Apex Legends now broken on Steam Deck and Linux desktops (update: fixed)

Those individuals where sued because they used software that uploaded the copyrighted material to other people while they where downloading it themselves. AFAIK no one have been sued for just downloading, it's distribution that is protected under copyright, for usage to be infringing you have to go to patents.

It's not just distribution that is protected under copyright, though I'm unsure if you're making this distinction. Unauthorized transcription, translation, performance, and of course, making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted content is copyright infringement. Though transcription sometimes falls under fair use. What do you do when you're downloading something? You're making a copy.

Putting aside whether seeding qualifies as distribution, there are plenty of instances of people being sued just for downloading content. Whether they would actually win that lawsuit, I don't know, but most defendants choose to settle before it reaches the court.

Here's the RIAA, a frequent customer of the court, on what they think:

A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that uploading and downloading copyrighted music without permission on P2P networks constitutes infringement and could be a crime.

I'll have to read the Copyright Act for my country in full one day.

Edit: The article I referenced seems to also be related to seeding.


Last edited by pleasereadthemanual on 15 Mar 2022 at 3:16 am UTC

If you give money to a company to play game that uses scumbag DRM don't be surprised when that scumbag DRM screws you over. Don't worry they're having fun spending your money.

Good to see a lot of people enjoying it!

Those individuals where sued because they used software that uploaded the copyrighted material to other people while they where downloading it themselves. AFAIK no one have been sued for just downloading, it's distribution that is protected under copyright, for usage to be infringing you have to go to patents.

It's not just distribution that is protected under copyright, though I'm unsure if you're making this distinction. Unauthorized transcription, translation, performance, and of course, making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted content is copyright infringement. Though transcription sometimes falls under fair use. What do you do when you're downloading something? You're making a copy.

Putting aside whether seeding qualifies as distribution, there are plenty of instances of people being sued just for downloading content. Whether they would actually win that lawsuit, I don't know, but most defendants choose to settle before it reaches the court.

Here's the RIAA, a frequent customer of the court, on what they think:

A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that uploading and downloading copyrighted music without permission on P2P networks constitutes infringement and could be a crime.

I'll have to read the Copyright Act for my country in full one day.

Edit: The article I referenced seems to also be related to seeding.

It is all a moot point given that the file has been restored to Apex Legends in the last update. It would be ridiculous to go after people for distributing backups of a file that they are distributing to everyone.

Also, the RIAA saying “could be a crime” is rather ridiculous. Copyright infringement is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. As much as their industry would like to see capital punishment for distributing music files, it is not happening. To be clear, that is not an exaggeration. One of them actually lamented that the government in some country was not executing people for pirating music:

https://boingboing.net/2010/06/14/music-industry-lobby.html

These people have been lobbying to criminalize anything that might hurt their bottom line for decades.


Last edited by RichardYao on 15 Mar 2022 at 4:18 am UTC

Those individuals where sued because they used software that uploaded the copyrighted material to other people while they where downloading it themselves. AFAIK no one have been sued for just downloading, it's distribution that is protected under copyright, for usage to be infringing you have to go to patents.

It's not just distribution that is protected under copyright, though I'm unsure if you're making this distinction. Unauthorized transcription, translation, performance, and of course, making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted content is copyright infringement. Though transcription sometimes falls under fair use. What do you do when you're downloading something? You're making a copy.

Putting aside whether seeding qualifies as distribution, there are plenty of instances of people being sued just for downloading content. Whether they would actually win that lawsuit, I don't know, but most defendants choose to settle before it reaches the court.

Here's the RIAA, a frequent customer of the court, on what they think:

A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that uploading and downloading copyrighted music without permission on P2P networks constitutes infringement and could be a crime.

I'll have to read the Copyright Act for my country in full one day.

Edit: The article I referenced seems to also be related to seeding.

It is all a moot point given that the file has been restored to Apex Legends in the last update. It would be ridiculous to go after people for distributing backups of a file that they are distributing to everyone.

