# Take-Two takes legal action against reverse engineered re3 & reVC projects



## The Catboy (Sep 3, 2021)

They sure can throw a lot of money into everything that isn’t GTA6


----------



## MikaDubbz (Sep 3, 2021)

I do not understand the problem.  You can't play these reverse engineered releases without still buying the actual games.  They aren't in themselves a form of piracy.  The most outrageous thing about them is that they let us play the games on systems they never released for and never were going to release for, like the Vita or Wii U.  The only thing I can think that Rockstar would care about this for is that the supposed trilogy release is coming out for systems that this is available for like the Switch, which will cost more than buying each title separate and using them within the reverse engineered builds for the same system.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Sep 3, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I do not understand the problem.  You can't play these reverse engineered releases without still buying the actual games.  They aren't in themselves a form of piracy.  The most outrageous thing about them is that they let us play the games on system they never released for and never were going to release for, like the Vita or Wii U.  The only thing I can think that Rockstar would care about this for is that the supposed trilogy release is coming out for systems that this is available for like the Switch, which will cost more than buying each title separate and using them within the reverse engineered builds for the same system.


Yeah it's a pretty idiotic thing they're claiming.
A good look at the repository tells everyone that all of the copyrighted assets must be taken directly from an official release of the games.
T2 is really pushing it hard and they might shoot themselves in the foot (wish I hope is the case)


----------



## Mr.Faq2015 (Sep 3, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I do not understand the problem.  You can't play these reverse engineered releases without still buying the actual games.  They aren't in themselves a form of piracy.



The document reads that Take Two claims the builds that the people provide on the repos (if any... haven't actually checked the repo) are fully functional and can be played. I would assume this is gonna be the breaking point as it's most certaintly wrong (again, no clue cos I haven't checked), but there's also a bunch of other things that are just wrong outside of the classic "legally demonizing the people you're suing". Also apparently you can still buy GTA on the Playstation 1 and the original Xbox (epic 2011 rereleases) according to Take Two...
Lovely lovely copyright circus, never ceases to amaze me


----------



## Sheimi (Sep 3, 2021)

Mr.Faq2015 said:


> The document reads that Take Two claims the builds that the people provide on the repos (if any... haven't actually checked the repo) are fully functional and can be played. I would assume this is gonna be the breaking point as it's most certaintly wrong (again, no clue cos I haven't checked), but there's also a bunch of other things that are just wrong outside of the classic "legally demonizing the people you're suing". Also apparently you can still buy GTA on the Playstation 1 and the original Xbox (epic 2011 rereleases) according to Take Two...
> Lovely lovely copyright circus, never ceases to amaze me


You can't even launch the game from the repo as you need the game files themselves in order to play. It straight up crashes due to missing assets. Their claim is bogus.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Sep 3, 2021)

Sheimi said:


> You can't even launch the game from the repo as you need the game files themselves in order to play. It straight up crashes due to missing assets. Their claim is bogus.


It's a borderline idiotic claim.
What the repository creates is precisely comparable to the executable file that the originals on PC had.
It's supposed to be basically the engine, to launch the game, but without the assets, it does jackshit on launch.

Bold action they are taking, and hopefully the whole gaming industry and companies like this learn the lesson the hard way.


----------



## Wavy (Sep 3, 2021)

This is my favourite quote:


> *By copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code* for the Games, Defendants have made the Games fully and freely available to the public, have appropriated a market that belongs to Take-Two (namely, the market for modified or handheld versions of the Games), and enabled countless others to now create their own unauthorized, derivative versions of the Games.


They never stole your source code =P


----------



## SaberLilly (Sep 3, 2021)

if this goes to court i can only imagine the look on T2s attorney's face when the devs prove that the repos do not run the game without the missing assets.


----------



## AshuraZro (Sep 3, 2021)

I hope TakeTwo loses this and loses badly. This is a ridiculous measure to be taking against such projects.


----------



## gudenau (Sep 3, 2021)

They need to lose this and if they do that will set an even stronger president for reverse engineering.

Hopefully the right lawyers are get on the right side of this and can win the case.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Sep 3, 2021)

gudenau said:


> They need to lose this and if they do that will set an even stronger president for reverse engineering.
> 
> Hopefully the right lawyers are get on the right side of this and can win the case.


The lawyers AND the judge.
As long as the lawyers are competent enough in copyrigh laws and know their basic software stuff, they should be able to handle it well and send Take Two right the fuck off


----------



## bobmcjr (Sep 3, 2021)

TakeTwo should really take a step back and think for a second when even Nintendo isn't DMCA'ing those N64 decompilations (well, yet at least).

