|
The South Korean parliament has passed an amendment to a law on promoting the gaming industry . Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
That would include aimbotters, hacking programs, scripters, or anything not allowed by the ToS.
The punishment? A maximum of 5 years jail time or $43,000 in fines (50 million KRW). PvPLive Dec 2, 2016
The bill that will make it illegal to distribute scripts or bots forbidden by a gaming company's own ToS in Korea has passed the National Assembly. Not sure when it'll go into effect... with the impeachment. A blanket rule to attempt to curb the indirect financial losses incurred on video game companies by cheating in multiplayer games.
To be clear the sentences are maximum sentences; I would guess you wouldn't automatically go to prison for 5 years for making a small speed hack.
From what I gather the amendment was proposed by Lee Sang-Sup of the People's Party on the 12th of August, 2016.
Resources: + Show Spoiler +
----------
On the other side of the planet the German supreme court held a hearing on Oct 6, 2016 between Activision Blizzard and Bossland GmbH, a bot creating company. This is the latest hearing in a series of lawsuits going back to 2011. German sources:
Court rules in favour of Blizzard, Bossland losing the ability to duplicate the WoW client. spielerecht.de Oct 11, 2016 Verdict on the distribution of 2 WoW bots by Bossland postponed until January 2017. spielerecht.de Oct 13, 2016
|
Would this law also be targetting things like Cheat Engine that is a memory editor? Mostly used in single player games (forum forbids posting tables/trainers for multiplayer games). The program itself doesn't cheat but can easily be used for it since it can inject code if you want to.
|
Canada8738 Posts
So I guess that also include any mod? They are not allowed in the ToS because of intelectual propriety I think. It dosen't just hit the hacking competitive programs .
I am also kind of intrigue by the idea of having state laws that punish breaking the rules created by a 3rd party actor.
Like if you got sued by Fifa after you cheated in a soccer game in your backyard, since you indirectly hurt them profit by hurting the brand of the sport.
Of course you sign a contract when you instal a video game and not when you decide to play soccer and soccer is not the propety of anyone. But there is some reflexion to make about the state making it criminal to cheat in a game without any stakes, I feel like it should be up to the compagny to inforce their own "legislation" as a concequence of chosing to produce an online game. Not sure I like it to be honest, but I don't know nearly enough on the subject.
Don't know if it will be enforce in a significant way, lets wait and see.
|
On December 10 2016 07:22 Nakajin wrote: So I guess that also include any mod? They are not allowed in the ToS because of intelectual propriety I think. It dosen't just hit the hacking competitive programs .
I am also kind of intrigue by the idea of having state laws that punish breaking the rules created by a 3rd party actor.
Like if you got sued by Fifa after you cheated in a soccer game in your backyard, since you indirectly hurt them profit by hurting the brand of the sport.
Of course you sign a contract when you instal a video game and not when you decide to play soccer and soccer is not the propety of anyone. But there is some reflexion to make about the state making it criminal to cheat in a game without any stakes, I feel like it should be up to the compagny to inforce their own "legislation" as a concequence of chosing to produce an online game. Not sure I like it to be honest, but I don't know nearly enough on the subject.
Don't know if it will be enforce in a significant way, lets wait and see. Depends entirely on the wording of the law.
Just like how taking aspirin doesn't count as "taking drugs" in competitive sports, most mods will probably be exempt unless there is an advantage gained.
|
1) Create video game 2) Add to ToS that all operating systems are considered cheating 3) Sue Apple and Microsoft 4) ??? 5) Profit
I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I can not imagine this being anything other than extremely vague to the level of being absolutely ineffective. At which point does a program start to become illegal? Is reading your own RAM illegal now? A cheat program might simply read your RAM and display that information to you. A virus scanning software might do the same thing. From a technical point of view there isnt much difference between these two.
|
Illegal to distribute scripts... What.
