Well this is a shame but in many ways to be expected. Take-Two Interactive Software, the parent company of Rockstar Games, has filed a lawsuit against the developers of the reverse-engineered GTA III and Vice City code.
This is a bit of an ongoing saga, as Take-Two first got the GitHub repositories taken down, which were later restored when the developer of a fork submitted a counter-notice which wasn't argued so they all went back up. The repositories are still live on GitHub right now. The notice mentions this with Take-Two saying the counter notices were "were made in bad faith, and knowingly and deliberately misrepresented to GitHub the contents".
Plenty more is argued as well of course. In the notice it complains how the code now runs on platforms it was never released for where the "Defendants have sought to exploit a potential market that belongs exclusively to Take-Two", it argues against new cheats enabled in the source code which "are strictly prohibited under Take-Two’s terms of service". It goes further, complaining about modding which Take-Two say "encouraging users to further infringe the original Games and to violate their agreements with Take-Two that prohibit such activities".
As a result of the code being public, Take-Two are claiming it the "Defendants have caused and continue to cause irreparable harm".
Take-Two are looking to get damages paid which as of yet "are not currently ascertainable", so they want it to be worked out. On top of that they want the "maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each work infringed" and they also want their "attorneys’ fees and full costs" paid as well.
The point about cheats is a funny one. Single-player games from the early 2000s have cheats added in? Extra modding too? Oh no, how completely terrible for people to further enjoy them.
Why was this lawsuit coming to be expected? Well, reverse-engineered code tends to be a grey area with it often being against the law, and code from leaks is a big no for all sorts of obvious legal reasons. That said, the source code did require people to actually buy the games for the data, so Take-Two would have still be getting revenue thanks to it.
Sadly though, like most major publishers, they shy away from any sort of open source. In this case, Take-Two and Rockstar are reportedly doing a big GTA Remastered Trilogy so moving to fully protect their code was obvious.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I bought GTA3 when this engine became usable - to bump the Linux sale number and show that the engine has a positive effect - now I've had to file for a refund, which is probably not likely to happen.
UPDATE: Refund denied.
Last edited by Cybolic on 6 September 2021 at 9:36 am UTC
UPDATE: Refund denied.
Last edited by Cybolic on 6 September 2021 at 9:36 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: tonRI'm very sorry to Electronic Arts (EA) for losing "the worst game publisher in the world of the year" title. This year "competition" is so damn tough.
Hey give them time they still have 3 months to close bioware
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ArtenAs far as I can figure out what you're saying . . . no.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: slapinAs I understand new world, corporations split the "markets" between them and became upset someone got to their territory. The claims is so anti-market and anti-capitalistic as whole so I wonder what is going on.Anti-market perhaps, although markets have always had a lot less of the whole freedom fairy dust than many people are led to believe. Anti-capitalistic, no. We think of markets and capitalism as being near-identical, but they aren't. Capitalism as such has little to do with markets, let alone free ones--monopoly is the objective of every capitalist who gets far enough. The fundamental points that make capitalism a system distinct from other systems is private individuals invest money (capital) to get a profit, employing wage labour to cause the profit to happen. Usually, that involves selling something to someone in something you could call a market, but sometimes it involves outright stealing, sometimes it involves direct selling solely to government as in US defence procurement, sometimes it involves the company store in the company town, where the miners or whoever buy your stuff at your price or they starve. All still capitalism, just not very markety. You can definitely have both markets without capitalism, and capitalism without markets.
(You can also have capitalism without the limited liability corporation)
You (same as politicians) mixing capitalism - private ownership, free market with corporativism - that think you talk about. Its distict thing.
This isn't really up for debate. Economics has a history which involves various ideas and terms being defined. Economics itself is often bogus in that they do bad logic to get false results while using the terms, but the terms are still defined in a particular way. Going Humpty Dumpty and having you or your political faction redefine the terms to mean something else is like deciding you want "acceleration" to mean something other than "change in velocity over time". It's just wrong.
I explained a bit about what a couple of terms mean. That is in fact what they mean, because that's what the classical economists who invented them used them to mean, and the economic tradition, when it still pays attention to them seriously, still uses them to mean that. Confusion happens because they get used loosely a lot, or for propaganda purposes. People also redefine capitalism a lot to try to wiggle out of cognitive dissonance: "Capitalism is great . . . but the economy is vile . . . how to reconcile?! --> capitalism must be something we're not doing!"
0 Likes
Quoting: STiATYeah, I think for instance if someone wrote a book and encrypted it and all you had was the encrypted book, and you could decrypt it but very imperfectly, and so you did that, and then reconstructed a book trying for your best guess at what the wording was originally like, and published that--you'd be violating copyright.Quoting: slapinThey managed to create their own code in C++ working in the same way as GTA code.