But TakeTwo is obviously hoping their expensive legal tactic of screeching the loudest works again.


Man I fucking hate Q4. All the lawyers and laws come out of the woodwork this time of year trying to fuck up as much as they can in the hopes of some minor, nebulous stock value gains before the end of the fiscal year.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Yeah it's a pretty idiotic thing they're claiming.
> A good look at the repository tells everyone that all of the copyrighted assets must be taken directly from an official release of the games.
> T2 is really pushing it hard and they might shoot themselves in the foot (wish I hope is the case)


I hope this falls under fair use. Since the code itself is remade from scratch, and the assets aren't provided.

EDIT: Shouldn't this sort of count as an emulator?


----------



## GaryOderNichts (Sep 3, 2021)

They seem to sue the people who filed a counter DMCA. For example td512 aka "Theo M." who forked the repository and was the first who filed a counter DMCA is also mentioned in the lawsuit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2021)

Easy L for Rockstar *unless* they luck out and get a judge with no understanding of the subject matter. The claim is incorrect, demonstrably so, so this won't be a terribly long lawsuit. They could've played it smart and argued that by adapting GTA games to run on hardware they were not originally intended for, or by distributing code which allows just that, the developers in question are reducing their business opportunity and affect the value of their products on the market (by reducing Rockstar's ability to secure future business by releasing ports). A vague claim, to be fair, but one that is actually accurate and could be argued in court.


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 3, 2021)

Go homebrew!


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2021)

Such an asshole move.  If they make decent remasters of these games, they'll overshadow the fan projects/ports regardless, so there's no good reason to force the removal of them.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Sep 3, 2021)

This is definitely due to plans of releasing that trilogy, similar how Nintendo did so for Metroid fan projects twice before releasing their games.

I do wonder though how these tech cases go, who exactly helps the judge and everyone else understand the specifics to make arguments and whatnot as they surely have no clue.


----------



## yuyuyup (Sep 3, 2021)

I'll spend the rest of my life actively discouraging people from buying Apple and Take Two.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 3, 2021)

[QUOTE="MikaDubbz, post: 9568973, member: 438041]  You can't play these reverse engineered releases without still buying the actual games. [/QUOTE]

I heavily doubt most people who play this on switch or vita went through the trouble of buying those games or even just ripping the files themselves.


----------



## Deleted member 514389 (Sep 3, 2021)

They better bring that rumored BS Collection then...

.. otherwise they're just s.o. else throwing theur weight around.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> I do not understand the problem.  You can't play these reverse engineered releases without still buying the actual games.



You can, by downloading the data files.



MikaDubbz said:


> They aren't in themselves a form of piracy.



They are a clear copyright violation. I am surprised they waited so long after the projects were reinstated.



MikaDubbz said:


> The most outrageous thing about them is that they let us play the games on systems they never released for and never were going to release for, like the Vita or Wii U.



How is that outrageous? I'm pretty sure in copyright law there isn't an exception for "it's ok to violate if you really want something".



Sheimi said:


> You can't even launch the game from the repo as you need the game files themselves in order to play. It straight up crashes due to missing assets. Their claim is bogus.



I assume they are arguing the code is complete and not just excerpts of the code for study which could come under fair use.

The code is their copyright even if you can't play it without other files.


----------



## lordelan (Sep 3, 2021)

They didn't harm any copyright. They can't win.
It'd kill me if they'd win. Stupidness alarm.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

ShadowOne333 said:


> What the repository creates is precisely comparable to the executable file that the originals on PC had.



Which is copied without the permission of the copyright holder.



ShadowOne333 said:


> Bold action they are taking, and hopefully the whole gaming industry and companies like this learn the lesson the hard way.



I hope they don't fight it for their own sake, but it will be an interesting case for sure. T2 losing would basically kill the copyright law.

I suspect it will be a re-run of the romuniverse case where someone makes some legal arguments based on hopes and dreams, but gets their ass handed to them on a plate.


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

From the Preliminary Statement, page 3:


> By copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code for the
> Games, Defendants have made the Games fully and freely available to the public,..



That's an odd statement, the games are not fully and freely made available to the public.


From the re3 github:


> - Extract the downloaded zip over your GTA 3 directory and run re3. The zip includes the *binary*, *updated and additional gamefiles* and in case of OpenAL the *required dlls*.



I wonder how complete the provided files are, in terms of original code and assets.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Which is copied without the permission of the copyright holder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm waiting for you to say which copyright the exact copyright? That would kill emulators as well.


