7 ms·

> The Australian federal court has also frozen the assets of the five, who have not yet filed a defence. This is just sick. These aren't traffickers or Mafia a

> The Australian federal court has also frozen the assets of the five, who have not yet filed a defence. This is just sick. These aren't traffickers or Mafia associates; they make $40 a pop facilitating violating a video game's terms of service-- a civil matter at worst. But sure, they're on par with Pablo Escobar, so let's freeze all their goddamn assets before they've even had a chance to respond to the charges.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
This is why I prefer to instead refer to the plantiffs as being part of the copyright cartel. The copyright cartel steals all your money and prevents you from mounting a defense while your home is raided. Which is the mob and which isn't?
floatingatoll 8y ago
They have $280,000 frozen, and were permitted a living expenses stipend by the court. At $40 per sale, that's 7,000 potential violations of civil law that they could be convicted of. If they'd only sold a hundred copies, they could try to contest that only $4,000 should be frozen, since that's the maximum profit possible. That they failed to convince the court to freeze less than the full $280,000 implies either that the court already has evidence affirming at least $280,000 in potentially-illegal revenue, or that they failed to provide the court documentary evidence of total sales less than $280,000. If your objection is that they should not have their assets frozen because the individual sale amount is low, that isn't really how "repeatedly profited from willfully violating a written agreement" works in most court systems. They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect: they are granted a reasonable stipend from the frozen assets to ensure that they are neither hungry nor homeless for the duration of the case.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. It stinks of a capricious attempt to deny the right to legal council to those who offend those at the top. Even Enron masterminds were allowed to use their assets which certainly came from their misdeeds which crippled the state and likely killed people via their outages. This mockery of justice is what makes it inhumane.
  - jstarfish 8y ago
    > The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. This is my objection. It's obscene that the full resources of the state are brought down on defendants expected to subsist only on "modest living expenses." It's one thing when your opponent has the backing of their own narco-state, but these are presumably a bunch of 20-somethings with a net worth of less than $1M. You can't challenge someone to a duel and then handicap them by taking away their gun and making them wear a bag over their head. That's not a fight, that's an execution.
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.
      - Retric 8y ago
        The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
      - jstarfish 8y ago
        I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.
- foxhill 8y ago
  > They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. this is the exact opposite of basis on which most legal systems are based on - innocence until proven guilty. > If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect. no, that's their opinion. one i agree with. you can disagree with both of us, but that too is also just your opinion. > ... granted a reasonable stipend that is also your opinion, and also varies heavily based on what you mean by "reasonable" > ... for the duration of the case. and what if it takes two years? be reasonable here. rockstar have made an immense amount of money from the GTA franchise. rockstar probably incur more financial damage from floating point rounding error. the actions taken by the australian court system (one known for its.. reasonable decisions RE gaming) are catastrophically disproportionate.
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  "7,000 potential violations of civil law" Serious (and probably naive) question, what law are they breaking? My understanding of TOSs is that the company can unilaterally deny a user the stipulated service if they believe they are breaking the terms, but not taking you to court over it. "Undermines enjoying for users playing fairly in online modes" doesn't strike me as a punishable offense. If the cheats involved unlawful access to the server it would be hacking, I guess, but if they work on a local PC and users used them willingly, I don't see how they can be held liable. Copyright infringement?
  - onli 8y ago
    Destruction of Property?
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    "What law are they breaking?" is the important question to ask here, and I don't have a good answer. I'm not familiar with Australian law, and none of the articles about this seem to have done their due diligence in that respect. I assume that's why they all led with "homes raided" and "funds frozen", since otherwise there'd be no story yet. For example: "Team of 5 sued in court over creating and selling a video game cheating tool to thousands of players" Is this interesting? Absolutely. Does it have the same emotional 'clickbait' hook as this? "Team of 5 have funds frozen before they get a chance to respond to allegations" Or the actual headline here? "GTA 'cheats' home raided" Not even slightly. Don't let a newspaper headline frame the issue for you. The issue here is simple: "Is it legal, under Australian law, to sell software that violates the terms of service of an online service only when executed by the buyer?"
