Free Game Company Sues 14-Year-Old Over 'Cheats' Video -- Claiming DMCA Violation (bbc.co.uk) 239
Bizzeh shared this report from the BBC:
A mother has written a letter in defense of her 14-year-old son who is facing a lawsuit over video game cheats in the US. Caleb Rogers is one of two people facing legal action from gaming studio Epic Games for using cheat software to play the free game Fortnite. The studio says it has taken the step because the boy declined to remove a YouTube video he published which promoted how to use the software... "This company is in the process of attempting to sue a 14-year-old child," she wrote in the letter which has been shared online by the news site Torrentfreak.
Ms. Rogers added that she had not given her son parental consent to play the game as stated in its terms and conditions, and that as the game was free to play the studio could not claim loss of profit as a result of the cheats... In a statement given to the website Kotaku, Epic Games said the lawsuit was a result of Mr. Rogers "filing a DMCA counterclaim to a takedown notice on a YouTube video that exposed and promoted Fortnite Battle Royale cheats and exploits... Epic is not OK with ongoing cheating or copyright infringement from anyone at any age," it said.
Cory Doctorow counters that the 14-year-old "correctly asserted that there was no copyright infringement here. Videos that capture small snippets of a videogame do not violate that game creator's copyrights, because they are fair use..."
Ms. Rogers added that she had not given her son parental consent to play the game as stated in its terms and conditions, and that as the game was free to play the studio could not claim loss of profit as a result of the cheats... In a statement given to the website Kotaku, Epic Games said the lawsuit was a result of Mr. Rogers "filing a DMCA counterclaim to a takedown notice on a YouTube video that exposed and promoted Fortnite Battle Royale cheats and exploits... Epic is not OK with ongoing cheating or copyright infringement from anyone at any age," it said.
Cory Doctorow counters that the 14-year-old "correctly asserted that there was no copyright infringement here. Videos that capture small snippets of a videogame do not violate that game creator's copyrights, because they are fair use..."
The DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
Is worse than Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
The video may not be copyright infringing, but I recall Blizzard making claims cheat tools are.
Maybe momma shouldn't have written a letter admitting her little shithead was using a cheat tool...
I don't really care who loses, this one's fun all around :)
Re:The DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
That was sort of my feeling as well. Screw the DMCA, but screw cheaters as well. And screw parents that defend their misbehaving little spawn no matter what they do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the thing here. The kid is in the wrong for spreading cheats, and he can be sued for damaging Epic's business (I believe Blizzard and others have successfully done this in the past). Epic is in the wrong for trying to use DMCA, which does not apply in this case. They should have gone to court and gotten a cease and desist order, at which point the kid (and YouTube would have had to pull down the video or be in contempt of court). The parents are in the wrong for defending their cheating little sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It amazes me the level of hatred aimed at cheating, the level of seriousness to me is less than that of littering - a cigarette butt. It's not a crime in the UK where we don't have the god awful DMCA laws, it's just something annoying that sad people do, probably mostly kids. People need to get some perspective.
Re:The DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
the level of seriousness to me is less than that of littering
Well it's not world ending, but cheating in online games to me is more than littering. It's more like letting your dog shit on the path and not cleaning it up. It annoys everyone around you and spoils the environment for all, not to mention directly affects the person who comes in contact with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your fallacy is confusing "value" with "money".
Even if it were completely free (it isn't), the game still holds value in other forms; advertising space ("free" as in "search engine"), reputation ("free" as in "sponsored event"), market research ("free" as in "free sample").
Re: (Score:2)
The game is not free. If it were free, the company developing and running it would quickly go out of business since it must have at least some expenses.
Presumably the game makes money through advertising or selling players' data. Either way, if nobody is playing the game because of all the cheaters, the company's revenue stream will dry up.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the old "Perfection is easy" argument.
NASA use multiple versions of the same functionality to triple-check each other because they understand that no code can be perfect. If they can't afford to make "robust" code, why do you think a games company can?
Besides, perfection isn't even enough; the code would need to do additional things beyond being absolutely perfect; it should be able to somehow magically discern between humans playing a game and computers playing the game in exactly the same way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I presume they make their money on in-game purchases. The "free" just means that no initial investment is required by the consumer. As their money comes from in-game purchases (which presumably will by-and-large be purchased by people playing the game), anything that negatively affects their player base by decreasing the quality of the game can legitimately be considered monetary loss.
Why the parent was modded +5 insightful is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm familiar with the game and, thus, have some insight that you appear to lack. That is why my comment was modded Insightful.
Re: The DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hae?
