Activision Goes To Court To Stop Call of Duty Cheat Software (arstechnica.com) 61
Activision has filed a federal lawsuit against German cheat makers EngineOwning and associated individuals for "trafficking in technologies that circumvent or evade anti-cheat technologies used by Activision to protect the integrity of [Call of Duty] games." From a report: EngineOwning charges 13 euros per month or more for subscription access to individualized suites of cheating tools designed for Call of Duty games -- and also Battlefield, Titanfall 2, and Star Wars Battlefront. The software promises abilities like automated aimbots, auto-firing triggerbots, "2D radar" that shows enemy locations on the HUD, and "3D radar" that can track and display opposing players even behind cover.
EO promises its software is undetectable by automated tools, including Activision's recently launched Ricochet kernel-level anti-cheat tools. The software also includes built-in tools to make cheating less obvious to human moderators and recording software, making users "look like a legit player." The company separately sells "hardware ID spoofer" software that promises to get around hardware-based bans in Call of Duty and other games. In its lawsuit, Activision says these tools have been used "thousands of times by players in the United States," earning EngineOwning "hundreds of thousands of dollars or more." Thus, the software has led to "at least tens of thousands of breaches" of the terms of use players must agree to before playing online.
EO promises its software is undetectable by automated tools, including Activision's recently launched Ricochet kernel-level anti-cheat tools. The software also includes built-in tools to make cheating less obvious to human moderators and recording software, making users "look like a legit player." The company separately sells "hardware ID spoofer" software that promises to get around hardware-based bans in Call of Duty and other games. In its lawsuit, Activision says these tools have been used "thousands of times by players in the United States," earning EngineOwning "hundreds of thousands of dollars or more." Thus, the software has led to "at least tens of thousands of breaches" of the terms of use players must agree to before playing online.
could go either way (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it is so-called DMCA violations and "intentional interference with contractual relations."
I think going after cheat software that is clearly not a copyright violation is simply a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) by Activision in order to use their substantial money to intimidate individuals and a smaller business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but don't mess up 1 player games and mods (Score:3)
but don't mess up 1 player games and ban mods for local games at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution:
1. Setup a server that DOESN'T allow cheaters.
2. Setup another server that allows cheaters.
Who cares if cheaters cheat each other. If cheaters decide it's no fun to play when everyone is equally cheating and try to enter the no-cheater zone... ban them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:could go either way (Score:4, Insightful)
They're selling software explicitly designed for the sole purpose of allowing players to bypass an EULA. Sounds like a tort claim to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course they would never condone that. It is all purely for "testing" purposes.
The problem is that this argument actually has merit.
Re: (Score:1)
I think this will be an easier case than you think. The key is that this is a civil case, so the burden of proof is much lower than it would be for a criminal case. Activision only has to prove its side by preponderance of evidence, i.e. more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That should be pretty easy, since they can use EngineOwning's sales literature, where they sell their product as "high quality cheats", as proof of intent. EngineOwning also offers support, and Activision can ask to s
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, this is a German company so they probably can just ignore a civil lawsuit in the US. They are likely prohibited from handing out things like support logs under the GDPR anyways, because the US does not have GDPR equivalent protections for personal data.
So, no, not easy.
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned in TFA, in addition to DMCA violations, Activision's claim will include intentional interference with contractual relations [cornell.edu]:
Most of these elements are trivial to pr
Re: (Score:2)
What if the company providing the cheat software also provides a cheat so that an amended Eula allowing their cheat software is displayed? With real contracts, you can amend the version of the contract that you sign and, if the other party doesn't like your terms, they don't have to accept them. So if the user changes the contract then accepts the changed contract, then the application accepts their acceptance of the changed contract, shouldn't the amended contract be the operating contract? The cheating ap
Re: (Score:2)
They're selling software explicitly designed for the sole purpose of allowing players to bypass an EULA. Sounds like a tort claim to me.
Bypass a EULA? A EULA is not law. Itâ(TM)s an adhesion document thatâ(TM)s unenforceable on its face in many countries, and is, at the end of the day, more or less a gigantic wish-list on the part of the company.
If everyone read every Eula they were presented with, the global economy would tank overnight, widespread layoffs and bankruptcies would ensue, and we
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs aren't legally valid. They mean nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds pretty much like an attempt to intimidate, yes. While cheaters are scum (they thrive on ruining other's leisure time), I hope this fails. The potential for abuse from the side of copyright holder is just too great.
My personal take is that getting rid of cheaters in games needs some sort of industry-wide reputation system that is tied to the real identity of the gamers. Not really good either, but there seems to be nothing else that will work. I am also against permanent bans on cheaters, but there is
Re: (Score:1)
This has, based upon my non-expert knowledge, already been decided in past court decisions. I believe Blizzard argued successfully that if the executable was copied in ram (which is how these cheats work, they edit the in ram executable), that it was a copyright violation. In a certain kind of light, you do not own rights to run executables you pay for unless you own two licenses for the executable, which is absurd, but that's how the law is being interpreted. You can read about it here in a 2008 Slashdo
Re: (Score:2)
No, you certainly do not need two licenses for the executable, and there is no 'certain kind of light' that says you do. Copyright law explicitly says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the
owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
Re: (Score:2)
If the cheating happens through unauthorized forms of access by the player to the server, this could be CFAA but should not be DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably going to be difficult to show that EngineOwning accessed Activisions' computers that fall under the definition of protected computers, as broad as that may seem. I think for this to work the CFAA would need to be extended to include producing tools or services that could enable an individual to violate any of the elements of the CFAA. But I think it could be possible to show accessory liability through aiding and abetting. Then sue EngineOwning for every incident (that is, every one of their p
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a good extension of the law to make malware/ransomware as a service illegal in addition to simply using the software.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not clear to me if a judge or the legislature is the right one to decide that.
hardware ID spoofer? so they can ban Linux / VM so (Score:1)
hardware ID spoofer? so they can ban Linux / VM software as well if they are able to win this?