Also, the RIAA saying “could be a crime” is rather ridiculous. Copyright infringement is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. As much as their industry would like to see capital punishment for distributing music files, it is not happening. To be clear, that is not an exaggeration. One of them actually lamented that the government in some country was not executing people for pirating music:

https://boingboing.net/2010/06/14/music-industry-lobby.html

These people have been lobbying to criminalize anything that might hurt their bottom line for decades.

I'm already well aware of how the RIAA feels about copyright infringement. I used them as an example because they're well-known to go after everybody, alive or dead, 12 years old or 80 years old, for unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content. If anyone were to go after people for downloading content, it would be them. I did not know, however, that the RIAA wanted capital punishment for infringers, though somehow I'm not surprised.

It would be ridiculous to go after people for distributing backups of a file that they are distributing to everyone.

Maybe so, but this is copyright infringement nonetheless. Copyright is about preserving the copyright holder's monopoly over their creation. Ultimately, of course, the only entities that have the capital to pursue lawsuits for copyright infringement are corporations. I'm looking at this from a purely academic perspective because I'm interested in copyright. I don't even play Apex Legends and I probably never will.

The popular view at least in response to my comments seems to be that distribution is copyright infringement, but downloading copyrighted content is perfectly legal in the United States and everywhere. This doesn't sound correct to me, though I'm willing to be proven wrong. I have at least one source in my favor - even if it's Wikipedia.

Liam, you might want to update the article that they added the file again (which is deliberate, as it is the only change in the last patch), but keeping the overarching point that Deck Verified (or whatever cert program) needs to improve.

This makes me sad, but I'm sure they will fix it soon. I've already got over 10 hours of Linux playtime on Apex, such a fun game that I've missed a lot.

Just want to let people know that it appears another patch is going live tomorrow which adds the easyanticheat_x64.so file back where it belongs. source

Looks like they patched it back in: https://steamdb.info/patchnotes/8372024/

Can confirm I can launch the game without having to copy my backed up copy of the .so file.

Liam, you might want to update the article that they added the file again (which is deliberate, as it is the only change in the last patch), but keeping the overarching point that Deck Verified (or whatever cert program) needs to improve.

Yes all is good again! https://steamdb.info/patchnotes/8372024/

Still would like an official explanation how can these things "just happen".

Can't get much more critical than this. Where was testing on Linux part after the "improving update".....

Update 15/03/22 - It's now fixed, with no word again from anyone. The EAC file was just put back nearly ~9 hours later.

I have another theory. It's possible they are moving anything Steam Deck related into a different depot. There are 2 reasons one might want to do this as a developer. One is to have the anticheat stuff separate (1 file), but the other is to potentially add in a separate low res assets set to use up less space on the Deck. I'm still waiting for the first dev to make use of this feature.

EDIT: The name of the quick fix branch is interesting also. It reads: "temporary test for merge build for EA". The "for EA" part sticks out, almost as if they are only doing this because the publisher told them to.


Last edited by rustybroomhandle on 15 Mar 2022 at 9:36 am UTC

If you give money to a company to play game that uses scumbag DRM don't be surprised when that scumbag DRM screws you over. Don't worry they're having fun spending your money.

Or just hoarding it for the sake of hoarding it, which is what most of them do with most of the money.

Anyone thoughts on safety with vkbasalt enabled? Usually anti-cheat systems that don't block the DLL don't punish you for using ReShade on Windows, but EAC/BattleEye do block it.

It's not just distribution that is protected under copyright, though I'm unsure if you're making this distinction. Unauthorized transcription, translation, performance, and of course, making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted content is copyright infringement.

This is not accurate when it comes to US copyright law. Transcription, translation, and making a second copy of something you own a copy of are all technically legal, as long as the result is not distributed. However, intent to distribute is taken into consideration when looking at these actions from a legal standpoint.* Why translate something unless you intend to distribute the translation? Why make 300 copies of a DVD unless you are intending to distribute them? Copyright holders are usually only concerned about somewhat widespread distribution, though, not giving a translation to three or four people.