The cheats in question are most likely build into the game.
And as long as it is not a multiplayer game, who cares what other cheat tools he is using to 'to have fun'?
Re: (Score:2)
More details on the cheating tools used would be helpful. The first seems to be aim-botting (which is using AI scripts to automatic aim weapons). The other is stream-sniping which involves intercepting someone's else servers communication to see their screen and make annoying comments on their strategy.
https://kotaku.com/epic-is-sui... [kotaku.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty hard to imagine a situation where a 'cheat tool' can be a copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the cheat tools manipulate any copyrighted code or data in violation of the license?
Does the video promote distribution of such tools?
I agree such an interpretation of copyright is bullshit, but it works for sites posting links to bittorrents.
Re: (Score:2)
Is worse than Hitler.
What an utterly idiotic and pathetic thing to say. If the DMCA required this young boy to commit suicide to avoid himself and his family to be arrested and convicted to death by hanging, then it would still be stupid. Not utterly idiotic anymore, but stupid.
And (Score:2)
signed into law by a Democrat!
Re: (Score:2)
Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Both chambers had a Republican majority.
https://www.senate.gov/referen... [senate.gov]
To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.
That should be plenty of information to help you understand why your comment probably looks pretty damn stupid to anyone who actually knows anything about government.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, several cases have already been won on copyright infringement against code injection cheats already.
The kid was stupid, cocky
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was responsible for many millions of people dead. The DMCA is a law about copyright policy.
Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet millions of dead people still hold copyrights. The copyright to Mein Kamph [sic] just expired last year. So until then, the DMCA was protecting Hitler.
The DMCA didn't protect Hitler. He's dead. It protected the State of Bavaria, Germany, which is officially the heir to Hitler's estate (no relative came forward who wanted it), and which was very unwilling to give anyone permission to make copies of the book.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA did not protect anything in that case. ...
Perhaps you should stop using the abreviation which you obviously don't know what it means. Hint: the D in DMCA stands for digital.
Books written nearly 100 years ago are not digital
Re: The DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine you break your leg. Your leg heals and you can walk fine, no after effects or ongoing damage as a result of the break, you forget about it and you move on. Then, you stub your toe. That stubbed toe is worse than your broken leg, because the broken leg is a problem of the past and your stubbed toe is an ongoin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They said they didn't no? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They have known for at least a week now. They are free to offer a simple out of court settlement such as "Pinky swear not to do it again and we'll drop the whole thing." They haven't done so. So, they are, in fact, knowingly suing a 14 year old over cheating in a free to play game.
Further, they initially filed a DMCA complaing (an allegation of copyright infringement). They now claim that they are obligated to sue since he filed a counter-claim. But the suit isn't for infringement. Thus, they knowingly file
Re: (Score:2)
As the child isn't considered an adult it is the mother that have legal responsibility. But as the person that did the things EPIC think are against the DMCA directing the suit towards the child that will in practice be swapped by the proxy (mother) it shouldn't make any difference.
Unless my understanding of the legal system in the US is wrong that is. Wouldn't be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I well understand that. OP was trying to apologize for Epic, claiming they just "didn't know" they were acting like scumballs. I pointed out that they damned well know it now and it hasn't apparently changed their plans.
Re: (Score:2)
No, your understanding of the US legal system is wrong. I am not a lawyer, so so is mine! But here is my understanding.
Parents are financially responsible for their children. Legal responsibility does not otherwise pass through to them. The contract is either valid for the minor, or it isn't. Contracts with children are often valid to the extent that the service was provided, but provisions restricting the cancellation of the contract don't apply. Also, the company is usually required to have to considered
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are free to drop the suit. They haven't. End of story. They are knowingly suing a 14 year old (through a parent). The court filing is hust to ammend the suit with the mother's name and the kid's initials. They are affirmatively suing a 14 year old for cheating in a free to play game.
Parents should take note that letting their kids playing Epic games is a liability, at least until Epic becomes less sue happy.
Re: (Score:2)
"We sued someone and didn't even know how old they were."
If you know that little about who you are suing, isn't that grounds for it to be thrown out immediately?
They may have a case (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then people would upload footage from other players, thus no longer breaking the EULA.
The Dirty Secret Of Where EULAs Came From (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But not in this case. If this EULA isn't legally binding the users have no right to download or use the software!
Re: (Score:2)
You are giving an argument from opposite world.
