Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games

Bungie Wins Lawsuit Against Cheat Maker Aimjunkies (pcmag.com) 64

Bungie has won a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against cheat maker Phoenix Digital.ÂFrom a report: The case was potentially the first-ever video game cheating jury trial and resulted in Bungie winning $63,210 in damages from Phoenix Digital,Âwhich isÂalso known as Aimjunkies. While cheating in a game is not illegal, Bungie was able to sue the cheat maker under the argument that reverse engineering the game, specifically Destiny 2, to find those cheats violates the company's copyright. In this case,ÂPCGamer notesÂthat Aimjunkies also accused Bungie of violating its copyright by accessing one of its employees' computers,Âsomething Bungie argued was just part of its normal detection process for cheating and is covered by the game's EULA. The judge rejected Aimjunkies' claim.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bungie Wins Lawsuit Against Cheat Maker Aimjunkies

Comments Filter:
  • by tysonedwards ( 969693 ) on Monday May 27, 2024 @02:40PM (#64503331)
    The argument: reverse engineering violates our copyright. That is just chilling and will have massive ripples for decades to come. This needs appealed, despite the absurdly low monetary judgement amount.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by Anonymous Coward

        You're definitely not a lawyer, as witnessed by that poorly penned hot take.

    • I found the case text from the filing so I suppose this is what the trail arguments followed since this depends how narrow the ruling is.

      https://casetext.com/case/bung... [casetext.com]

      It's and interesting question since I don't think anyone would say video game cheating should be an actual crime (or would they?) but at the same time for the company a cheating tool can cost it revenue so it feels like they should be able to obtain damages.

      Combine that with the fact that most everyone does not like cheaters and would want

      • by XanC ( 644172 )

        It might be better for everyone if video game cheating were made illegal and reverse engineering remained legal.

        • Absolutely, my question is how do you legally navigate those two things together? What does making cheating illegal look like? Do we go after the cheaters or the authors? Does that put us in another round of everyone getting threatening letters in the mail for downloading a song?

          • Ironically, there's an argument for lootboxes here. Your computer is Turing complete. It can execute literally any code given enough time. As long as you're not executing someone else's patented or copyrighted code or code that violates national security, you have the legal right to execute any code you want under the First Amendment. For most games, this covers most cheating systems. But cheat systems degrade the experience for everyone else. This, legally speaking, becomes a case of how do you allow free

      • I don't think anyone would say video game cheating should be an actual crime (or would they?)

        Be careful about what you wish for. To some just being a better player than them is "cheating" and "worthy of punishment / banning."

        a cheating tool can cost it revenue

        Companies are not entitled to a profit. Assuming they were paid for the game itself (and possibly any online pass), the company has already made it's profit. Saying that the company should be allowed to deny people use of their own equipment under their own authority so that the company can potentially make more money from others in the future is a far worse precedent.

        Combine that with the fact that most everyone does not like cheaters and would want something to be done

        What m

        • Saying that the company should be allowed to deny people use of their own equipment under their own authority

          I agree but with an online game there is a bit more to it than that since the whole thing is predicated on a client/server relationship, so if you make a private server and do whatever you want on there, no leg to stand on but you are not just interacting with your equipment but the developers and we could view it in such a way that you are interacting with every other players equipment. I think in the face of online cheating this falls a bit flat, it can't be that simple.

          Companies are not entitled to a profit.

          I definitely didn't say that but i

      • ...but at the same time for the company a cheating tool can cost it revenue so it feels like they should be able to obtain damages.

        Except that's the same argument used by anti-right-to-repair companies. It could also be used by companies to prevent someone from customizing their car, swapping out hardware on a computer, fixing bugs the company refuses to fix, modding games, etc. If you think about it in physical terms, this is like suing the manufacturer of the screw drivers for using it to open up an appliance.

        ...if not copyright or trademark I wonder what the legal through line is or even if there should be one.

        There wouldn't/shouldn't be one. The network/system they make is their responsibility/private property. Unless they also want

    • Depends on where you are. Our copyright here explicitly allows reverse engineering and you cannot waive that right.