As VM software can do lot of stuff to cheat that and linux can as well.
Great job, if a little (or a lot) late. (Score:1)
Now let's see if they can stop their own employees from cheating at World of Warcraft.
Slap em' Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had so many games ruined by cheaters using this software. It completely ruins the experience. Legal or not, this is clearly something that interferes with a legit product, and not in a "better" way. For us non-cheaters, a fair playing field is important.
I have no idea how you write a law that would target this type of thing without stepping all over other peoples rights in other fields. This is one case where common sense would be helpful, instead of court room and legal semantics.
This is one of the few lawsuits by Activision that I could get behind.
--
The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law. - Jeremy Bentha
Re:Slap em' Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
"I've had so many games ruined by cheaters using this software. It completely ruins the experience"
The real reason is because we lost dedicated serves because people like you bought into client-server back ended games. We used to be able host our own infinite multiplayer FPS games with quake 2 in the 90's before the mmo generation taught the corporate world you were clueless about the corporate agenda to kill PC games as fully local applications which used to come with their own multiplayer inside the game quake 1-3, warcraft 1-3, starcraft 1, diablo 1+2.
The cheating problem came once you bastards gave up game ownership, which denied us the ability to host our own multiplayer outside their control and stupid matchmaking. The last 23+ years has seen the biggest PC game heist in all of human history.
Re: (Score:2)
Now hosting a server for a private crowd is different IF you trust your friends. That is If your favorite game even allows such a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
The real reason is because we lost dedicated serves because people like you bought into client-server back ended games. We used to be able host our own infinite multiplayer FPS games with quake 2 in the 90's
Cheating was a big problem back then too. I remember counter strike cheats back at the turn of the century and all of the servers were independently hosted.
If anything, centralized hosting by the software companies makes it far easier to catch cheaters and effectively ban them. Not easy, but far easier.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, centralized hosting by the software companies makes it far easier to catch cheaters and effectively ban them. Not easy, but far easier.
This only really helps on games that still get updates. Take TF2 for example where the Valve servers are infested with bots but community ones aren't, because the community servers are the only ones keeping up with the bot makers.
Re:Slap em' Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Modding used to be one of my favorite parts about games, and now you are charged for something that used to be a button code. So, out of spite, let the cheaters win. I don't really want to support that in competitive environments, but monetizations have replaced user mods which were often more interesting, so now I root for the cheaters because companies see these as one and the same. My favorite part of gaming has been ruined by their business decisions, and misery loves company :)
Re: Slap em' Good! (Score:2)
so Nintendo can just have the 1.99 min 1-900 numbe (Score:1)
so Nintendo can just have the 1.99 min 1-900 number when you get stuck and need help in beating the games?
Re:Game Genies were the first (Score:5, Insightful)
I am pretty sure it is a completely different thing. You should be allowed to modify a game you have bought for your own pleasure as much as you like, the decision was correct. However, with online games people pay to get a competitive online environment and accept specific terms of service. What this 3rd party company does is basically hacking the game to ruin the experience of legitimate players. I really have no idea how this can be addressed legally, but it is definitely not the same thing as Game Genie and, even though I am not an online gamer myself, I do hope companies can have the tools, both technological and perhaps legal, to fight cheating.
Columbine (Score:2)
Not only do I support Activision here (Score:2)
Seriously, I played a Half Life 3 thing, Day of Defeat? back in '05-08. Favorite server was Coorsbuds. Maintainer was really good at banning cheaters. This was a PC thing, in '08 I got divorced, lost my house, my tower's power supply did not like the new digs and blew everything up (including the hard driv
That's pretty funny (Score:3)
Activision and integrity in the same sentence.
Get a life (Score:1)
The people who are behind this need a reality check, this is a VIDEO GAME, nothing more. It's not real, it's not a sport, it's not anything to brag about. In fact, if you brag or are proud about how many hours you've played in a video game, you need real help. There's a huge world outside and spending time playing video games doesn't get you closer to experiencing the real world with the short time you have on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just get over themselves. (Score:2, Insightful)
Konami got it from the very beginning: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start. (... over and over until you play through to the ending, versus using up your lousy 3 continues and having to call Nintendo's 1-900 number for clues on getting past that one boss.)
Just get over yourselves and your notion of "the purity of our vision," understand that these things are toys you're selling to the public, and let us play with them as we care to. For that matter, put the cheat codes that used to b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Conclusion: There are terrible people in the world who don't want to steal your bike because they want it, but they will break it just so you can't have it.
Don't like the legal route (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Counter-Strike Source you used to be able to issue console commands from the server that would be processed on a specific player's local client. Can't remember if this was built-in or via a server-side plugin.
When I was adminning a server, if a cheater appeared (and I was reasonably sure they were cheating, e.g. obvious aimbot) I would mess with them. For example:
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no lawyer but.... (Score:1)
Make a Cheat Mode (Score:1)
Maybe the game publishers should enable some cheats in-game (like auto-aim and some of the other popular ones) and then offer Cheat/Mod servers for multiplayer. Maybe allow the person who sets up the game to only allow certain cheats or all cheats depending on what they or the group wants to do. This way, most servers would probably be normal rules, with some fun cheat servers as an option. The cheats would have to be obviously noted so everyone knows what's up (cheating in a normal game sucks). It might be