Take-Two Interactive Has Declared Modding of Its Games Illegal

[DurradonXylles]

This really brings my blood pressure to a boil: http://gtaforums.com/topic/889348-take-t...ing/page-1

Basically, about seven hours ago now, the leader of the OpenIV development team broke the news that the OpenIV modding tool has ceased development and distribution in compliance with a cease and desist from Take-Two Interactive. Take-Two, often stylized "T2", is the parent company of one Rockstar Games, most famous for developing and publishing of the Grand Theft Auto series. OpenIV is a modding tool made to be used on any games made using RAGE (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine): Grand Theft Auto IV, Max Payne 3, L.A. Noire and Grand Theft Auto V.

The C&D basically states that the OpenIV modding tool allows third parties to defeat security features of its software and modifies it in violation of T2's rights. This is utter BS, and if the OpenIV team were willing to take T2 to court they'd likely win. However, the team found it far easier and less wasteful of their time simply to rollover to the company's demands, and it's understandable. However, I can't sit here with this egregious act of anti-consumerist behavior. This is a company which sent a clear message to their consumers that they don't want you to use your legally purchased product in any way they do not see fit. They don't want you to develop tools to help modify products you and many others purchased legally or else they will threaten to take you to court.

I've heard that this is not the first time that this company has hassled modders before, but this opening up a legal precedent that tells other companies that they can do legal saber-rattling against consumers over what they feel is a misuse of their product. This is telling the world that people who purchase goods and services do not truly have the final say over how said goods and services can be used. We saw similar behavior from Digital Homicide regarding Steam reviews late last year, and once news broke out and the public turned against them, they dropped their lawsuit against the Steam users and Jim Sterling.

Considering what this forum is about, and what we dabble in, I feel it is of the utmost importance that we get the news out about this. If T2's actions go without consequence, who knows what they or any other company with a chip on their shoulder might do next.

I know this probably won't help, but someone from GTAForums made this Change.org petition for those interested in it: https://www.change.org/p/gta-v-modding-c...-v-modding

I'd prefer having more people know and directly address T2 on this matter, but I've seen online petitions work before so who knows. I also want to stress that it was Take-Two Interactive, not Rockstar Games, who sent the C&D and deserves to be held accountable.

Nonetheless, Take-Two has told us that they don't want us to modify the games we purchase, and we shouldn't stand for it.

[DioShiba]

So basically Take-Two is trying to pull a Nintendo. Welp can't wait to see how this lasts.

[Goemar]

Honestly I don't know why people think they have the right to modify software anyway. Like, sure - people will do it, but how it's a consumer right I'll never know.

Secondly, apparently Rockstar is looking into this so - don't panic just yet.

[Kriven]

If I a buy a chair, I have the right to glue shit to, knock legs off of, and generally modify that chair however the fuck I want.

How is software any different? I mean, I can even sell the modified chair. Software modification is personal, or just the modified (read: not copyrighted portions) are distributed.

[TomGuycott]

That's not necessarily true, Kriven, and furthermore when it ISN'T actually legal to do so it is usually specified in a manual or user agreement that the user is usually not reading. That's technically not the company's fault.

Don't get me wrong, I think modding is great, but it is either a legally grey area at best, or at worst it is an open and shut case in favor of the company and not the modder.

[Goemar]

When you buy a chair - you own the chair. When you buy software - you are using it under license - you do not own it.

[Kriven]

The manual is straight up lying if it says "Modding this Software is illegal" unless they have specifically included exclusive DRM. DRM is the only form of code which the law prohibits "tampering" with, because it is there for the express purpose of being tamper-proof.

[Gors]

"The supermarket's lying if they say that grabbing a bag of chips and opening it without paying for it first is illegal. Unless they put a sensor in every bag of chips that activate a siren, opening it is legal."

That's not how things work. I picked a somewhat innacurate and even exaggerated example to show you how it works, if you buy a game, it means you abide to how the game should be used - usually it's in the EULA before you install or in the manual that comes with the software. But alas, no one bothers to read that to the end, this is why people feel so entitled on editing games and thinking they own shit when the actual law and contract actively tells you not to do it

[Kendotlibero]

ok, people are pissed off for three reasons:
1. gta, since the early days, saied in the manual that modding is ok, as long it isn't for commercial use
2. Rockstar actively promoted mods of the game, since they really like that kind of thing, check their blog.
3. Rockstar didn't do anything, it was gta's pubblisher's fault
as for software, like cars, the company that made the game owns the intellectual propiety of the game, not the game copy itself. That's why reverse engeneering is 100% legal and falls into fair use, as long you don't copy-paste the code from the original souce in your product.
as for the license agreement, it's true that they can change it to their hearts' content, but it's kind of a dick move, considering how the gta modding community is huge and passionate, and making that illegal it only means that a huge portion of fans will be turned down from that.
as for the "modding is illegal" thing, it's only true for gta IV and V now, modding isn't illegal in general, it all depends from the guy that owns the intellectual propiety: you can mod doom like you want, and even see the souce code, since id pubblished it with the open source licence.

[Goemar]

Like I said earlier: it looks like Rockstar is looking into this. So no one 'panic' just yet.

At the same time, they could easily 'ban' modding and make a load of money anyway so it's not like if the mod community boycotts the game it'll make the slightest difference.

It's a massive legal grey area, so it's bound to get messy every now and again.