      • Copyright or patent? The purpose of a patent is to stop people manufacturing a clone product, there is no rule against ripping it apart to understand it. The patent forbids profiting without paying.

        Copyright? Not unless you're gaming the system the way old console makers tried to use a copyrighted phrase as a cartridge password to stop people from selling their own games. Even then I think that failed in court.

        • Article 40 (IIRC) of our copyright specifies that reverse engineering a product is permitted for the purpose of creating a derived product that is compatible with various functions of the product (the technical crap is pretty intricate and I don't think I'm qualified to give a translated version that covers all aspects).

          For the purpose in this particular case, it would very likely be applicable.

          Not all the world bends over to US copyright rules, you know...

    • rip screen readers!

    • The courts have been packed with Pro-Corporate judges for about 40 years now and they're going to side with whoever has the most money first and then whatever expands property rights the most.
    • That is just chilling and will have massive ripples for decades to come. This needs appealed, despite the absurdly low monetary judgement amount.

      Not really. The single ruling by one trial court of a state carries very little weight and sets virtually no precedent, not even for trial courts in other states. They may consider / reference what transpired, but ultimately this decision is unlikely to impact anyone if not appealed and can be appealed by a more significant case should the need arise.

    • Reverse engineering detection is also pushed as a legit use for circumventing privacy

    • I just read through the jury instructions and their findings, and it doesn’t sound like the cheaters were punished for reverse engineering, per se. They were punished because they profited from distributing illicit copies of copyrighted software. Put differently, rather than being a clean room design [wikipedia.org], it sounds like what they actually did was modify and redistribute Bungie’s copyrighted materials with their modifications included. At that point, what they’re publishing is a derivative work

    • It thrills me to no end to see your comment first and at +5 Insightful.

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday May 27, 2024 @03:02PM (#64503377)

    I dislike cheaters as much as the next person and these assholes have made me stop playing more than one game I actually enjoyed initially. But going via copyright here could have a lot of bad side-effects.

  • Please go back and clean up the stray à characters. Thanks.

    • It is impressive that Slashdot to this day refuses to support Unicode characters.
      • Without Unicode support, homographs are less likely, but they can stiIl happen.

        • They don't have to support the entire Unicode space, but at the very least they should whitelist some of the common codepoints - smart quotes, non-breaking space, and accented characters. Normalize the representation (yes, I know, it can be tricky) and anything not explicitly whitelisted gets deleted or replaced by something innocuous.
  • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday May 27, 2024 @03:14PM (#64503419) Homepage Journal

    The legality of this sort of reverse engineering was already decided by the ninth circuit in Galoob [wikipedia.org]. That's binding precedent for this case. It should have literally been a one-day bench trial in which AimJunkies made a motion to dismiss and the judge granted it.

    I just can't even imagine how this won't get overturned instantly on appeal. If they had sued on tortious interference grounds or something, then maybe, but not copyright violation. This ruling absolutely should not be allowed to stand, as it would overturn literally decades of legal precedent. Stare decisis is important.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday May 27, 2024 @05:04PM (#64503627)
      When the supreme Court struck down roe versus Wade whatever else you thought about that decision it opened the floodgates to basically ignore precedence. Never mind the last 40 plus years of judicial appointments that are likely to make these kind of rulings.

      Basically our entire judicial system is kind of f***** right now and isn't going to behave the way people expect or want. Folks don't realize how important to our body politic the judicial system is but the people who have been getting ready to do stuff like this for the last 40 some odd years knew All too well.

      But you're not supposed to talk about politics let alone hot button issues like abortion let alone explain the broader ramifications of such a ruling. Because like Ronald Reagan said if you're explaining you're losing...
      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        When the supreme Court struck down roe versus Wade whatever else you thought about that decision it opened the floodgates to basically ignore precedence. Never mind the last 40 plus years of judicial appointments that are likely to make these kind of rulings.

