Thread

1. georgeecollins · 1790640824 · focus · HN ↗

   I don’t think reverse engineering a commercial game is legal. I don’t know if it is right or wrong, or if anyone can stop it.

   1. jagged-chisel · 1790643861 · focus · HN ↗

      Might be against the contract, but that’s not illegal.

      1. georgeecollins · 1790646013 · focus · HN ↗

         Something tells me you are not a lawyer who specializes in IP law.

         1. Joker_vD · 1790657792 · focus · HN ↗

            Which IP law? The EU has them somewhat different from the US, you know.

                ...The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of
                the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an
                infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist
                when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain
                the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program
                with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances
                only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person
                having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice
                and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective
                of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system,
                including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception
                to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate
                interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.
            
                ...Protection of computer programs under copyright laws should be without prejudice to the
                application, in appropriate cases, of other forms of protection. However, any contractual
                provisions contrary to the provisions of this Directive laid down in respect of decompilation
                or to the exceptions provided for by this Directive with regard to the making of a back-up
                copy or to observation, study or testing of the functioning of a program should be null and void.
            
                ...The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without
                the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the
                program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the
                program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running,
                transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
            
                ...In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b)
                of Article 4(1) [reproduction and alteration of the computer program — JvD] shall not require
                authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by
                the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
            
                ...The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and
                translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable
                to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created
                computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met...
            

            It's a very narrow exception, but it exists, and the the laws of the EU members follow this directive.
   2. Gonxa6282 · 1790647013 · focus · HN ↗

      Up to this point, it has never been actively stopped. Except for Take Two with the PS2 GTA games, but that was a cease & desist, so it's not determined as "illegal" either. I think that it's legal as long as you're not decrypting stuff, but my understanding may be limited.

      1. apatheticonion · 1790675473 · focus · HN ↗

         Is that one of those "I know I can't win in court but you can't afford a legal defence" type of things?
   3. AdeptusAquinas · 1790647965 · focus · HN ↗

      If they can argue its copyright infringement, then you can be sued for it. Sometimes you can get away with just a rebuild of the engine without the assets (do not try to copy the assets!) but even then its up to the company&#x27;s lawyers if they want to push it. Certainly if you try to sell your remake things get spiky. Can look at all the legal disclaimers on things like OpenSAGE as an example. But plenty of companies are cool, as long as they see no competition to their own copyright: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_game_engine_recreations" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_game_engine_recreation...

      1. georgeecollins · 1790652843 · focus · HN ↗

         There is also trademark law to consider.
      2. gmerc · 1790667428 · focus · HN ↗

         OpenAI and anthropic make the case that if the model decided to reverse engineer the game itself after getting prompt injected, I mean inspired, “GPU did it” is a perfectly valid defense and we should invite the owner of the GPU to write future regulation

         1. AdeptusAquinas · 1790670195 · focus · HN ↗

            Seems fair. If you have a thousand dollars and try to clone a million dollar game, you&#x27;re sued so hard your grandchildren need lawyers. If you have a billion dollars and try to clone a million dollar game, they call you a genius and invite you to the white house (for what that&#x27;s even worth any more).
         2. owebmaster · 1790683456 · focus · HN ↗

            Don&#x27;t delude yourself thinking you can use their same argument.
   4. stubish · 1790650543 · focus · HN ↗

      This is one of the points he is making. It might not be legal, but it is certainly allowed with precedents being set in courts and policies being turned into law by politicians. He seems quite explicit in stating that what he is doing now with multiple 90s era games will be what happens with this years games next year, and IP protections are getting eroded at such a rate that even the big budget games get cloned with impunity. One of the quotes is about Rockstar&#x27;s defense being a brand fortress and money.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.