An Analysis of the Take-Two Interactive Lawsuit Against a GTA V Cheat Creator

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,062
YouTuber Law has created a video analysis of the recent Take-Two Interactive win against David Zipperer who created cheats for the online game Grand Theft Auto V. He goes into how cheats are a derivative product of the original copyrighted work; thus it is the same as creating a sequel to the original copyrighted work. He relates previous court rulings against derivative works to the Take Two Interactive case and then explains why commercializing a derivative of another company's copyrighted work is frowned upon by the courts.

We've seen many game developers suing individuals who develop software to cheat in their games. Most lawsuits against video game cheats settle quickly. Today, we have one lawsuit that the court has rules on. In a lawsuit by take two against a developer of cheat or grief software for gta v (grand theft auto 5), the court issued a preliminary injunction. In the process the court told us why is cheating in a video game considered copyright infringement.
 
He goes into how cheats are a derivative product of the original copyrighted work; thus it is the same as creating a sequel to the original copyrighted work.

This sounds wrong... Microsoft makes word with an equation editor but you can also buy a plug in (Mathtype) to replace the built in equation editor. Also, what about adblock for firefox? Are all of these considered derivative work?
 
At work, can't watch the video. Was he monetizing his cheat engine or whatever it was?
 
How is cheating different from modding? Even if he was charging for it? Something seems extremely wrong about this.
 
He goes into how cheats are a derivative product of the original copyrighted work; thus it is the same as creating a sequel to the original copyrighted work.

This sounds wrong... Microsoft makes word with an equation editor but you can also buy a plug in (Mathtype) to replace the built in equation editor. Also, what about adblock for firefox? Are all of these considered derivative work?
They could be, but those enhance the usability of the software, so the original devs don't mint it that much. Or even welcome it. However a cheat is ruining the game for everyone else. That's where the problem lies. So the problem is not that it is derivative work, but that's the only angle they can use that to go after cheat creators.
 
How is cheating different from modding? Even if he was charging for it? Something seems extremely wrong about this.

If he was monetizing it he would owe take-two royalties. No different than covering a song. If you are covering a song, that's just fine. Once you start selling it, you got royalties to pay.

I would be very interested to see one of these companies go after the creator of a hack/cheat that was given away free and have whomever created it give the defense that it's protected under parody rights.
 
Are you seriously asking that? How is cheating in multiplayer different from modding?

I believe he means "Legally."

Legally when you mod something, you take the game, alter or add some core assets, and play the game.
Legally when you mod something, you take the game, alter or add some core assets, and play the game...

So yea. I'm not sure how you would differentiate the two, legally. If this does hold up in court, I can see how people would hesitate to create mods for something.
 
I believe he means "Legally."

Legally when you mod something, you take the game, alter or add some core assets, and play the game.
Legally when you mod something, you take the game, alter or add some core assets, and play the game...

So yea. I'm not sure how you would differentiate the two, legally. If this does hold up in court, I can see how people would hesitate to create mods for something.
There need not be a difference, this is civil law, not criminal law. They could sue modders for doing derivative work. And they would if they asked money for their mods. But the key is that the copyright owner has to sue first for this to go to a court. And they have no interest in suing harmless modders.
 
How is cheating different from modding? Even if he was charging for it? Something seems extremely wrong about this.
Modders add to a community, they add value to a product, they expand the longevity of your product line. Cheaters detract and divide communities, the drive players away and cripple games, while costing the developer money while they have to increase security and come up with more methods of policing their game. And yes in this case the cheat developer did generate revenue from the cheats.
 
Modders add to a community, they add value to a product, they expand the longevity of your product line. Cheaters detract and divide communities, the drive players away and cripple games, while costing the developer money while they have to increase security and come up with more methods of policing their game. And yes in this case the cheat developer did generate revenue from the cheats.

Well, if he was making money on utilizing their IP and actively harming their IP, sounds like a pretty damn easy case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
How is cheating different from modding? Even if he was charging for it? Something seems extremely wrong about this.

Without the permission of the game creator, why would you think modding would fall within fair use? Mods are definitely a derivative work, they are just usually either granted specific permission to exist, or they exist at the peril of the creators. The fact they are infringing if the holders of the copyright disapprove of them has multiple incidents of precedent.

Moslty when a developer thinks you bring value to them for free, they view the mods favorably. When the mods cost them money, they view them as infringements and serve notice or sue. They usually win because the mod is a derivative work. Cheats are no different, which is why they got a successful injunction against these developers.

The most protected instance would be something like roblox where the thing is sold to create mods, and the EULA essentially explicitly grants you rights to create derivative works withing a set of contractual rules.

Kind of like if I invite a garfiti artist to do up the side of my home and I get sued to smithereens by my HOA, I probably can't sue the artist for much, if anything.

If they did it on their own, despite it being criminal vandalism, I could also sue them for repairs and my HOA inspired legal costs.
 
I can't be bothered worrying about the legal rights of the person creating the cheat mod - I just want to know why Take-Two wasn't allowed to line up all of their employees to take turns kicking the guy in the nuts.
 
This has already been covered in a court of law. Nintendo tried to claim that the Game Genie also created a derivative work, and lost the case. Granted, the reason why they lost was because Game Genie just intercepted code sent to the NES, not creating a new work but just modifying the original temporarily, as any changes the Game Genie creates are rendered null and void once the system is powered off. Still, I would think the results of Nintendo vs Code Masters would be of interest in this new case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this
He goes into how cheats are a derivative product of the original copyrighted work; thus it is the same as creating a sequel to the original copyrighted work.