Public performance is illegal because it is considered a form of distribution, but private performance is not. Remember that playing a DVD, a Blu-ray, or an MP3 file is performance as well, with the same rules as live performance. So, for example, a group of friends getting together for a party and sitting around playing songs on a guitar and singing is not illegal. Technically, a band performing in a bar, someone singing karaoke at a bar, or someone busking on a street corner without express copyright permission for each song is illegal, but even the RIAA is not usually crazy enough to try to clamp down too much on these things, which actually help promote the material (and the RIAA can be pretty crazy). There are also arrangements that can be made to get permission for some of these things, usually with payment made, to whole catalogs of record labels or groups of copyright holders (like ASCAP).

Also, copyright notices at the beginning of books or especially movies often contain a lot of meaningless drivel that has no legal basis. You can't trust these for accurate information about copyright. Many claim that copyrighted material is 'licensed for private use,' but this language is nonsense. No 'license' is required to do normal things with copyrighted material. According to copyright law you own your legally obtained copy of copyrighted material; you haven't 'licensed' it. You only need a license to do things that copyright law would otherwise disallow, like using one copy of a software program for five different people on five different machines (that is a fairly common software license).

*(Technically, making a copy with intent to distribute is what is illegal, so you don't have to have actually distributed copies yet to be arrested or sued.)


Last edited by CFWhitman on 15 Mar 2022 at 1:22 pm UTC

It's not just distribution that is protected under copyright, though I'm unsure if you're making this distinction. Unauthorized transcription, translation, performance, and of course, making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted content is copyright infringement. Though transcription sometimes falls under fair use. What do you do when you're downloading something? You're making a copy.

No this is IMHO a misunderstanding of copyright. You can do all the transcription, translation and performance all day long without infringing copyright. It's when you distribute any of that to some one else that you violate the copyright, aka you can re-enact Harry Potter in your living room without an audience and not be infringing, but put it in front of an audience in any way and you are potentially in trouble (I say potentially since most courts would not see you performing this for your family or close friends as being infringing).

Putting aside whether seeding qualifies as distribution, there are plenty of instances of people being sued just for downloading content. Whether they would actually win that lawsuit, I don't know, but most defendants choose to settle before it reaches the court.

Please note that this article is a bit misleading, first they mention that RIAA have won in "in some cases" without further clarifying which or how many and later on they describe that they found the "pirates" by looking at BitTorrent data, so I would still say that the ones that they got damages from in court where the ones using BitTorrent since they could prove that they where distributing and not just downloading.

Also please note that many decided to settle out of court does not prove anything, it just shows that the defendants either used BitTorrent or that they didn't fully understood the law and was afraid (and didn't have access to legal counsel due to the costs involved in the US and Canada).

Here's the RIAA, a frequent customer of the court, on what they think:

A long series of court rulings has made it very clear that uploading and downloading copyrighted music without permission on P2P networks constitutes infringement and could be a crime.

And the RIAA are known for lying to their teeth in order to scare people into settle the cases. It's a known scare tactic from their part.

What people should think about is why the RIAA invented the term "piracy" if there had been an actual crime for the activity of just downloading, the way BitTorrent works gave them a massive foothold into suing people but they coined the term long before that.

Disclaimer, I have been active at the Swedish Pirate Party since inception.


Last edited by F.Ultra on 15 Mar 2022 at 3:08 pm UTC

And this is why I don't like this relyance we are heading for on wine/proton !

Native FTW !

Native games break even more often or lag way behind their Windows counterparts or don't have cross-play.

No thanks.

Proton may not be perfect but it caused way less headaches at least in my experience, and saved me a ton of time (which I was able to spend playing instead of fixing)

As said in a earlier post, I've had the exact opposite experience.

No this is IMHO a misunderstanding of copyright. You can do all the transcription, translation and performance all day long without infringing copyright. It's when you distribute any of that to some one else that you violate the copyright, aka you can re-enact Harry Potter in your living room without an audience and not be infringing, but put it in front of an audience in any way and you are potentially in trouble (I say potentially since most courts would not see you performing this for your family or close friends as being infringing).