This can be argued, since they did decompile it and use the decompiled code with tools to get code that behaves like the original. Ofc there is more involved than just that, but it's basically using the original code, decompiling it and using tools to get manageable C++ code and work from there - and that can certainly be argued as copyright infringement.
Personally, if they never framed it the way of decompiled code but a green field approach, they'd probably have a better ground at court.
0 Likes
slaapliedje Sep 4, 2021
Quoting: F.UltraAh, my interpretation was that they rewrote the C++ code based on the assembly code. Not that they basically just did a translation of it to C++ and copied it.Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:They recreated the C++ code from the machine code disassembled, then patched it to compile on different platforms... From my understanding that's still one valid way of reverse engineering. The other method of course is to study the data files and create code around interpreting it. Copyright infringement would only be if they literally took the original source code and copied it. That's the part that is copyrighted. Using a disassembler is not illegal in any sense of the word.
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
Using a disassembler just to look at the code is not illegal no, but if the binary machine code is copyrighted to T2 then the disassembled C++ code is also copyrighted to T2 since its derived from the copyrighted binary. There is precedence here in Sega vs Accolade where the appeals court decided that disassembled code is "fruit of the poisonous tree".
However they also decided that it fell under the fair use doctrine since "disassembly is required for humans to understand object code", but as I see it this does not apply here since the disassembled code was not used to understand how the game engine worked, it was used 1:1 to create the base source code of the project.
Arguing that this is legal would IMHO break the copyright protection that we have on GPL:ed code, in that companies can take our code as base and then do "changes" to it and now claim their own copyright on it and make it proprietary.
0 Likes
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: F.UltraAh, my interpretation was that they rewrote the C++ code based on the assembly code. Not that they basically just did a translation of it to C++ and copied it.Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:They recreated the C++ code from the machine code disassembled, then patched it to compile on different platforms... From my understanding that's still one valid way of reverse engineering. The other method of course is to study the data files and create code around interpreting it. Copyright infringement would only be if they literally took the original source code and copied it. That's the part that is copyrighted. Using a disassembler is not illegal in any sense of the word.
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
Using a disassembler just to look at the code is not illegal no, but if the binary machine code is copyrighted to T2 then the disassembled C++ code is also copyrighted to T2 since its derived from the copyrighted binary. There is precedence here in Sega vs Accolade where the appeals court decided that disassembled code is "fruit of the poisonous tree".
However they also decided that it fell under the fair use doctrine since "disassembly is required for humans to understand object code", but as I see it this does not apply here since the disassembled code was not used to understand how the game engine worked, it was used 1:1 to create the base source code of the project.
Arguing that this is legal would IMHO break the copyright protection that we have on GPL:ed code, in that companies can take our code as base and then do "changes" to it and now claim their own copyright on it and make it proprietary.
Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: F.UltraAh, my interpretation was that they rewrote the C++ code based on the assembly code. Not that they basically just did a translation of it to C++ and copied it.Quoting: slaapliedjeQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:They recreated the C++ code from the machine code disassembled, then patched it to compile on different platforms... From my understanding that's still one valid way of reverse engineering. The other method of course is to study the data files and create code around interpreting it. Copyright infringement would only be if they literally took the original source code and copied it. That's the part that is copyrighted. Using a disassembler is not illegal in any sense of the word.
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
Using a disassembler just to look at the code is not illegal no, but if the binary machine code is copyrighted to T2 then the disassembled C++ code is also copyrighted to T2 since its derived from the copyrighted binary. There is precedence here in Sega vs Accolade where the appeals court decided that disassembled code is "fruit of the poisonous tree".
However they also decided that it fell under the fair use doctrine since "disassembly is required for humans to understand object code", but as I see it this does not apply here since the disassembled code was not used to understand how the game engine worked, it was used 1:1 to create the base source code of the project.
Arguing that this is legal would IMHO break the copyright protection that we have on GPL:ed code, in that companies can take our code as base and then do "changes" to it and now claim their own copyright on it and make it proprietary.
Papenhoff specifically mentioned that they used a decompiler (the suit is quoting his own words) and not a disassembler so they turned the binary into c++ code directly with a decompiler.
0 Likes
Quoting: slapinQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:This shows that plaintif and you did not understand what reverse engineers say:
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They managed to create their own code in C++ working in the same way as GTA code.
If you read they took original GTA code, you need to check your sight.
