142
Top EU Court’s Advisor Explains Why Video Game Cheats Are Not Copyright Infringement
(www.techdirt.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
142 points (100.0% liked)
Games
32608 readers
1063 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is an interesting distinction, the code to generate your health total is copyright but the actual health value you modify with cheats is not.
I mean, this is a pretty normal distinction afaik (human vs non-human creations; afaik non-human creations almost always have any human copyright claims voided when challenged).
Imo what makes this special is how precise he's being. If I understand correctly, he's basically saying that the code for the health bar is a human creation and protected by copyright, but while the code to change the health value might be human-made, the actual values are machine-made and not under copyright (there's probably a lot of nuance I'm skipping over, but my understanding is that's the gist of it).
What if the health values are human creations like special symbols or works of creative art?
The symbols would be copyrighted, but the actual behind-the-scenes value (i.e. 20/100, 62.5/1200, etc) isn't. That's what they're referring to.
I mean what if you didn’t use 20/100 for the value, you used a symbol (in the code as the value). Would it still apply?
...yes? Changing the language or the way it's presented doesn't change the math behind the scenes. That's not how computers work.
I’m not explaining it properly. Imagine instead of 100 hp, there is apple bananas. That isn’t really a mathematic representation in the same way that the cheat code can change. It would be a copyrighted work of art. It wouldn’t be trivial to build an hp system to do this (in fact it would be a large undertaking), but I am not asking about practicality, just what the law would find.
No, no it wouldn't. You're still using math, you're just using a different language. If apple bananas becomes apple pears after being hit by a bullet, you've changed the value. That is what math describes. You cannot avoid this. This is how computers work, and math is just another language to describe things. Even if every health value is a string, you still need to keep track of which string is currently in use so that you know when to kill the player. That requires math. That is what they're talking about. It is not the in-game health indicator that is public domain, it is the actual health value in RAM that is generated and modified during gameplay.
It is better this way. Copyright is already abused to hell and back, if they expanded copyright to cover this kinda stuff then it would potentially destroy things like right-to-repair as companies could claim copyright infringement on anything that modifies their code.
Computers work with 1s and 0s. We have decided as a society that certain combinations of those equate to being copywritable. This ruling seems to be saying the result of a calculation cannot be copywritable? Wouldn’t creative tools like movie editor or photoeditor disagree? So then is the ruling actually saying these specific values used in this instance are not copywritable, changing the health to 100 for e.g., because there is no human creativity in the result of that value?
So if a programmer used an original work of art to define the state of health in the actual code, and verified the value matches the 1s and 0s that represent that work of art (thus it only ever comes down to boolean check in the logic side, and the value of the variable is never set to something simple like 0 to 100, it was using a huge amount of RAM and a very slow comparator operator.
Yea, I went there.
Well, I think both are human creation, you are using the machine and the game to create something new. In that sense, a save game file could also be under the players copyright. Lets say a Minecraft world for instance.
What this is saying is that the Minecraft world would not be under copyright, but anything the player built in that world would be. So you can't copyright the world itself, but you can copyright any human-made constructions in that world.
This is wholly preferable to the alternative options which could result in things like being able to copyright AI-generated works (applying his logic to AI, they're basically saying you can copyright any edits to an AI-gen image, but not the image itself because that was AI-gen).
I meant minecraft world file which stores the chunks the player explored and potentially modified. And I said "could" not "must", it depends on if hits a certain creative threshold.
If the player decides to teleport around while creating a dickbud or whatever by just the explored chunks, that could meet it.
If someone selectivly openes quests to use the open quest markers on a map in an RPG to create a dickbud, that cloud meet it as well.
The save game could tell your individual story through the game, that cloud meet the threshold as well.
Also, because the unmodified minecraft world is randomly generated, it would not be under anyones copyright.
With AI, there could also be made an argument that the selection process might make it copyrightable. Like if you take a picture of a interesting looking cloud. The clouds might be semi-random, but you selecting a specific one reaches the threshold.
A Minecraft World isn't, not even if you draw on it with exploration as the world was generated from a random seed.
It is random, and unpredictable. You could maybe make an argument from reusing the random seed... But since the ability to turn the seed into the map isn't something a human can replicate without Minecraft I think it also fails the test for copyright.
Nature is often random and unpredictable, but the process of selecting a interesting POV and taking a picture of it is still copyrightable.
I wouldn't be so sure that if you discover a seed, that can be transformed using minecraft into a world with very interesting and specific properties, could not be under copyright protection.
In fact movies, pictures and books are specific numbers on a digital storage medium as well, that are transformed using a codec. That isn't something that can be easily replicated without that codec.
I am not a copyright lawyer, but I think there are precedences where just the selection process from a stream of (semi-) random number, pictures, sound or events alone can produce copyrightable products.
Yes, and you have copyright on the photo - not the layout of the plants and trees in it, nor even the angle of the subject. Someone else can go with a camera and take their own photo without touching your copyright.
Much like with digital files, the copyright is as it is a non-random transformation of a mostly replicable media product. People don't have a copyright on numbers, even if their 5000 trillion billion digit number happened to turn into a 1960s Disney short if you run it through the right compiler.
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/
So if someone intentionally reproduces a picture, they violate copyright, IIUC.
In the case of minecraft, I think a case can be made, where the "picture" is the minecraft world, and the creativity is the selection process by the artist. The artist chooses their angle, position, lighting, etc, in this case they choose properties of the world, maybe by visiting thousands of them, using seed search machines, or other reverse engineering tools etc.
I all depends on if the artist can raise their work above just the random noise they get as an input in a creative way. I am not saying that all minecraft worlds (or save games for that matter) are subject to copyright, but since we are dealing with blurry lines of copyright, it is possible.
IANAL, but I think if I would look into case law, I would find examples for both options, in some cases the "selection process" was enough to demonstrate creativity, and in other cases it wasn't.
You are correct it isn't about the numbers, it is about the artistic and creative product that is copyrightable, which, in case of digital art, is represented as numbers, and distribution of those might be punished by law.
I am just saying that digital art can be more that just still or moving pictures and sound. It can be a world space the artist prepared for you where you can move around.
About the section on the law, I would read it just as stating what is covered under copyright, and not what isn't. I also just mentioned what original work is, not describing derived work.
First, we're talking cross duristicion, since I was using the EU ruling above.
Second, I'm wondering if what that US page means is that a non-original work doesn't get copyright protections, or that non-original work is itself in breach of copyright? Maybe I should go digging to find out.
I agree deliberately designed digital worlds are artistic creations. Just that randomly generated ones are not.
You're probably right that legal examples on both sure probably already exist.
BTW, thank you for this discussion!
The crux of the matter for me is the question wherever "the selection process" alone is enough to create art or not, and depending on my mood I fall to one side or another on that question. Not specifically if it is under copyright or not, because that sort of follows from that.
Artists often use randomness in various parts of their creation process, what is really required is the human element. Is a picture of a cloud, that speaks to the photographer in some way art or just a picture of a random cloud?
I guess this has to be decided on a case by case basis, therefore I cannot completely exclude it.
You're welcome, and thank you too.
I agree with all that. The edge cases are tricky and there's no easy answer.
A painter flicking or splashing paint on a canvas presumably makes something with copyright protection.
Does an accidentally statically impossible basically impossible to tell apart version accidentally made by someone flicking and splashing their own paint infringe it? I'd hope not but can't really argue for a rule on it that doesn't involve believing stated goals/mind reading.
Guess not a thing us mortals/non-legal professionals can ever answer.