This sounds wrong... Microsoft makes word with an equation editor but you can also buy a plug in (Mathtype) to replace the built in equation editor. Also, what about adblock for firefox? Are all of these considered derivative work?
At least for Microsoft, I imagine the difference is that they have published an API whereby devs can hook into the Office suite and produce such addins. If that API didn't exist and a dev had to distribute a patch that modified it in order for the addin to work, that's where I could see an equivalence to the Take Two case. Not a programmer or a lawyer so I could be wrong on all counts, but that's what it seems like to me any way.
 
I'm all for fighting cheaters, but this seems like the lamest legal loophole ever with which to do so...
 
This has already been covered in a court of law. Nintendo tried to claim that the Game Genie also created a derivative work, and lost the case. Granted, the reason why they lost was because Game Genie just intercepted code sent to the NES, not creating a new work but just modifying the original temporarily, as any changes the Game Genie creates are rendered null and void once the system is powered off. Still, I would think the results of Nintendo vs Code Masters would be of interest in this new case.

If this cheating program works the same way as Cheat Engine, then it is not too different from Game Genie, it is just done in software. Intercepting code and changing the value on fly.
 
Microsoft makes word with an equation editor but you can also buy a plug in (Mathtype) to replace the built in equation editor. Also, what about adblock for firefox? Are all of these considered derivative work?

Not as long as the plug-ins abide by the terms of service of the software in question.

If this cheating program works the same way as Cheat Engine, then it is not too different from Game Genie, it is just done in software.

That's precisely the problem. The court ruled that a piece of hardware that enabled cheating was essentially like a fast-forward feature on a VCR. Using hardware to fast-forward a movie is ok, creating an edited copy of the film is not (even on-the-fly, legal exemptions for parental controls were passed in 2005).

In this case the software can modify the game in ways that effect the experience of other players in multiplayer without their permission. The cheat developer would be in hot water regardless of whether it utilized hardware or software to achieve that. I say hang him.
 
How is cheating different from modding? ...
Technically there's not much difference. Depends on the extent of the "modding".

Modders add to a community, they add value to a product, they expand the longevity of your product line. ...
True, and the original product can be expected to sell a bit more as well, but...
... the publisher could also monetize from selling similar mods as DLC and/or incorporate the features in a sequel. Some mods might actually do/provide what the publisher had planned and began working on for a future product.

If he was monetizing it he would owe take-two royalties. No different than covering a song. If you are covering a song, that's just fine. Once you start selling it, you got royalties to pay...
These are two different issues. What the court think is that this modding makes it a new product that capitalize on the original, which by no means is only a matter of royalties.
It's more like if I on my own accord went on to do a new Star Wars movie and started selling it. I'm pretty sure Disney and George Lucas wouldn't just ask for royalties in that case...
 
Not as long as the plug-ins abide by the terms of service of the software in question.



That's precisely the problem. The court ruled that a piece of hardware that enabled cheating was essentially like a fast-forward feature on a VCR. Using hardware to fast-forward a movie is ok, creating an edited copy of the film is not (even on-the-fly, legal exemptions for parental controls were passed in 2005).

In this case the software can modify the game in ways that effect the experience of other players in multiplayer without their permission. The cheat developer would be in hot water regardless of whether it utilized hardware or software to achieve that. I say hang him.

Oh, I am not defending it in any shape or form. Online cheaters can burn in hell. But Game Genie is an interesting point. Cheating may not be allowed by the games rules and people can be banned for it, but is it (and the tools) actually illegal by law? Much like doping in sports, its not allowed in it but substances themselves are not necessarily illegal and users do not face jailtime from using them, they just get fines from breaking the rules and sponsorship contracts etc...
 
Game Genie was private use only it's not even close to the same thing it didn't impact players online not to mention it was cheating mechanics at all it was actually reprogramming the games at the HEX level it was partially reverse engineering the hardware. Also cheating is similar to guilty by association where the association is to commit a crime knowingly by cheating the game which is a crime in and of itself and in a lot of games EULA's forbidden. Cheating might be considered a legal grey area to some, but keep in mind intent is nine tenths of the law.
 
Never liked the online play of GTA V... nothing but a bunch of Trevor's running around trying to kill you.... But i could see how cheating would detour players from the game. Also, what dumb ass tries to make money on it? Was he charging a direct price, or donation? If it was direct pay for play... well thats RS/T2's ip and he should have to pay a fine, plus the money earned from their IP.
 
Cheating in online games is pathetic.

I still have a problem with the courts being involved in this shit. I see both sides, but I don't particularly care for funding part of Rockstar's "IP" Gestapo.
 
Cheating in online games isn't derivative it's disruptive, it ruins the function of the game for those who don't participate in cheating.
If its on offline game and you want to cheat, then you're only cheating yourself.
 
The biggest issue is that they were selling this correct? Monetizing something without proper licensing is always a no-no, which is why you can only donate to modders, you cannot pay for the mods themselves.
 
The biggest issue is that they were selling this correct? Monetizing something without proper licensing is always a no-no, which is why you can only donate to modders, you cannot pay for the mods themselves.

Not necessarily. If a publisher feels that they are hurt by a free mod poaching sales from any of their products they can still make an issue of it.
 
I don't have a problem with cheat codes for off-line single player games but on-line low life multiple player cheats should be banned from all on line games forever. I use to love playing battlefield series with friends but quit when cheating got so bad and even some of the clan members started doing it with the lame excuse that everyone else was so why not. I only play single player games now.
 
Back
Top