That is not what they did, what they did is:
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They used a decompiler to turn the GTA binary into fully working C++ code
3. They did changes to the generated C++ code to implement the changes they wanted to make
T2 owns the copyright to the C++ code of the game, but they also of course owns the copyright to the compiled binary so when you use a decompiler to turn the copyrighted binary machine code into autogenerated C++ code then you have just made a 1:1 transformation of the copyrighted code, so this step does not remove any copyrights.
Had they instead used a disassembler to look at how the game engine worked and then wrote their own C++ code based on that observation then what you said would be true, but that is not what they did according to their own wording. Hence why they will have a very hard time making a defense here. But then I'm not a lawyer, not do I play one on TV.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: emphyQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
Since running the software requires the original data files, it is easily defended as a case of fair use. If it turns out not to be so in the courts, it'd be time to ask some pointed questions as to why copyright law is so broken that it isn't.
Fair Use applies to you the end user so you are not performing a copyright infringement by running Re3 with your purchased data files, the devs behind Re3 however infringes on T2:s right to sell the game at a premium on the Switch if they infringed on T2:s copyright when they created Re3.
0 Likes
Quoting: F.UltraQuoting: slapinQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:This shows that plaintif and you did not understand what reverse engineers say:
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They managed to create their own code in C++ working in the same way as GTA code.
If you read they took original GTA code, you need to check your sight.
That is not what they did, what they did is:
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They used a decompiler to turn the GTA binary into fully working C++ code
3. They did changes to the generated C++ code to implement the changes they wanted to make
T2 owns the copyright to the C++ code of the game, but they also of course owns the copyright to the compiled binary so when you use a decompiler to turn the copyrighted binary machine code into autogenerated C++ code then you have just made a 1:1 transformation of the copyrighted code, so this step does not remove any copyrights.
Had they instead used a disassembler to look at how the game engine worked and then wrote their own C++ code based on that observation then what you said would be true, but that is not what they did according to their own wording. Hence why they will have a very hard time making a defense here. But then I'm not a lawyer, not do I play one on TV.
IIRC there is no decompiled code in re3 source. Also they explained they used dll injection process which would be totally meaningless if they had just decompiled it.
QuoteWe were lucky that we had symbols from PS2 gta3 and the android games. other than that it was a lot of reading code in IDA and massaging it back into c++. I made a little video about part of the process [1] but i never did part 2.
The strategy for gta3 was to replace function by function of the game until we had everything replaced. for VC we evolved our existing code base by, again, reversing function by function until we had everything done. Just not by dll injection this time.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22BeuOOERLo
You can also read whole discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26130320
0 Likes
Quoting: slapinQuoting: F.UltraQuoting: slapinQuoting: F.UltraClaim 28 is quite damaging to the reverse-engineering team:This shows that plaintif and you did not understand what reverse engineers say:
Quote28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:
“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.
If this is true and it appears to be so, then this is in fact copyright infringement and not something that any of us really can defend.
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They managed to create their own code in C++ working in the same way as GTA code.
If you read they took original GTA code, you need to check your sight.
That is not what they did, what they did is:
1. GTA code was written in C++
2. They used a decompiler to turn the GTA binary into fully working C++ code
3. They did changes to the generated C++ code to implement the changes they wanted to make
T2 owns the copyright to the C++ code of the game, but they also of course owns the copyright to the compiled binary so when you use a decompiler to turn the copyrighted binary machine code into autogenerated C++ code then you have just made a 1:1 transformation of the copyrighted code, so this step does not remove any copyrights.
Had they instead used a disassembler to look at how the game engine worked and then wrote their own C++ code based on that observation then what you said would be true, but that is not what they did according to their own wording. Hence why they will have a very hard time making a defense here. But then I'm not a lawyer, not do I play one on TV.
IIRC there is no decompiled code in re3 source. Also they explained they used dll injection process which would be totally meaningless if they had just decompiled it.
QuoteWe were lucky that we had symbols from PS2 gta3 and the android games. other than that it was a lot of reading code in IDA and massaging it back into c++. I made a little video about part of the process [1] but i never did part 2.
The strategy for gta3 was to replace function by function of the game until we had everything replaced. for VC we evolved our existing code base by, again, reversing function by function until we had everything done. Just not by dll injection this time.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22BeuOOERLo
You can also read whole discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26130320
Well I do hope for their sake that you are correct and they can prove it, because the T2 lawyers have the main Re3 dev quoted as having written: "So what we typically do is work with the output of the decompiler and massage it back into readable C++"
edit: He have also made a YouTube video where it's quite clear that he cleans up autogenerated decompiler c++ code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22BeuOOERLo&t=48s
Last edited by F.Ultra on 4 September 2021 at 11:25 pm UTC
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me