I make scripts to automate plenty of my computer functions, this is so silly.... Actually no, it's really scary. Seems like such an invasion of rights and what people should be allowed to do. Hope this is scrapped asap.
|
Yeah this is complete bullshit. T.o.S have no basis in law. corporatocracy.
|
Canada8738 Posts
On December 10 2016 10:20 RoomOfMush wrote: 1) Create video game 2) Add to ToS that all operating systems are considered cheating 3) Sue Apple and Microsoft 4) ??? 5) Profit
I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I can not imagine this being anything other than extremely vague to the level of being absolutely ineffective. At which point does a program start to become illegal? Is reading your own RAM illegal now? A cheat program might simply read your RAM and display that information to you. A virus scanning software might do the same thing. From a technical point of view there isnt much difference between these two.
Law are much better written then we usually think, if they really want to make an effective law it will be precise enough. They will just write a bunch of exception and particularities on what you can and cannot put in your ToS, there is lawyer that only write law as their job, they won't do something that involve being able to sue Microsoft, if they make a worthless law it is probably because they were told to make a worthless law because of political reason.
I would still think the law could make mod illegal, if they wrote it in the interest of video game company it would make sense to put that in, many of them don't exactly like the modding community.
Actually if someone found an English version of the law it would resolve most of our questions.
|
|
On December 10 2016 11:36 Nesserev wrote: Wow, people in this thread are really too much: - only distributors can be targeted; so if an individual/company A hacks a game by party B in any way that isn't allowed by its TOS, and then distributes said hack for free or for gain, then it's illegal. - users cannot be targeted by the law, but they do not escape the TOS of course, allowing the company to ban them (as is the case already)
So, all it comes down to is that it provides a legal framework for game companies to sue the distributors of hacks. Besides, there are other laws in place (such as customer protection laws), and things like 'scale of reasonability' that prevent the potential abuse that all of you seem to be dreaming up right now. All of this is a good thing; I don't understand how your minds work that you have to spin this in a negative way immediately.
Well assuming what was quoted was actually correct, I didn't spin anything.
Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate.
I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal.
|
On December 10 2016 10:20 RoomOfMush wrote: 1) Create video game 2) Add to ToS that all operating systems are considered cheating 3) Sue Apple and Microsoft 4) ??? 5) Profit
I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I can not imagine this being anything other than extremely vague to the level of being absolutely ineffective. At which point does a program start to become illegal? Is reading your own RAM illegal now? A cheat program might simply read your RAM and display that information to you. A virus scanning software might do the same thing. From a technical point of view there isnt much difference between these two.
Yeah, this is why the legal profession has to exist.
Because lay people such as yourself say "cheating", and complain that this clearly covers absolutely everything you can possibly think of.
And a lawyer would not even use the word "cheating", probably not even the word "hack", and if they did, there would be clear and defined definitions of those words within the legal text.
Not to say that legislation can't be poorly made, but it's quite dumb to write an entire post of complaints when you're literally just making up the rules in your head.
|
On December 10 2016 11:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 10:20 RoomOfMush wrote: 1) Create video game 2) Add to ToS that all operating systems are considered cheating 3) Sue Apple and Microsoft 4) ??? 5) Profit
I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I can not imagine this being anything other than extremely vague to the level of being absolutely ineffective. At which point does a program start to become illegal? Is reading your own RAM illegal now? A cheat program might simply read your RAM and display that information to you. A virus scanning software might do the same thing. From a technical point of view there isnt much difference between these two. Yeah, this is why the legal profession has to exist. Because lay people such as yourself say "cheating", and complain that this clearly covers absolutely everything you can possibly think of. And a lawyer would not even use the word "cheating", probably not even the word "hack", and if they did, there would be clear and defined definitions of those words within the legal text. Not to say that legislation can't be poorly made, but it's quite dumb to write an entire post of complaints when you're literally just making up the rules in your head.
I don't understand, are you guys even reading the article?
|
On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote: I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate.
I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal.
Dustin Steiner @GetSteinered Dustin Steiner has seen esports from nearly every angle, from tournament administration to live event coverage. He has worked in the space for over six years for outlets such as the Capcom Pro Tour, eSportsMax, ESFI World, Evil Geniuses and GameZone. The writer has as much knowledge of Korean and law as you probably do.
|
On December 10 2016 11:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote: I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate.
I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal.
