Tecmo Sues Game Hackers Under DMCA 352
blueZhift writes "This Reuters report on CNet states that Tecmo has filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act accusing the site owners and perhaps some users of game hacking site www.ninjahacker.net (now offline) of knowingly infringing on their game software. This should be another interesting test of the DMCA and just how far it can be pushed to restrict what end users can do with/to their software purchases. This might ultimately affect the legality of cheat devices like the Game Shark and even the mere sharing of cheats or exploits."
"Now offline" (Score:5, Informative)
Sit back down. (Score:3, Informative)
I.e. you can't drive your car at 200MPh - that is to say, you can. But it's against the law.
You can't mod your car with a spoiler that's twice the width of your car - that is to say, you can. But it's against the law. At least driving on public roads with one is.
What's being argued here, now, is that you can't hack the game and distribute the hack. That is to say, you can. But it may be against the law (the DMCA one).
Btw.. the article referred to is rather short, and people seem to think this is about sharing cheat codes. Not quite.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/02/09/news_6118
Contact Tecmo (Score:5, Informative)
Public Relations
PublicRelations@tecmoinc.com
Customer Service
CustomerService@tecmoinc.com
Game Counselor
GameCounselor@tecmoinc.com
Business Accounts
BusinessAccounts@tecmoinc.com
Public Relations
PublicRelations@tecmoinc.com
Corporate Opertunities
Jobs@tecmoinc.com
Webmaster
Webmaster@tecmoinc.com
Contact Us Via Snail Mail:
Tecmo Inc.
PO Box 5553
21213-B Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Contact Us Via Fax or Phone:
Phone: 310.944.5005
Fax: 310.944.3344
Contact Us Via Email:
Contact@tecmoinc.com
What? (Score:3, Informative)
Car makes sue over grill designs, interior designs, ergonomic innovations, brake system designs, motor design. The lists go on and on.
And clearly nearly 200 years of industrialized history has demonstrated your conentention that those laws can't be passed or enforced are completely incorrect. There are lots of good books about IP cases in the 1700's and 1800's. Hell, the history around the invention and implementation of the telegraph puts all this stuff around the Internet to shame.
Re:DMCA Violations (Score:5, Informative)
THEre's nothing to stop the server operators from using any of the many anti-cheat tools to detect modified copies, and prevent them from taking part in network play. Use a technical solution, not a legal one.
*I'm an anti-IP nut and don't believe ideas can be owned, so I don't believe in the concept of copyright anyway. But at least keep it consistent with its intended purpose.
Ok, let me see if I got it right... (Score:2, Informative)
Note: *YOUR* software purchases.
The way it is going, it seem that in the future, you will not own what you pay for anyomore, you will just pay for the right to use somebody's product, what you can do with your stuff depends on the manufactor's good will.
Re:DMCA Violations (Score:5, Informative)
You've got everything backwards; they are at the consumer's mercy, not the other way around. You are correct that I do not "own" the software I "buy", but I own the right to use it, and you are incorrect when you say they can revoke it at any time. They cannot - when you buy the software, you have entered into an agreement. As soon as they take your money, they OWE you the right to play that game or use that piece of software. If it requires online access through one of their servers, they OWE you servers that are operational so you can use the product you paid them money for. And, in fact, I can do most anything I want with it, so long as it does not infringe on their rights granted by copyright law.
Some licenses do mention "no reverse engineering". There are two main points to mention in that regard:
1) Reverse engineering is a well recognized, legitimate activity within copyright law. Both copyright law itself, as well as the DMCA have exclusions for reverse engineering. Acting like it is a bad thing is absurd.
2) Very few companies prohibit reverse engineering in the EULA (Blizzard is one that I know of that does prohibit it). This is because they know that reverse engineering is (generally) protected, so long as it does not facilitate unauthorized distribution of the software (hence, the DMCA).
Lastly, to make an argument that someone should EXPECT for a EULA to contain wording that removes their rights, to which they should adhere, without ever SEEING the contract BEFORE the sale takes place is completely inane. This is a reflection of the *sad* state our copyright system has fallen into. You're a consumer, you should be fighting for your rights. As the adage goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The moment we (as a population) stop caring about our rights, is the moment they will be taken away.
Do not forget:
"Beware those who would deny you information,
for in their hearts they dream themselves your master."
For your entertainment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Summons Details & Comments from NinjaHacker (Score:2, Informative)
The Game Genie "codes" were just a means for obfuscating the true nature of it's game alterations, but in essance it was doing the exact same thing as the posted modifications.
NES WORLD, which summarized the Nintendo vs Galoob Game Genie case, offers this information which (to me at least) seems very relavant and perhaps in the least not bad news for NinjaHacker and co?
http://www.nesworld.com/law-0005.htm
"After trial, the district court found:
(1) The "Game Genie" does not create a "derivative work" within the definition in 101. "[I]nherent in the concept of a `derivative work' is the ability for that work to exist on its own, fixed and transferable from the original work, i.e., having a separate `form'. . . . The Game Genie does not meet that definition." Id. at 1291. (emphasis in original).
The court distinguished Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., stating that "Midway's result, if not its analysis, appears to have turned on the fact that the licensee arcade owner, not the copyright holder, was making money from the performance of the altered game, a violation of section 106(4) (copyright holder has exclusive right `to perform the copyrighted work publicly')." Id.
Under the facts of Midway, that court "was willing to `stretch' the acceptable definition of a derivative work." Id. The Galoob court, however, was not willing to "stretch" the definition of "derivative work" where the performance was non- commercial and was confined to the homes of purchasers of legitimate copies of the videogame.
(2) "[E]ven if the Game Genie did create a derivative product, the doctrine of `fair use' enables consumers to use the Game Genie for their personal enjoyment, 17 U.S.C. 107, and therefore allows Galoob to sell it." Id. at 1286. In its analysis of fair use, the court "relied extensively," id. at 1292, on Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. -- particularly in its emphasis on the first statutory fair use factor, the purpose and character of the use. The court found that the non-commercial, nonprofit nature of the use by the alleged direct infringer, the videogame purchaser, created a presumption of fair use. Id. at 1293.
On the fourth fair use factor (effect on the work's potential market or value), the court said it had not been shown that the use supplanted demand for Nintendo's works, that any actual or reasonably likely market was injured, or that use of the Game Genie in ways that arguably infringe Nintendo's copyrights would diminish the overall demand for Nintendo games. Id. at 1294-98. Nor did the remaining fair use factors weigh in favor of Nintendo. Id. at 1293-94.
(3) "Galoob's use of copyrighted video games for purposes of testing or marketing the Game Genie does not violate any of Nintendo's rights under the Copyright Act." Id. at 1286.
(4) A permanent injunction in favor of Nintendo would not be warranted even if the court had found copyright infringement because:
"1) Any presumption of immediate and irreparable harm resulting from the alleged infringement was rebutted;
2) The presence of the Game Genie in the market benefits the public by expanding personal consumer utilization of purchased games; and
3) Assuming infringement, adequate remedies exist at law." Id. at 1298."