Re: (Score:2)
Except no one's saying that Epic doesn't have the right to revoke his access to the game, but nice strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
the EULA is a license to use this copyrighted work,
Except I don't need an EULA to use a copyrighted work. Copyright law applies to my right to copy it. DMCA applies to providing information, services or products that are used to circumvent copyright. Interpretation outside of this is suspicious and can lead us into absurdly extreme hypothetical legal situations.
I can certainly agree to an EULA in exchange for something. Violating that EULA is not a copyright violation but a civil law case. Damages are possible. Revoking my access to products or services is
Re: (Score:2)
The court agreed with them, and so that's how it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: what do you mean "lie"? Even if there have been some bizarre legal shenanigans to reverse what I said there, at worst it would be a mistake. You seem to be unnecessarily insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzards argument was that the cheat modified the game and thus was in breach of the EULA of the copyrighted work.
On the other hand making a video about how to cheat is fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they have a point then so does the boy's mother when she says he isn't legally able to accept the EULA. Because, you know, he's not an adult. Hopefully Epic pushes this hard, and then the case gets picked up on the defense by the EFF and goes all the way to trial because I'd love to see the look on the C level execs' faces at Epic when the court rules that he didn't breach the EULA because he couldn't agree to it legally, and OH BY THE WAY, Epic (and all other game companies) need to put measures i
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have already nailed several cheaters for violating copyright by injecting code into the game in memory to alter it (to cheat). Wanna guess what the cheat the kid was showing does? That's right, it injects code. So with several cases as precedent for that exact thing, yeah he's screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a shrink wrap license. But the answer is: sometimes, generally not.
This is a case where one have to accept a license with rules in order to get the right to use the software. Something completely different.
One could make a comparison with some open source licenses including the GPL (yeah, I know better than open source FREE yada yada).
One can't legally do something against the copyright without getting permission.
In this case the permission is given by accepting the license and doing some action
Re: (Score:2)
If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. He not only demonstrated that he:
1) Used the software without accepting the EULA (he couldn't legally do that himself and the mother say she didn't accept it).
Proof: videos of him playing the game.
2) Broke the EULA which is the only thing that permits use of the software.
Proof: videos of him breaking the rules of the EULA.
The only way to legally use the software is
Re:They may have a case (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it is a free game, if he didn't have a license to play it, they can kick him off that is all.
You don't have to have special contractual permission to do things for free. If you didn't provide any "consideration" (=money) to play the game, then the terms are only what they're allowed to do, it is just notice of their policies, it isn't a contract at all.
They can call it a "license" till they are blue in the face, but if you're not republishing their work you don't need any "license."
Also, their DMCA request was bogus and has nothing to do with EULAs.
"Free" software can be "used" however long it remains functioning. That's just the way it is. Sorry. It isn't enough to put a sign on your software that says, "Payment of $35 due if you use this software past 30 days." That doesn't create a requirement to pay anything! It is up to the software creator to build the software to cease functioning. OTOH, if you pay $5 for a 30 day paid trial, and it says the same thing, well then you do have a contract since you paid money and received something for it, so now they can hold you to the $35 payment.
"Piracy" is a criminal act because it involves theft of physical property on the high seas. Pirates are best dealt with by throwing them overboard, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
"If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. "
That's not piracy dumbass. That's Epic allowing someone to 'sign' a contract despite not legally being able to. And that is a huge can of worms for Epic and all other game companies to one day deal with as in that situation EPIC IS AT FAULT for allowing it. Just like if your 12 year old kid walks into a phone store and signs a contract for a phone. If that happens someone is in legal shit
Re: (Score:2)
Fix the fucking game!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of legal action they should taking coding action to prevent these sorts of abuses from being possible...
I learnt as a kid if you don't want someone to take something don't leave it where it can be taken... leave your bike on the street it will be stolen... write shitty code it will be hacked..
PSA on behalf of "the internet"...
Thank the kid and close the holes....
Who in their right mind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My auto liability insurance will hire and pay the lawyer if you sue me for damages related to my operating a motor vehicle.
This stems from a problem with Youtube itself... (Score:5, Informative)
The lawsuit itself is actually a result of a huge problem with YouTube's DMCA takedown system.
Youtube tries to stay out of taking sides itself in any DMCA claim, to avoid liability. Here's what happens when you use the DMCA takedown system on YouTube, which I have done so myself to remove clear infringements using my content:
You are someone who thinks there is an infringing video on youtube. You submit a DMCA takedown claim via an automated interface on YouTube.
If the claim is not responded to, the video in question is taken down. HOWEVER, if the recipient of the takedown claim files a counterclaim, the ONLY way you can counter that counter claim is to provide YouTube with evidence that you have taken legal action against the recipient, i.e. FILED A LAWSUIT.