- mattnewton 8y ago
  What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! This seems extremely heavy handed. These people are allegedly selling software that lets someone break the TOS for a video game; let’s keep this in perspective. On the basis of that complaint, they froze their assets and allowed Take 2 Interactive to search their homes. The level of involvement from the corporation that makes video games reads like a trashy cyberpunk-dystopia novel.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Drug traffickers collect revenue in increments like $40 a pop so I'm not sure that sort of comparison serves your argument very well. In commercial disputes, it's common for a plaintiff to put a lien on a defendant's assets, or to get the OK from a court to search the defendant's offices for paper or digital records during the discovery phase of a case. Why all the drama over some contractual litigation?
- rangibaby 8y ago
  I don't think annoying kids online is the on the same level as selling drugs. Maybe weed, but I don't agree with the enforcement against that either.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    True, consumption of drugs generally makes the user happy without necessarily impacting anyone else. Use of this vidya cheat makes the buyer happy in a way that worsens the experience for large numbers of other players, kinda like if I decided to hold a paintball game at a shopping mall. to be frank, I don't care about the troubles of a software company very much, or think this is an important legal fight for them to win. But people who use cheat software to get more enjoyment out of multiplayer games are essentially selfish losers. I mean, there are game mods which were developed specifically for humorous free-for-all play where players have infinite everything and can clown off to their hearts' content, but cheaters and griefers don't seem to enjoy those games because winning and losing are irrelevant. I don't play a lot of games these days and the games I do play aren't that social, but I've noticed that when I do play socially the people who spend money on special item sales and the like also tend to be verbally abusive when defeated in PvP.
zamalek 8y ago
Imagine that you install some very useful, or even entertaining, $60 device in your home. For instance, a Fire TV Stick. Some hacker group then takes it upon themselves to hack 90 million of these devices. Whenever you turn the device on, the only thing you can watch is a heavily monetized stream of one of the hackers. A new device won't help because you can't get Prime, where some of your shows are, on a Chromecast. 90 million paying customers at $60 each, that's how much damage these vandals have done.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nyxxie 8y ago
  What is the difference in your mind between someone who is really good at the game vs someone who is cheating? At the end of the day, my displeasure comes from being beaten, so morally speaking I don't see a difference. Does Fortnite not have a ranking system? Why are people who are extremely good at the game (or cheaters) being exposed to new players?
  - honkycat 8y ago
    > What is the difference in your mind between someone who is really good at the game vs someone who is cheating? Cheaters are regularly banned and are matched up with new players. Additionally, cheaters have super-human reflexes and powers that make them completely unkillable. Cheaters are much more common than elite players, so you are much more likely to run into them than an elite player. Finally, getting matched up with an elite player in an online video game as an average player is something online video game companies invest technology into avoiding. > If we're saying that being beaten in a video game is a entertainment-ruining experience akin to someone hacking my Chromecast, I see virtually no distinction except that one "earned" the skills. At the end of the day, my displeasure comes from being beaten, so morally speaking I don't see a difference here. OK so you just don't like video games and want an opportunity to shit on them. This is a huge leap. Who said their entire argument is based on winning vs losing? Losing can be fun, it's not the same thing. Being beaten by a hacker with super-human reaction speed and is completely unkillable is experience ruining. Losing in a game against a skilled player can be rewarding. And if the other player is so skilled it's not even a competition, it's a bad matchmaking system and it should be changed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pmarreck 8y ago
I kinda want to agree, but I also kinda want to just say "F*ck all bad-actors, in any way shape or form." These people ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else who is playing honorably.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