Show nested quote + Dustin Steiner @GetSteinered Dustin Steiner has seen esports from nearly every angle, from tournament administration to live event coverage. He has worked in the space for over six years for outlets such as the Capcom Pro Tour, eSportsMax, ESFI World, Evil Geniuses and GameZone. The writer has as much knowledge of Korean and law as you probably do.
okay well if you actually know the specific content of the bill please inform us and then we can discuss the updated information. until then I'll stick to the content of the original post rather than speculation.
|
On December 10 2016 11:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 11:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote: I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate.
I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal.
Dustin Steiner @GetSteinered Dustin Steiner has seen esports from nearly every angle, from tournament administration to live event coverage. He has worked in the space for over six years for outlets such as the Capcom Pro Tour, eSportsMax, ESFI World, Evil Geniuses and GameZone. The writer has as much knowledge of Korean and law as you probably do. okay well if you actually know the specific content of the bill please inform us and then we can discuss the updated information. until then I'll stick to the content of the original post rather than speculation. ?
I don't know. And neither does the article writer. That's the point. He is not providing a translation of the new law, he's providing hearsay that he's heard on the internet, just like this thread.
I would love to see a proper translation or a proper journalistic article. But I'm also not going to assume that computers have been made illegal in Korea because lawmakers gave companies a blanket ban to make a nation's law. That's called common sense.
|
|
On December 10 2016 11:53 Nesserev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:36 Nesserev wrote: Wow, people in this thread are really too much: - only distributors can be targeted; so if an individual/company A hacks a game by party B in any way that isn't allowed by its TOS, and then distributes said hack for free or for gain, then it's illegal. - users cannot be targeted by the law, but they do not escape the TOS of course, allowing the company to ban them (as is the case already)
So, all it comes down to is that it provides a legal framework for game companies to sue the distributors of hacks. Besides, there are other laws in place (such as customer protection laws), and things like 'scale of reasonability' that prevent the potential abuse that all of you seem to be dreaming up right now. All of this is a good thing; I don't understand how your minds work that you have to spin this in a negative way immediately. Well assuming what was quoted was actually correct, I didn't spin anything. Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate. I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal. Actually, I could've been clearer by separating the creators of hacks, and distributors of hacks, because these are not necessarily the same... but that's not what you're getting at anyway. I also do not see how the line you just quoted contradicts anything I just said.
I guess I just believe that people should have the freedom to create and distribute their own creative content. I don't think that a publisher owns my computer because I run their program.
Maybe you think this isn't an issue, but it totally is, already. Botmakers are being sued even when their bots don't interact with the memory of the program. And the publishers are winning. I think it's naive to think that that is a positive thing when the underlying issue is about personal freedoms.
|
On December 10 2016 12:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 11:53 Nesserev wrote:On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:36 Nesserev wrote: Wow, people in this thread are really too much: - only distributors can be targeted; so if an individual/company A hacks a game by party B in any way that isn't allowed by its TOS, and then distributes said hack for free or for gain, then it's illegal. - users cannot be targeted by the law, but they do not escape the TOS of course, allowing the company to ban them (as is the case already)
So, all it comes down to is that it provides a legal framework for game companies to sue the distributors of hacks. Besides, there are other laws in place (such as customer protection laws), and things like 'scale of reasonability' that prevent the potential abuse that all of you seem to be dreaming up right now. All of this is a good thing; I don't understand how your minds work that you have to spin this in a negative way immediately. Well assuming what was quoted was actually correct, I didn't spin anything. Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate. I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal. Actually, I could've been clearer by separating the creators of hacks, and distributors of hacks, because these are not necessarily the same... but that's not what you're getting at anyway. I also do not see how the line you just quoted contradicts anything I just said. I guess I just believe that people should have the freedom to create and distribute their own creative content. I don't think that a publisher owns my computer because I run their program. Maybe you think this isn't an issue, but it totally is, already. Botmakers are being sued even when their bots don't interact with the memory of the program. And the publishers are winning. I think it's naive to think that that is a positive thing when the underlying issue is about personal freedoms. No one is getting sued for running an NES TASbot.
