Take-Two Sues Enthusiasts Behind GTA Fan Projects Re3, ReVC (torrentfreak.com) 26
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Take-Two Interactive has sued several programmers and enthusiasts said to be behind the popular re3 and reVC Grand Theft Auto fan projects. The lawsuit says that after the company filed a DMCA takedown notice to remove the projects from Github, the defendants filed a bad faith counter notice to have the content reinstated, thus triggering this copyright infringement lawsuit. "Defendants' source code projects, known as re3 and reVC, purport to have created a set of software files (which Defendants claim they 'reverse engineered' from the original Game software) that allow members of the public to play the Games on various hardware devices, but with so-called 'enhancements' and 'modifications' added by Defendants," the complaint reads (PDF). "Perhaps most notably, Defendants claim that their derivative GTA source code enables players to install and run the Games on multiple game platforms, including those on which the Games never have been released, such as the PlayStation Vita and Nintendo Switch." According to Take-Two, the defendants' conduct is willful and deliberate since they are well aware that they do not have the necessary rights to copy, adapt or distribute derivative GTA source code or the audiovisual elements of the games. The gaming giant adds that [defendant Angelo Papenhoff] publicly expressed concern that Take-Two would find out about the 're3' and 'reVC' projects.
[...]
Take-Two says that by willfully and maliciously copying, adapting and distributing its source code and other content, all of the defendants have infringed its exclusive rights under copyright law. As a result, the company is entitled to damages in amounts to be determined at trial or, alternatively, a maximum statutory damages award of $150,000 for each infringed work. Additionally, the gaming company says that by submitting bad faith DMCA counternotices to have the projects restored to Github, three of the defendants made misrepresentations under U.S.C. 512(f). Finally, Take-Two is seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from continuing their allegedly infringing activities. The company wants all infringing source code and games removed from the Internet and wants the defendants to hand over all materials that infringe its rights. Take-Two also wants a full accounting of "any and all sales or downloads of products or services" that infringe its rights.
[...]
Take-Two says that by willfully and maliciously copying, adapting and distributing its source code and other content, all of the defendants have infringed its exclusive rights under copyright law. As a result, the company is entitled to damages in amounts to be determined at trial or, alternatively, a maximum statutory damages award of $150,000 for each infringed work. Additionally, the gaming company says that by submitting bad faith DMCA counternotices to have the projects restored to Github, three of the defendants made misrepresentations under U.S.C. 512(f). Finally, Take-Two is seeking temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from continuing their allegedly infringing activities. The company wants all infringing source code and games removed from the Internet and wants the defendants to hand over all materials that infringe its rights. Take-Two also wants a full accounting of "any and all sales or downloads of products or services" that infringe its rights.
Off the farm. (Score:3)
"Perhaps most notably, Defendants claim that their derivative GTA source code enables players to install and run the Games on multiple game platforms, including those on which the Games never have been released, such as the PlayStation Vita and Nintendo Switch."
And there's the problem right there.
Re: (Score:3)
These projects reverse engineered GTA3, which is completely legal.
Take Two are upset because they were planning to sell these 20 year old games again on new platforms, like the Switch.
Did they actually do anything wrong? (Score:1)
It says right on the Github page that you need to own GTA to use this because they're not distributing the copyrighted assets.
They did reverse engineer the code though. That's not a crime is it? I just want to know what the hell kind of magical tool they used to reverse compiled binaries in to usable C++ source code. It looks pretty readable. How the hell did they do that? I want that tool.
And it's friggin GTA III for goodness sake. Nobody cares about that, it's ancient.
Re: Did they actually do anything wrong? (Score:4, Informative)
I imagine that reverse engineering directly from the binary to produce source code is creating a derivative. This by itself isn't illegal, but distributing such a derivative, if that's indeed how they did it, to anyone else would be a violation of Take Two's exclusive legal right to make copies (hence "copy rights") of the original and its derivatives.
What wouldn't be illegal would be clean room reverse engineering, which is much more complex. In it, a team analyzes the original and creates a documentation explaining what functions exist, what their inputs are, what the outputs should be, then gives this documentation to another team, who then creates new code from scratch that provides the same outputs given the exact same inputs.
