Take-Two Interactive Has Declared Modding of Its Games Illegal

[TomGuycott]

Well, what it might come down to in the end is what rights T2 has over Rockstar as the parent company. I mean, it's hard for us to say what they can do, given we don't have access to things like contracts, a company charter or even anything of important legal value (unless it's just out there), but T2 may be able to have authority to overrule something that Rockstar says or does.

Again, I'm not a lawyer or a law expert, that's just an observation.

[Goemar]

Some news: http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2017/06/19/...are-openiv

Basically, it allowed mods that affected online. So, like I said...

[DurradonXylles]

Some news: http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2017/06/19/...are-openiv

Basically, it allowed mods that affected online. So, like I said...

Hmm. If I'm not mistaken the developers hardwired OpenIV from affecting online play, even having it so that the software prevented you from going online while it was active. People have made extensions that circumvented this, but OpenIV did not condone this. Considering that the software was single-player focused, and the fact that there are numerous other online cheat tools that don't require such mod loaders nor are scrupulous over T2's takedowns or anything legal to begin with, it seems to me that T2 is blaming and fighting the wrong people.

On a related note: Menyoo was also taken down by T2, which is more understandable because Menyoo's developer made a paid version that could be used online. If T2 wants to combat online cheating, this is the kind of stuff they can take down.

Well, what it might come down to in the end is what rights T2 has over Rockstar as the parent company. I mean, it's hard for us to say what they can do, given we don't have access to things like contracts, a company charter or even anything of important legal value (unless it's just out there), but T2 may be able to have authority to overrule something that Rockstar says or does.

Again, I'm not a lawyer or a law expert, that's just an observation.

I know, but it hearkens back to what I said: going back on a public statement like that without warning and proper cause after it's been deemed alright causes your consumers to not trust you. I understand that Take-Two wants to weed out cheaters from Online and try to quell more from coming in the future, but they are attacking a community and a modding tool that doesn't care to messing with online stuff and has nothing to do with the various online cheating tools, code injectors and dll loaders that people have been using on GTA-O before the next gen and PC ports came out. Menyoo appears to be the only tool that intentionally messed with online stuff that also had legitimate uses, but they took it down and forced the dev to donate his profits from the paid version to charity.

Let it be understood that my problem with this entire situation stems with how Take-Two Interactive is handling the ongoing problem with cheaters on GTA-O, and attacking the wrong cause in the process screwing over a dedicated community that would've been happy to comply to some simple wishes if they were asked. You can keep referencing legal gray areas with software and what T2 potentially has the right to do, but at the end of the day when you turn your back on your consumers in an attempt to keep shilling out microtransactions on your online game, people don't want to support you anymore.

[Kriven]

Software 'ownership' has always been a grey bit of legal nonsense.

Yes, you own the disc, but not what's on it. I mean it's like you music. If you edited an album and redistributed it (even if the person had to own the original album to listen to it) you can bet some legal trouble will rumble your way.

I think it's very 'odd' how people assume they have the right to mod games, like it's some god given right, when really - I can fully understand companies not wanting it to be done. Normally when the hammer comes down on these cases it's because somewhere in the mod, intentional or not, puts the original software at risk from some, possibly amazingly obscure, exploit.

But, but even if the person is in the right and, by law, they are in there rights to mod away - it doesn't matter because they won't be able to afford the fight to prove so.

If a company releases the source code and says 'have at it' then go for it, mod until you can mod no more, otherwise - I think a legal challenge somewhere down the line is inevitable and those involved should understand that.

I mean, look at the NES Mini, thanks to Linux being open source (or something) Nintendo had to give a fair bit of info out on how it worked - which was exploited in days.

Now, modding the NES Mini itself, isn't illegal - but it is 99% going to be used to put illegal ROMs on.

So if Nintendo started trying to (somehow) crack down on people modding the NES mini - they have every right to do so.

I'm not saying it's 'fair' or 'right' I'm saying - that's how it is and it makes sense that's how it is.

And some cases, it's a simple default copyright claim. I mean was Pokemon Nuclear edition going to hurt future Pokemon sales? No, no it wasn't. But if Nintendo isn't seen to be protecting it's IPs it causes legal issues down the line.

That's why Velcro is so aggressive on everything else being called 'clothe and hook' or something else as long as it's not Velcro.

And finally, a modded GTA V, could, potentionly, lead to those people not buying GTA VI - so again, a valid reason of protecting there best interest.

You're conflating "modification" with "distribution" laws and lumping them together.