They're getting sued for WoW gold farm bots. Which is not about personal freedom, it's about effecting the entire online community of the game (and the servers that the publisher does own).
|
On December 10 2016 12:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 12:02 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:53 Nesserev wrote:On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:36 Nesserev wrote: Wow, people in this thread are really too much: - only distributors can be targeted; so if an individual/company A hacks a game by party B in any way that isn't allowed by its TOS, and then distributes said hack for free or for gain, then it's illegal. - users cannot be targeted by the law, but they do not escape the TOS of course, allowing the company to ban them (as is the case already)
So, all it comes down to is that it provides a legal framework for game companies to sue the distributors of hacks. Besides, there are other laws in place (such as customer protection laws), and things like 'scale of reasonability' that prevent the potential abuse that all of you seem to be dreaming up right now. All of this is a good thing; I don't understand how your minds work that you have to spin this in a negative way immediately. Well assuming what was quoted was actually correct, I didn't spin anything. Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate. I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal. Actually, I could've been clearer by separating the creators of hacks, and distributors of hacks, because these are not necessarily the same... but that's not what you're getting at anyway. I also do not see how the line you just quoted contradicts anything I just said. I guess I just believe that people should have the freedom to create and distribute their own creative content. I don't think that a publisher owns my computer because I run their program. Maybe you think this isn't an issue, but it totally is, already. Botmakers are being sued even when their bots don't interact with the memory of the program. And the publishers are winning. I think it's naive to think that that is a positive thing when the underlying issue is about personal freedoms. No one is getting sued for running an NES TASbot. They're getting sued for WoW gold farm bots. Which is not about personal freedom, it's about effecting the entire online community of the game (and the servers that the publisher does own).
So your angle is that it's to protect the profits of the publishers? (because the publishers are capable of maintaining the welfare of their own servers, they'd just take losses to do so)
edit: sorry, I didn't mean "angle" in a derogatory way if it sounded like I did
|
On December 10 2016 12:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 12:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 10 2016 12:02 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:53 Nesserev wrote:On December 10 2016 11:40 travis wrote:On December 10 2016 11:36 Nesserev wrote: Wow, people in this thread are really too much: - only distributors can be targeted; so if an individual/company A hacks a game by party B in any way that isn't allowed by its TOS, and then distributes said hack for free or for gain, then it's illegal. - users cannot be targeted by the law, but they do not escape the TOS of course, allowing the company to ban them (as is the case already)
So, all it comes down to is that it provides a legal framework for game companies to sue the distributors of hacks. Besides, there are other laws in place (such as customer protection laws), and things like 'scale of reasonability' that prevent the potential abuse that all of you seem to be dreaming up right now. All of this is a good thing; I don't understand how your minds work that you have to spin this in a negative way immediately. Well assuming what was quoted was actually correct, I didn't spin anything. Based on this law, manufacturing and distributing programs that are not allowed by the game company and its Terms of Service is now directly illegal.
I'm not sure what you are talking about actually. Assuming the quote is accurate. I mean the article even says "scripting" would be illegal. Actually, I could've been clearer by separating the creators of hacks, and distributors of hacks, because these are not necessarily the same... but that's not what you're getting at anyway. I also do not see how the line you just quoted contradicts anything I just said. I guess I just believe that people should have the freedom to create and distribute their own creative content. I don't think that a publisher owns my computer because I run their program. Maybe you think this isn't an issue, but it totally is, already. Botmakers are being sued even when their bots don't interact with the memory of the program. And the publishers are winning. I think it's naive to think that that is a positive thing when the underlying issue is about personal freedoms. No one is getting sued for running an NES TASbot. They're getting sued for WoW gold farm bots. Which is not about personal freedom, it's about effecting the entire online community of the game (and the servers that the publisher does own). So your angle is that it's to protect the profits of the publishers? (because the publishers are capable of maintaining the welfare of their own servers, they'd just take losses to do so) edit: sorry, I didn't mean "angle" in a derogatory way if it sounded like I did Why exactly did you bring profit into this?
Oh, because I used WoW gold farmers as one example? Point is that hackers and botters hurt the game, whether its aimbots, farm bots or hacks that actually break the game outright.
And yes, companies like Blizzard crackdown on things like that because they hurt the player-base numbers, and thus profits, but this is something where player and corporate interests intersect. Players want a better playing experience, companies want players to keep playing the game.
|
|
|
|