[His] opinion asserts that manipulating transient data generated during gameplay through third-party software does not infringe copyright according to the EU’s Computer Programs Directive. This distinction between protecting a game’s code and the temporary data it generates is a very significant one for all developers of game-enhancing tools.

The Advocate General also highlighted that the variable values in question are not original works of the game’s author but result from player interactions and game progression, which are unpredictable and dynamic. Since they depend on unforeseeable factors, these values lie beyond the author’s creative control.

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.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 8 points 1 month ago (17 children)

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).

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

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.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)