This is why I prefer to instead refer to the plantiffs as being part of the copyright cartel. The copyright cartel steals all your money and prevents you from mounting a defense while your home is raided. Which is the mob and which isn't?

floatingatoll 8y ago

They have $280,000 frozen, and were permitted a living expenses stipend by the court. At $40 per sale, that's 7,000 potential violations of civil law that they could be convicted of. If they'd only sold a hundred copies, they could try to contest that only $4,000 should be frozen, since that's the maximum profit possible. That they failed to convince the court to freeze less than the full $280,000 implies either that the court already has evidence affirming at least $280,000 in potentially-illegal revenue, or that they failed to provide the court documentary evidence of total sales less than $280,000. If your objection is that they should not have their assets frozen because the individual sale amount is low, that isn't really how "repeatedly profited from willfully violating a written agreement" works in most court systems. They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect: they are granted a reasonable stipend from the frozen assets to ensure that they are neither hungry nor homeless for the duration of the case.

Nasrudith 8y ago
The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. It stinks of a capricious attempt to deny the right to legal council to those who offend those at the top. Even Enron masterminds were allowed to use their assets which certainly came from their misdeeds which crippled the state and likely killed people via their outages. This mockery of justice is what makes it inhumane.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  > The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. This is my objection. It's obscene that the full resources of the state are brought down on defendants expected to subsist only on "modest living expenses." It's one thing when your opponent has the backing of their own narco-state, but these are presumably a bunch of 20-somethings with a net worth of less than $1M. You can't challenge someone to a duel and then handicap them by taking away their gun and making them wear a bag over their head. That's not a fight, that's an execution.
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.
    - Retric 8y ago
      The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
    - jstarfish 8y ago
      I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.
foxhill 8y ago
> They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. this is the exact opposite of basis on which most legal systems are based on - innocence until proven guilty. > If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect. no, that's their opinion. one i agree with. you can disagree with both of us, but that too is also just your opinion. > ... granted a reasonable stipend that is also your opinion, and also varies heavily based on what you mean by "reasonable" > ... for the duration of the case. and what if it takes two years? be reasonable here. rockstar have made an immense amount of money from the GTA franchise. rockstar probably incur more financial damage from floating point rounding error. the actions taken by the australian court system (one known for its.. reasonable decisions RE gaming) are catastrophically disproportionate.
Kurtz79 8y ago
"7,000 potential violations of civil law" Serious (and probably naive) question, what law are they breaking? My understanding of TOSs is that the company can unilaterally deny a user the stipulated service if they believe they are breaking the terms, but not taking you to court over it. "Undermines enjoying for users playing fairly in online modes" doesn't strike me as a punishable offense. If the cheats involved unlawful access to the server it would be hacking, I guess, but if they work on a local PC and users used them willingly, I don't see how they can be held liable. Copyright infringement?
- onli 8y ago
  Destruction of Property?
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  "What law are they breaking?" is the important question to ask here, and I don't have a good answer. I'm not familiar with Australian law, and none of the articles about this seem to have done their due diligence in that respect. I assume that's why they all led with "homes raided" and "funds frozen", since otherwise there'd be no story yet. For example: "Team of 5 sued in court over creating and selling a video game cheating tool to thousands of players" Is this interesting? Absolutely. Does it have the same emotional 'clickbait' hook as this? "Team of 5 have funds frozen before they get a chance to respond to allegations" Or the actual headline here? "GTA 'cheats' home raided" Not even slightly. Don't let a newspaper headline frame the issue for you. The issue here is simple: "Is it legal, under Australian law, to sell software that violates the terms of service of an online service only when executed by the buyer?"
mattnewton 8y ago
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! This seems extremely heavy handed. These people are allegedly selling software that lets someone break the TOS for a video game; let’s keep this in perspective. On the basis of that complaint, they froze their assets and allowed Take 2 Interactive to search their homes. The level of involvement from the corporation that makes video games reads like a trashy cyberpunk-dystopia novel.

anigbrowl 8y ago

Drug traffickers collect revenue in increments like $40 a pop so I'm not sure that sort of comparison serves your argument very well. In commercial disputes, it's common for a plaintiff to put a lien on a defendant's assets, or to get the OK from a court to search the defendant's offices for paper or digital records during the discovery phase of a case. Why all the drama over some contractual litigation?

rangibaby 8y ago
I don't think annoying kids online is the on the same level as selling drugs. Maybe weed, but I don't agree with the enforcement against that either.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  True, consumption of drugs generally makes the user happy without necessarily impacting anyone else. Use of this vidya cheat makes the buyer happy in a way that worsens the experience for large numbers of other players, kinda like if I decided to hold a paintball game at a shopping mall. to be frank, I don't care about the troubles of a software company very much, or think this is an important legal fight for them to win. But people who use cheat software to get more enjoyment out of multiplayer games are essentially selfish losers. I mean, there are game mods which were developed specifically for humorous free-for-all play where players have infinite everything and can clown off to their hearts' content, but cheaters and griefers don't seem to enjoy those games because winning and losing are irrelevant. I don't play a lot of games these days and the games I do play aren't that social, but I've noticed that when I do play socially the people who spend money on special item sales and the like also tend to be verbally abusive when defeated in PvP.

zamalek 8y ago

Imagine that you install some very useful, or even entertaining, $60 device in your home. For instance, a Fire TV Stick. Some hacker group then takes it upon themselves to hack 90 million of these devices. Whenever you turn the device on, the only thing you can watch is a heavily monetized stream of one of the hackers. A new device won't help because you can't get Prime, where some of your shows are, on a Chromecast. 90 million paying customers at $60 each, that's how much damage these vandals have done.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nyxxie 8y ago
What is the difference in your mind between someone who is really good at the game vs someone who is cheating? At the end of the day, my displeasure comes from being beaten, so morally speaking I don't see a difference. Does Fortnite not have a ranking system? Why are people who are extremely good at the game (or cheaters) being exposed to new players?
- honkycat 8y ago
  > What is the difference in your mind between someone who is really good at the game vs someone who is cheating? Cheaters are regularly banned and are matched up with new players. Additionally, cheaters have super-human reflexes and powers that make them completely unkillable. Cheaters are much more common than elite players, so you are much more likely to run into them than an elite player. Finally, getting matched up with an elite player in an online video game as an average player is something online video game companies invest technology into avoiding. > If we're saying that being beaten in a video game is a entertainment-ruining experience akin to someone hacking my Chromecast, I see virtually no distinction except that one "earned" the skills. At the end of the day, my displeasure comes from being beaten, so morally speaking I don't see a difference here. OK so you just don't like video games and want an opportunity to shit on them. This is a huge leap. Who said their entire argument is based on winning vs losing? Losing can be fun, it's not the same thing. Being beaten by a hacker with super-human reaction speed and is completely unkillable is experience ruining. Losing in a game against a skilled player can be rewarding. And if the other player is so skilled it's not even a competition, it's a bad matchmaking system and it should be changed.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pmarreck 8y ago

I kinda want to agree, but I also kinda want to just say "F*ck all bad-actors, in any way shape or form." These people ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else who is playing honorably.