Well, I can't refute this, as my argument is just based on my impression of the law (which I haven't read). Initially I thought that copyright was only concerned with distribution, but through a lot of research, I came to change my mind recently. I'll have to read my country's Copyright Act (and its various amendments) some day. I will say that I live in Australia, but given that my country has agreed to various international treaties, it's likely the same overall.

Please note that this article is a bit misleading, first they mention that RIAA have won in "in some cases" without further clarifying which or how many and later on they describe that they found the "pirates" by looking at BitTorrent data, so I would still say that the ones that they got damages from in court where the ones using BitTorrent since they could prove that they where distributing and not just downloading.

I read the later sections of this article after posting it and realized that I was undermining my own point, as it references BitTorrent in the edit, but ended up leaving it in as a counter-example, not being able to find any other sources to validate my argument.

Also please note that many decided to settle out of court does not prove anything, it just shows that the defendants either used BitTorrent or that they didn't fully understood the law and was afraid (and didn't have access to legal counsel due to the costs involved in the US and Canada).

The RIAA is most likely who the average file sharer is going up against, because they're active and fanatical enough to go after everyone. My point is, even if they take you on for something they probably wouldn't win, they could still automatically win a settlement for a few thousand dollars because the alternative—paying for legal counsel for an unknown period of time—would be far more costly. It's not necessarily about what's judged to be legally correct, and instead more about what is practical.

Copyright infringement becomes a civil dispute in most cases, which means the copyright holder is the one who needs to bring the charge against an offender. Most independent creators don't have the capital for that sort of litigation—putting aside whether they would feel the need to pursue these matters—resulting in only large corporations and organizations such as the Author's Guild making regular appearances at the court. Practically, the only entities that are legally able to enforce their copyright are mostly large entities for whom copyright infringement isn't as potentially damaging. While I haven't looked into the details myself, it would not surprise me if this was simply another exercise in generating revenue for the plaintiff's company rather than an attempt to protect its commercial interests.

The average file sharer is in no position to defend themselves in court over sharing files, just as the average creator is in no position to be bringing these claims against the average file sharer.

And the RIAA are known for lying to their teeth in order to scare people into settle the cases. It's a known scare tactic from their part.

What people should think about is why the RIAA invented the term "piracy" if there had been an actual crime for the activity of just downloading, the way BitTorrent works gave them a massive foothold into suing people but they coined the term long before that.

Disclaimer, I have been active at the Swedish Pirate Party since inception.

I don't think they're a reliable source of information—and the footer on the page I linked says as much that this is just babble and not legally enforceable, but if the RIAA really believes these things, then they'd be willing to take people to court over it.

I don't respect the usage of the word "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement (and likely copy protection circumvention as well, though this is a separate issue) as it is hyperbolic and prone to causing misunderstandings, so I don't use it in most instances. It kind of shocks me how willing people are to accept the premise of the word, but I think this is helped by some copyright infringers finding it funny (The Pirate Bay, for example).

Evidently, at least one court also thinks that using this word and words like it unfairly biases a jury. But I don't think we're going to be purging "piracy" from the public's vocabulary any time soon.

How old is the Swedish Pirate Party, anyway?

How old is the Swedish Pirate Party, anyway?

They're the original crew of political swashbucklers.

The first Pirate Party to be established was the Pirate Party of Sweden (Swedish: Piratpartiet), whose website was launched on 1 January 2006..."

I think that this messy handling rather demonstrates that, as I mentioned at other news items, this "verified" software stuff is not clear enough as to where support responsibility lies. Valve's handling gives the impression that "verified" software will be supported by the devs, whilst there is no such guarantee from them.

Time for a simple extra filter, Supports Deck or somesuch, to indicate that the dev commits to providing full support for running the game in question on the deck.


Last edited by emphy on 15 Mar 2022 at 11:58 pm UTC