So basically, for little guys like me with no money for legal action, you are basically up a creek. Most of the time when I file a takedown notice for clear infringement (someone just re-uploaded my video in its entirety) it's gone and doesn't come back. But one time someone decided to submit a counter claim making arguments for fair use that would assuredly fail in a court of law, but youtube again will not take sides and will leave the video up unless I provide evidence to YouTube that I have taken legal action against the counter-claimer.
In this case, since the people who submitted the takedown notice are a company with lawyer power, they CAN start a legal claim and basically MUST do so to get youtube to take down the video when the video's owner refuses to do it themselves.
There is no decision making or moderation on the part of YouTube. They just pass the buck.
Now in this case, I would be on the side of the defendant, because it appears to be a case of fair use, as is any footage of videogame play, companies trying to get you to agree to a dubious license when playing the game nonwithstanding.
But YouTube's way of handling these situations has helped bring this lawsuit upon the defendent. There is further mediation option or decision making on the part of YouTube. If you are a little guy who owns content that has been legitimately bootlegged you are screwed. If you are a big guy who owns content you have to sue. there is no moderation via youtube.
Youtube is simply following the law. (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.plagiarismtoday.co... [plagiarismtoday.com]
Re:This stems from a problem with Youtube itself.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I kind of like that copyright claims are resolved by the courts, not Google.
I play Fortnite (Score:5, Interesting)
I like Fortnite, it's very much like PUBG. I don't like cheaters. If this causes concern for others so be it, maybe they will stop.
That said I've not seen any cheats/cheating in Fortnite. I shoot someone and they kill me - I'm able to see the damage I inflicted as I become a spectator at that point. And always satisfied it being a good kill.
Being 14 does not excuse his behaviour. (Score:5, Informative)
This kid also made multiple video streams that showed people how to perform the cheats as well as showing the cheats in action. This is the part that raised the DMCA claims, as Epic Games claimed that the cheat videos were an unauthorized derivative works. The kid's response was to file counterclaims (although it is clear from his lawsuit response video he has no clue what filing a counterclaim actually meant). He even created a second YouTube account to get around claims/bans. Again, it is clear he knew that he was doing something wrong, but kept on doing it. This left Epic Games with no other legal alternative but to sue.
The letter from the kid's mother doesn't even try to deny the claims from Epic Games, and she even admits he was cheating. Her defense boils down to "he was 14 years old so the rules don't apply". While the law states he cannot enter into a contract, that does not mean he cannot be legally liable for his actions. On top of this it is clear that the mother also has a legal responsibility here. She says she didn't consent to him installing the game, but that does not absolve her of the responsibilities for policing her son's actions. It is very clear from the kid's response videos he has absolutely no understanding of the repercussions of his actions and is just relying on mommy to leap to his defense.
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
While I normally hate DMCA cases, there is very clear evidence for the kid's utter disregard for the rules (especially if you watch his videos in response to the lawsuit), so I think he (and his mother) deserve to have a lesson. I doubt the letter to the Judge will be very persuasive here. It is not any kind of formal Motion to Dismiss the case, and many judges don't like it when people try to sidestep process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...I fail to see how that enables - morally - sound grounding for potential abuse of the DMCA unless it can be demonstrated that the actions actually do violate the DMCA, of course.
The use of the DMCA to take down cheating howto videos is a novel concept that has yet to be tested. However, the only way to demonstrate that his actions do violate the DMCA is in Court. There is no other way. This does not automatically make it abuse. Abuse would be if a court found that concept invalid and Epic Games kept using it for DMCA takedowns anyway.
The only other reason that people seem to be claiming this as abuse is that the kid is 14 years old, but Epic Games had no way of knowing his age
Re: (Score:2)
It is an abuse. The dmca is pretty specific. If epic doesn't own the video then they cannot use the dmca to issue a takedown. To say otherwise is to cheat. Epic will first need to prove they own the video. The court would also have to hear the case where epic would have to prove it is an actual cheat. It would further have to prove harm as in monetary loss.
They have a long road ahead. They can't just pick on some 14 year old kid by threatening his family's well being. Remember the kid didn't write t
Re: (Score:2)
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.
