
Court Returns Seized Laptops to Accused GTA V Cheat Developer - DiabloD3
https://torrentfreak.com/court-returns-seized-laptops-to-accused-gta-v-cheat-developer-181222/
======
manfredo
One thing that neither this nor the previous HN discussion linked below seem
to clarify is whether the defendant sold the cheats for use in cheating in GTA
online or whether it was provided for free, presumably for use in single
player. If it's the former I think this case isn't particularly controversial.
The dev that sold Glider (WoW botting software) was persecuted for it and I
didn't see much controversy surrounding it. It makese sense to me, too. Cheats
in an online game degrade the experience for other players.

If it was provided for single player use, though, and especially if the
developer didn't monetize it, I think it's an overreach. Altering one's
experience in a single player game does not affect anyone else's experience. I
can forsee this becoming more of an issue as more and more single player games
introduce loot boxes and microtransactions. For example, Assassin's Creed
Origins sells lootboxes for crafting materials and EXP boosters. I felt that
my progression was slower than ideal for my enjoyment, so I whipped out
CheatEngine and modified my EXP and crafting resource values. Did I defraud or
steal from Ubisoft? I don't think the answer should be yes. It seems
disturbing that publishers could persecute someone for merely using the
software they paid for _in a manner different than what was intended_ , even
if no other customers are negatively impacted.

But of course, it is worth restating that is the cheat developer sold the
cheats for use in GTA online I see no issue here.

~~~
saurik
Your unhappiness that the quality of the game's experience was degraded does
not make the actions of this person illegal nor does it provide any basis to
the idea that what this person did was in any way shape or form copyright
infringement, and whether the person made money off of these activities does
not in any way affect such evaluation.

~~~
manfredo
Copyright infringement laws, at least in the US (I assume Australia has
analogous laws) prohibit reverse engineering in many circumstances. Profiting
by creating tools to bypass anti-cheat mechanisms in games is one of them. I
don't know exactly if profiting off cheats puts this in a different category
of violation, but it does signal that the developer is aware of the fact that
these cheats are giving players an advantage significant enough for people to
want to pay. It also gives the publisher grounds to sue in civil court for
lost sales.

Even in Assassin's Creed Origins' case, the EULA prohibits development or use
of cheats or trainers. Companies generally do not pursue people who violate
this in single player games, as it would be seen as heavy handed, but
ostensibly Ubisoft could go after me in civil court for using a memory editor
to give myself EXP and mats.

You and I may not agree with these laws, but that does not change the fact
that these laws and EULA provisions exist.

------
leovailati
Previous post on the topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18224625](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18224625)

------
tgsovlerkhgsel
I found the bit about PayPal particularly interesting. It sounds a lot like
"PayPal is under no obligation to freeze his money but they decided to keep it
anyways, so not our problem".

~~~
sfinktah
That sounds pretty close to what happened. Though it might be fairer to say
that a giant law firm scared the crap out of them, demanding they implement
they simply aren't equipped to do, and they said: "Sorry, we can't actually do
that."

Ironically, I told said same giant law firm exactly the same thing.

I honest fail to believe that a law firm of that size weren't perfectly aware
that serving a Mareva Injunction on Paypal would result in them instantly
freezing the whole thing.