        There's some serious irony involved there. For decades, the Republicans paid lip service to overturning Roe, but pretty consistently did little or nothing to actually advance that cause at the federal level. Then, suddenly, Donald Trump, the least Republican Republican in the history of the country, goes in like a bull in a china shop and chooses judges with the deliberate intent to sway the court on abortion, and the Republicans get their worst nightmare.

        After all, now that they've done it, they have ver

        • So much so that when the Democrats gave them everything they wanted in a border bill in exchange for not collapsing the entire economy with a government shutdown the Republicans had to turn against their own bill because they wouldn't have had anything to run on in the election. Republicans in more moderate districts are kind of pissed off though because they can't run on nothing more than fear-mongering and they needed to pass that bill to make it look like they were doing something.

          Republican party ha
          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            Yes - everything they wanted PLUS a little language that gave the Administration authority to do literally anything it wanted (including F*** All) once the number of arrivals hit a certain threshold lower the current daily threshold that historically they are certain to hit.

            It was really clever and if the average Republic representative and their constituents were as aggressively stupid and low information as the constituencies Democrats usually bamboozle to keep power, it might have worked.

        • by flink ( 18449 )

          I wouldn't count the Rs out yet. There are still rich veins of Islamophobia, transphobia, racism, fear of "global elites" (Jews), xenophobia, red scare, and anti-immigration to mine.

      • Revisiting precedent is one of the functions of a high court. They normally avoid doing it because the ramifications are complex. The preference is to wait for legislature to clarify or overturn the ruling with new law.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        When the supreme Court struck down Dread Scott whatever else your thought about that decision it opened the floodgates to basically ignore precedence...

        Oh wait that line of thinking is stupid and obviously so. Stare decisis is obviously important; because people need to be able to have expectations about the law. However I would think as "liberal" you of all people would recognize that alone should not force us to slavishly cleave to gross injustices!

        Except you are not a liberal, you are Stalinist sack of

    • The legality of this sort of reverse engineering was already decided by the ninth circuit in Galoob [wikipedia.org].

      Not really. In law the devil is in the details, it's not just a case of what was done, but how it was done, and the terms under which something was done. In fact in the very same year that Galoob beat Nintendo, Nintendo beat Atari for creating a very VERY similar device. It was just the details on how (and if) copyrights were infringed differed slightly.

      Likewise this is a story that birthed the IBM Compatible PC itself. With IBM clones both getting away with it as well as losing mountains of lawsuits to IBM

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        The legality of this sort of reverse engineering was already decided by the ninth circuit in Galoob [wikipedia.org].

        Not really. In law the devil is in the details, it's not just a case of what was done, but how it was done, and the terms under which something was done. In fact in the very same year that Galoob beat Nintendo, Nintendo beat Atari for creating a very VERY similar device. It was just the details on how (and if) copyrights were infringed differed slightly.

        Atari literally had their lawyers lie to the copyright office to illegally obtain a copy of Nintendo's source code. That's not reverse engineering at that point. That's something else. And the court correctly ruled that fair use exemptions don't apply when you're starting from an unauthorized copy that was stolen.

        Likewise this is a story that birthed the IBM Compatible PC itself. With IBM clones both getting away with it as well as losing mountains of lawsuits to IBM for the cloning, e.g. Phoenix successfully cloned the IBM BIOS and was able to sell their clone and sublicense it commercially. Panasonic tried the same and ended up losing millions to IBM all due to subtle differences in what was determined in the court cases.

        Unless you're talking about a different case, Panasonic didn't "end up losing millions to IBM". They settled out of court [google.com] — and very quickly at that — to preserve their business rel

        • Indeed, but that's my point. The issue here isn't the reverse engineering. Even in this case the ruling had nothing to do with reverse engineering, and everything to do with copyright terms. The differences between Atari and Galoob were ones based on the copyright. Additionally copyright law has changed considerably since the Galoob ruling.

          The devil is in the details, Galoob's precedent isn't some carte-blanche approval to go reverse engineer things.

          Unless you're talking about a different case, Panasonic didn't "end up losing millions to IBM".