You seem to imply that to invoke fair use you need to have a proper copyright license first. Fair use is meant to allow in specific cases to re-use a copyrighted work or parts of it *without* a proper license. Even assuming the kid had no license at all, fair use is still possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Thoroughly disappointed with Cory Doctorow here (Score:2)
Doctorow could have pointed out that this was dumb, that this was another example of why the DMCA is bad, but instead he claims that there was no copyright infringement going on and talks a lot about how the kid is fourteen years old (as though that were important). He also makes m
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. The prior suits were over the sale of cheats, re: the blizzard lawsuits. Yes blizzard is right in saying it violates the anti circumvention part of the dmca. And blizzard could show harm in those cases. However, the kid is NOT guilty of secondary copyright infringement anymore so than if he were to write a letter about it or speak about it to others.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that the question comes down to whether the video qualifies as a tool or as speech, but given that it exists only to help accomplish a given task, and not to co
Epic is not OK with cheating at any age? (Score:2)
Deal with cheating the way it's meant to be done, and if you really care about the public image of your company, drop that lawsuit already, instead of making up supposedly unwritten, omertà-like rules of business life in order to justify your antisocial behaviour. DMCA is not a tool for businesses to suppress things they don't like.
"Free Game Company"? (Score:2)
That's Epic MegaGames.
You know, the ones that have been around since the 1990s. Jazz Jackrabbit, anyone? Unreal Tournament. Gears of War.
They release one free-to-play title and suddenly they're a "Free Game Company"?
Re: (Score:2)
Their biggest earner is I assume as creator of the Unreal Engine- they must be making a mint off pubg.
--Q
PR Nightmare (Score:3)
Misuse of dmca (Score:2)
What Epic did is a misuse of the dmca, and the kid is right to fight it. Epic does not own the copyright to the video nor the cheat app. I dislike cheat apps immensely but I dislike more that Epic is itself cheating by abusing their position in misusing and abusing the dmca.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There Are No Decent Video Game Makers Left (Score:4, Insightful)
The game costs $40 to buy.
There is a $150 edition, but that's actually THREE copies of the game, plus some other crapola.
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't have to buy the PvE version to access the PvP version. You technically download them both, I think, but the game's logic doesn't let you access vanilla Fortnite, just Battle Royale.
So it is, in fact, free to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should introduce the millenials to a SNES emulator and a stash of ROMs. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Disingenuous to focus on the defendant's age (Score:5, Interesting)
The studio is suing b/c the kid refused to comply with their DMCA notice. While there is a legitimate debate over whether the DMCA notice was justified, the age (or health, political views, sexual preference, etc) of the alleged defender is not an issue.
Depends on contract law. I some places a person under a certain age cannot enter into a legal contract and thus any language in an EULA that prohibits publishing cheat codes might be unenforceable since no contract existed. Even if it was, snippets would be fair use and not a copyright violation. My guess they want dto scare the kid but just experienced an epic fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the age is part of the issue. You cannot expect a child to read and understand a takedown notice.
Except that the kid effectively filed a counterclaim to the takedown notice. How could he have done that if he didn't understand it? He also posted a Youtube video where he discusses the case, and seems to have a pretty solid understanding of what is going on.
I hope he wins, but his age does not reduce the legitimacy of Epic's lawsuit. The law applies to everyone.
Also, why is an American legal case about an American law only being reported on by a British website?
Re: (Score:2)
Kids manage to do a LOT of things without understanding the implications. That's why they have a special status in legal matters.
There would be a good case for nullifying the notice (not sent to parent/guardian), the counternotice (not filed by legally competent person) and the lawsuit (incorrectly filed, arising from nullified notice and counternotice).
This is the sort of confusion that happens when law degenerates to lobbing grenades over the wall rather than first engaging with the other party and then g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, in the US there are states where 12 year olds can get executed for murder. ...
Other states prosecute 10 year old boys for sexual assault when they help their 8 year old sister to pee.
The ten year old in that case was brought into court with chains at the feet and hands cuffed to his back
The USA is the country of absurdities, most specially in regards to laws or court rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright part is about the cheat, it's using code injection, something the courts have already nailed people for. The kid has very little chance of winning as there is precedence, and it's against him.
It's true I hate the cheaters, but I also don't think altering anything in memory of your own computer is a copyright violation, but the courts have declared that it is, so it's kind of not a fair use since it involves breaking the law as it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem to me that the money spent paying their lawyers might have been better spent building anti cheat methods. Or better had been spent doing it from the start in the first place...
I run Windows and with it PowerPro http://powerpro.cresadu.com/ [cresadu.com] it's always been like that.
I've played a lot of games in my time, and run their cheat protections. Epic games (Fortnite) is the only one to block PowerPro, makes a lot of sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
powerpro certainly looks like it hooks other programs.
Either way, this won't be an Epic Games thing as much as a Battleye thing (the anti cheat used by fortnite).