Clean room is what the Wine Project does with Windows, for example. All their code is original. It merely works (almost) exactly the same as the original, and is thus binary-compatible with (most) software made for Windows.
If these GTA-inspired projects used clean room techniques, they're probably in the clear and would likely win the suit. Provided, evidently, they have the money to fight the legal battle.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I just like to read about copyright now and then, so I well may be wrong in any of this.
Re: (Score:3)
My question is, do you consider a decompiled and rebuilt code a copy? Or is a derivative work a copy? When people talk over others content on youtube, that's a derivative work and legal.
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a program and translate it from binary back to source code, it's a derivative of the original. There is plenty of precedent that doing this creates a derived copy - it's a copy of the original.
After all, if you take a book, make a translation of it - is the translation an original work of the translator, or a der
Re: (Score:2)
When people talk over others content on youtube, that's a derivative work and legal.
That's not legal because it's derivative. It's legal because it falls under the fair use exception for journalism/commentary. And using too much of the original source video can still be infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse engineering is not copyright infringement. It is fair use and at best violating a license agreement.
Reverse engineering is not copyright infringement, but distributing derivative works (which may be the product of some reverse engineering) is.
Are they distributing the works? (Score:2)
Dick move Rockstar (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Former employee of Rockstar Games, here. I was with the studio during RDR2 development and when they released GTAV on PS4 and XBox one. It is unlikely that they will release GTA 3 or Vice City as "remastered" ports for newer consoles because of the sheer amount of work involved to reconstruct the games to work on current hardware. I actually asked if there were any plans to remaster Red Dead Redemption 1 or Red Dead Revolver for modern consoles and the answer was a resounding "no". Code for older titles are
Reverse engineered or derivated? (Score:2)
If it is reverse engineered, it is not derivated, and hence it cannot infringe Take Two copyright's.
Re: Reverse engineered or derivated? (Score:2)
TakeTwo is claiming they decompiled, not reverse-engineered, which would definitely be derivative
Re: Reverse engineered or derivated? (Score:2)
decompiled, not reverse-engineered
That's like saying "the victim was decapitated, not killed".
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Using decompiled source code as your "inspiration" or reference for new source code makes the new source code a contaminated derivative work.
Bezos playbook (Score:2)
Can't compete? Hire lawyers, not engineers.
Re: (Score:3)
When you can't innovate, litigate! /s
I was looking for an excuse to pirate the Stories! (Score:2)
Kept forgetting to pick them up (and Gay Tony) when they went on Steam sales, was actually about to break down and buy them full-price just a week ago, but now I'll have no qualms about spending an extra thirty minutes or so unpacking and grappling with the scene releases of both.
Only themselves to blame. (Score:4, Interesting)
Take-Two shot themselves in the foot years ago.
Thankfully, the code for GTA 3 on PS2 and Android includes debug symbols. Debug symbols contain all the extra information needed to debug a game during the development process, but are often stripped out for release executables to avoid bloat. For whatever reason, Rockstar left these symbols in, giving the reverse-engineering team a huge leg-up.
Damages? (Score:2)
Imagine, to prove they suffered loss of sales, now they have to release Vita and Switch versions.
Take Two will never see a cent of my money (Score:3)
I will never give Take Two Interactive or any related entity a single cent of my money ever again.
And no I wont pirate their games either, I will just play games from studios who don't do crap like this.
EA for example recently set up a legal agreement that gives modders fairly broad permissions for re-use of the Command & Conquer universe and IP.
I am the original creator of (and lead developer for) a massive engine reverse-engineering and re-creation project that lead to both an unofficial patch for Command & Conquer Renegade and a total engine re-creation of the game that is used by a number of major and popular mods.
I am also a contributor to a project that aims to reverse engineer the Command & Conquer Generals engine and produce a 1:1 replicate and I have created or contributed to many other projects for the C&C games (mod tools, engine enhancement projects, mods etc). All of the work that I do has been explicitly given the OK by EA under this new agreement with the mod community.
That's how a games company SHOULD treat modders and fans, not the way Take Two and Rockstar are doing it...