nested quotes...)

So, does this mean that you are allowed to do whatever you need to play the game, provided you own a legal original copy,
OR does it mean games for obsolete hardware are no longer copyrighted? (in the US)

[girv]

@Adeptus: it says "...exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works..." so the games are still copyright but you are legally permitted to bypass copy protection measures to get them to work IF AND ONLY IF you lawfully obtained the game AND it is for an obsolete system as defined.

[Adeptus]

@Adeptus: it says "...exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works..." so the games are still copyright but you are legally permitted to bypass copy protection measures to get them to work IF AND ONLY IF you lawfully obtained the game AND it is for an obsolete system as defined.
Ah... right. Should have read more carefully.
(and that one was less Legalese than the European one... who the hell says 'Whereas' these days?)

Interestingly, I heard on the radio the other day, that Australian copyright allows you to bypass copy protections, but NOT to make a backup copy; and US is the reverse (apart from the exemptions in the Act above).
They were talking specifically about music, though I think the same applies to software & movies etc.
So, anyone in Australia who is using a MP3 player loaded with songs from CDs they legally own, is breaking the law (technically...) :nuts

[spiff]

While I think Techmo are retards by biting the hand that feeds them It’s still in their right to make sure software/"artistic" license is followed.
I havn’t read the one in DOA2 but it probably says some of the standard things like “may not modify, reverse engineer, sell” and so on. If you don’t follow the license, you may not use the product.

It’s the same the other way around. If you use GPL software/source code you have to release the updates as GPL. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.