[Kriven]

"The supermarket's lying if they say that grabbing a bag of chips and opening it without paying for it first is illegal. Unless they put a sensor in every bag of chips that activate a siren, opening it is legal."

That's not how things work. I picked a somewhat innacurate and even exaggerated example to show you how it works, if you buy a game, it means you abide to how the game should be used - usually it's in the EULA before you install or in the manual that comes with the software. But alas, no one bothers to read that to the end, this is why people feel so entitled on editing games and thinking they own shit when the actual law and contract actively tells you not to do it

The Supreme Court has gone on record numerous times to let the American public know that, at least in this country, the EULA and the ToS are not legally-binding documents. The companies have the right to deny you further service for breaching them, sure, but that doesn't come close to "illegal." They can't even sue you for "breech of contract" in these instances.

Also: your example isn't exaggerated--it's entirely different. We have specific software laws which govern how these things go. One of those specific laws is that you are free to modify software that isn't DRM protected. Hell, you are free to make duplicates of software you purchased--including DRM-protected software as long as that DRM is not broken. That includes things which you merely own a "license" to, because you merely own a "license" when it comes to purchasing software on optical media. Yet, the record has shown, more than once, we are allowed to duplicate our optical discs for the purposes of backup. We are not allowed to crack its protection software. That is the law. That is how it works.

Your "example" only works for arguing against piracy, against torrents... hey, it probably even could be used to demonstrate the problems with a digital archive of various copyrighted art assets. But it doesn't even come close to touching modification. And hey, you're trying to demonstrate what's wrong with me claiming the EULAs are lying but... you don't actually do that. Because they are.

You know how most games and videos have a little warning on the back of the case? "Not for public viewing. Not for renting. Etc." That thing is also lying. Again, proven by a number of lawsuits in the 80s and 90s (see: the point in time when Nintendo attempted to take down the entire rental industry in North America... and lost). Despite the courts ruling in favor of commercial rentals, despite the First-Sale Doctrine excluding only content for "Home Computers" (legally defined as open platforms, as opposed to a console, which is a closed platform) and audio (music specifically, but all audio)--despite all of that, the movie industry and the video game industry still includes the "Renting is Illegal" jargon on the back. They are lying. The courts have told us that they are lying.

I spend all day deciphering this kind of nonsense, I have talked with numerous IP lawyers. Not only does my business depend on this knowledge in the sense that I own a rental store, but I also had to know what kind of legally binding ToS I could write. It's probably a little weird for you guys to admit, but maybe I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

[Goemar]

Doesn't matter what you know when a lawsuit costs as much as it does.

[Kriven]

Doesn't matter what you know when a lawsuit costs as much as it does.

You specifically brought up rights. Therefore the nuances of law. You want to talk about a corporations ability to circumvent the law by bullying people lower on the class system, you do that, but you don't hide it behind discussions of "rights."

[Goemar]

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.

[DurradonXylles]

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.

Nintendo wouldn't be able to crack down on NES Mini modding because of said open source software that the OS is built off of, regardless of intent of said modding; at best they can remove sites that host pre-made Linux images to load onto the NES Mini that have ROMs included. Intent is never an issue considered when it comes to software sales or usage therein, with very few exceptions (eg: public threat or harm of another's software/hardware).

The difference between modding a game you own a copy of and making a fan game from the ground up based off of an existing and active video game series is night and day. Pokemon Plutonium was a fan game created without the knowledge or consent of Nintendo. The game was infringing on Nintendo's trademarks and copyrights on the Pokemon brand, and that's why it was given a C&D soon after release.

Ownership and usage rights of software is a large, gray legal area, however there are a good number of cases that have happened over the years and can be referenced as to what various legal systems will consider fair use. "Nintendo vs. Tengen/Atari" had shown that reverse engineering of hardware and software to create clones and workarounds of preexisting hardware/software was perfectly legal. "Sony Computer Entertainment vs. Bleem" had shown that video game hardware emulation is perfectly legal as long as you own a copy of the software that is being played on the emulated hardware. "Google vs. Oracle" had shown that API reference and usage is not patent infringing nor are API's subject to copyright because of how widely used and necessary they are for pieces of software to communicate with each other (despite how many times Oracle has tried to appeal for a reversal of these decisions over the last seven years).

Lastly, people bought GTA V out the wazoo despite GTA IV having a heavy modding community by the time V got a release on PC. A large number of mods existing for a preexisting game is not an excuse for anti-consumer behavior, as the reasons people buy products primarily gauges on interest and quality. Doom already had a large modding community by the time Quake came out in 1997, same thing with Half-Life when Half-Life 2 got released in 2004. Not to mention, a lot of people who were well-known modders ended up getting jobs working on video games for the likes of Valve, Bethesda, Volition, Activision and Sega over the last two decades. Even if someone wanted to make the argument that you don't actually have the legal right to mod software you own, in the realms of video games that's been the norm for decades and would be asinine to attack such communities as most companies have welcomed, and sometimes even worked with, mod authors.

Rockstar has publicly stated multiple times that they actually enjoy seeing community created content, and even said that mods for GTA V were okay as long as they were relegated to single player and weren't being used in GTA Online. Take-Two's decision to shut down OpenIV is anger inducing because this goes completely against what Rockstar said, as Rockstar themselves had no problems with such a tool existing. That's not only giving a middle finger to your customers, that's also discouraging public trust and making your customers look elsewhere to do business with. Legal gray area or not, when you trounce on something people have been doing with your products for many years without issue, people will stop supporting you.