5 ms·

They could. They would lose, though

• bogwog 3y ago
  Because Rockstar is a huge company, or because the dev wouldn’t have a case?
• wongarsu 3y ago
  A No-CD crack might not be transformative enough to warrant copyright protection as derivative work in the US. But they could sue in a jurisdiction that is more likely to give them a favorable outcome. Handling of derivative works and the minimum threshold for copyright varies considerably between countries.
  • Guvante 3y ago
    Likely Rockstar would counter sue for violating their original Copyright and the terms of use attached to them. At best it would be a wash, there is a decent chance the damages for the countersuit would lead to a net loss.
    • ArnoVW 3y ago
      The can sue them for anti-circumvention statutes in the DMCA. But not for infringement, since the developers did not do the infringement, they only enabled it.
      • favorited 3y ago
        How did the cracked game enter circulation, if the crackers didn't redistribute it?
        • methou 3y ago
          In this very specific case, it's a no-cd patch, you can be a legitimate owner of the copy but for some very valid reasons that do not want load the CD every time you play the game. (Like disk and/drive wearing, or just don't like the hassle)
      • hnick 3y ago
        Do those statutes apply for interoperability? Which takes precedence? This is basically how Rockstar used it - to make the game work on computers without CDs. So the actual rights holder has recognised that this tool or one like it is legitimately required for interoperability, between the game as a piece of technology and a modern computer. They won't work together otherwise. Maybe I am being too tricky but that's how I see it. And if that makes it a legitimate work then it's funny to think about the consequences.
        • ArnoVW 3y ago
          Certain excemptions are provided in the DMCA, and have been established via jurisprudenence: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/28/2021-23311/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/28/2021-23... Geeks often think that the law is some sort of blockchain-esque thing that is absolute, context-free and machine-interpretable. In reality, many laws require 'guilty intent' (mens rea). This is why we have 'judges', who perform 'judgement'. So the same tool called 'no-cd', marketed as a backup tool may be judged 'OK', where 'WaR3z HaCk.exe' published by a group of known software pirates will be judged 'anti circumvention'
      • account42 3y ago
        NoCD patches are commonly distributed as an already-patched version of the executable, which would count as infringement.
    • therein 3y ago
      After some short searching online, looks like for copyright infringement litigation, the statute of limitation is three years.
  • freejazz 3y ago
    I don't think people on HN understand what a derivative work is, considering how often I see it referenced incorrectly. You can't make a derivative work without a license. That's why it's derivative. It derivates from the copyrighted work and is therefore within the domain of the copyright and under the control of the copyright's owner. A Harry Potter spin-off about Hermione (I don't know anything about HP, sorry in advanced) is a derivative of the original Harry Potter work. As I'm sure you are well aware, you cannot sell copies of your Hermione spin-off, because that'd be copyright infringement, because it is a derivative work.
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > I don't think people on HN understand what a derivative work is, considering how often I see it referenced incorrectly. Very true. > You can't make a derivative work without a license. T You can, but it is a copyright violation to do so unless an exception (like Fair Use) applies. A derivative work is also a work eligible for copyright in its own right, and as such is copyright by the creator by operation of law when fixed in a tangible form, whether or not it also violates someone else’s copyright. > It derivates “derives” > from the copyrighted work and is therefore within the domain of the copyright and under the control of the copyright's owner. No, producing it is within the legally exclusive rights of the copyright holder subject to the limitations on those rights, but once created the copyright in the derivative is not under the control of the copyright holder of the original (though transferring or licensing back may be part of the resolution of copyright violation lawsuit over its creation.)
      • antiterra 3y ago
        I thought Pickett v Prince established precedent that you can’t copyright an unauthorized derivative work. See 17 U.S.C. §103(a), which says that derivative works can be copyrighted, but that does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (not a lawyer but I did audit this class at a law school)
    • bri3d 3y ago
      If the patch is distributed on its own, without the original binary, is it still a derivative work? Is the unique, creative work of writing "perform XYZ instruction at XYZ address," in lieu of the original executable, still derivative? This is actually an unanswered/unproven question that comes up quite a bit in automotive tuning, where individuals and tuning companies modify OEM calibrations and create application software patches which, while they are unique and perform stand-alone functions, run on top of OEM ECU software.
  • itiro 3y ago
    Most DRM crackers aren’t in it for money but to prove DRM is a flawed and ridiculous concept. That was my scene back in the day when there was less risk of the Feds kicking in the door. At least back then most of us saw it as a learning experience.