          I may have conflated Panasonic and Kyocera, or any of the

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Indeed, but that's my point. The issue here isn't the reverse engineering. Even in this case the ruling had nothing to do with reverse engineering, and everything to do with copyright terms. The differences between Atari and Galoob were ones based on the copyright. Additionally copyright law has changed considerably since the Galoob ruling.

            Mostly in harmful ways. But not in ways that should reasonably affect whether a game mod infringes a copyright. This clearly isn't anti-circumvention tech (it doesn't allow someone to play the game who otherwise couldn't), so the DMCA does not at least prima facie appear to apply, and no software exists that would have gone out of copyright without the Sunny Bono act.

            Nintendo effectively addressed anti-circumvention despite being a pre-DMCA case, when talking about the fact that the user had to buy the ga

    • From what I could gather, this case didn't hinge on the legality of reverse engineering: it hinged on the distribution of copyrighted material.

      The impression I get—which may be incorrect—is that the cheat they distributed still included Bungie's copyrighted material, and as such was a derivative work over which they did not have complete ownership. This is exactly why clean room designs [wikipedia.org] are used in the industry to sidestep these sorts of issues, since those result in entirely original works.

      Anyw

  • by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Monday May 27, 2024 @03:37PM (#64503469) Homepage Journal
    On it's surface, this looks like a very bad decision, extending copyright overreach even further. As such, before we indulge in the predictable ranting and raving, it's probably crucial to understand what was charged, what was argued, what was decided, and how the jury was instructed.

    The case's Federal docket number is 2:21-cv-00811. A complete record of the case, including all filings and, crucially, instructions to the jury (and, amusingly, an ORDER from the judge to pay for the jury's lunch), may be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com]

    Get reading.

  • If I buy a software, I should have the protected right to reverse engineer it, and look at the source code. Ideally a company would be forced to give me the source code on request, but we're not that evolved, yet. If I buy a car, the car company can't stop me from opening the hood, and it's the same concept with software. Once you have a license, you should have a right to the source.

    What this ruling does, is set a very dangerous condition, that you don't have access to the code behind the software, a
    • This is the issue, a judge just ruled that you don't own, or have freedom, over the stuff you bought, and by proxy this mean anything you own, can be controlled by the company who produced it.

      Is this like judges ruling you don't have freedom over your own body and by proxy this means you can be controlled by the government? That sounds horrible!

      • I don't know how else one would understand that ruling. I understand not honouring a warranty if you breach the integrity of something, but you should still be allowed in.
  • This isn't a win for Bungie, it's a win for Sony. Subsidiaries act in accordance with the interests of the parent company.

    The coverage that Slashdot chooses not to bad is low resolution spam designed to help private equity firms at the expense of workers rights. Yuck to this article. Yuck to Sony. Yuck to publishers. And Yuck to section 230.

    We had a really good internet until they erradicated corporate responsibility with Section 230. Since then, social media have turned into treasonous fraud machines b
    • Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
    • We had a really good internet until they erradicated corporate responsibility with Section 230.

      Not only does Section 230 of the CDA have nothing to do with this case and vice versa, but it hasn't erradicated [sic] corporate responsibility. That's what corporations are for.

  • The summary is riddled with formatting errors. Yeah yeah Slashcode sucks etc. Get off your iDevice and fix it already.

  • - so what are you here for?
    - i robbed a bank, you?
    - i used an aimbot in a video game
    • - so what are you here for?

      - i robbed a bank, you?

      - i used an aimbot in a video game

      I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players would say this is a good thing. All they want to do is have fun, but if someone is cheating, what's the point?

  • by their lawsuit against Glider in World of Warcraft. And if memory serves, they also abused copyright in their lawsuit.

  • It was nice using you.

  • This was most definitely not the first such case. Blizzard sued us to close down Honorbuddy and Demonbuddy, bots for WoW and D3 saying that using their games to develop our bots was breach of copyright. We lost over $10 million in 2018 and were wiped out.

  • so looking forward to the time when we'll have access to powerful local lawyer AI
  • What a stupid name for a company. The judge should have punished them extra for choosing the name Phoenix Digital.ÂFrom.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...