----------



## masagrator (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> I'm waiting for you to say which copyright the exact copyright? That would kill emulators as well.


Or even Atmosphere which is reproducing original code for many HOS sysmodules (they share the same functionality, but code is not 1:1 with original source code as produced binaries differ).


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

masagrator said:


> Or even Atmosphere which is reproducing original code for many HOS sysmodules (they share the same functionality, but code is not 1:1 with original source code as produced binaries differ).


Exactly! That ain't illegal as far as I know...


----------



## masagrator (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> suspect it will be a re-run of the romuniverse case where someone makes some legal arguments based on hopes and dreams, but gets their ass handed to them on a plate.


romuniverse case is a bad example, because guy didn't get any lawyer which is itself a stupid move in all cases. Even sued lawyers hire other lawyers instead of representing themself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> I'm waiting for you to say which copyright the exact copyright? That would kill emulators as well.


Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem firmly entrenched the right to create computer programs that allow for launching other programs on otherwise incompatible host machines, aka emulation. Much like Bleem!, re3 and reVC contain no copyrighted code owned by another entity - they both merely create an environment in which an otherwise incompatible binary can run, albeit in different ways. Neither project constitutes copyright infringement, it is encumbent on the user to supply the necessary binaries that the program is supposed to run on the host machine - the creators of the program are not liable for how individual users obtain said binaries. The problem with lawsuits like this is that they can take forever unless they're argued well, in which case the sued party can simply be litigated against into bankruptcy, and the legal system offers no refunds. This was the case with Bleem!, but on the bright side, there now exists a legal precedent which protects others from similar frivolous action. Unless Rockstar can specifically point out the intellectual property that is being infringed upon, they are going to lose, and lose badly. If the court finds the action frivolous as well, the creators of reGTA have the option to countersue, although they would have to demonstrate damages that were a direct result of the previous suit in order to obtain any restitution.


masagrator said:


> romuniverse case is a bad example, because guy didn't get any lawyer which is itself a stupid move in all cases. Even sued lawyers hire other lawyers instead of representing themself.


The ROM Universe case is a bad example because there was clear copyright infringement going on. No such infringement is happening here - the creators of re3/reVC are not distributing or otherwise linking to copyrighted code.


----------



## Vila_ (Sep 3, 2021)

wow nintendo and rockstar have been on quite the rampage lately...


----------



## lokomelo (Sep 3, 2021)

Fuck Nintendo!

... oh wait...


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 3, 2021)

can't wait for the Nintendo Lawsuit to happen once the OoT project is finalized


----------



## eyeliner (Sep 3, 2021)

If they win, Nintendo will follow suit.
Let's hope they loose this one.


----------



## Wavy (Sep 3, 2021)

fallguy441 said:


> can't wait for the Nintendo Lawsuit to happen once the OoT project is finalized


Nintendo didn't go after the Mario 64 decompilation, so I have no idea why they'd go after OoT.


----------



## mightymuffy (Sep 3, 2021)

Ah yes good old Take Two, it's like they watch Nintendo being arseholes and then shout 'hold my bag..' 
In these guys cases, taking down what is actually extending the shelf life of their products, well the mind fukkin boggles!  Like has been said this should be a laughably big L for them, but part of me can't help but think they just might end up with some clueless dickhead judge agreeing with them.....


----------



## SS4 (Sep 3, 2021)

Even if their claim is bogus and they lose. Its a waste of time and money to defend yourself against rich entity like that.
Its basically just bullying and happens all the time.
Like our legal system is so great and with so little flaws rofl no way anyone would abuse it right


----------



## Mark McDonut (Sep 3, 2021)

Fucking Morons.

This whole project is literally reverse-engineered renderware, (which was made and licensed by Dice, who could give two fucks about it now that it's no longer a licensed middleware) with tweaks to make each game run correctly.

I hope Rockstar gets slapped in court for falsifying information and suing for things they don't understand.

No wonder Leslie and Lazlo left.


----------



## Deleted member 323844 (Sep 3, 2021)

Wavy said:


> Nintendo didn't go after the Mario 64 decompilation, so I have no idea why they'd go after OoT.


I'd say it is even safer, since the team is only decompiling it, they're not porting it to any platform. Unlike SM64 team, that already ported the project to N64 and Linux iirc.


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 3, 2021)

Mark McDonut said:


> I hope Rockstar gets slapped in court for falsifying information and suing for things they don't understand.
> 
> No wonder Leslie and Lazlo left.



It's not Rockstar that does this...


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> I'm waiting for you to say which copyright the exact copyright? That would kill emulators as well.



The first claim is about distributing "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code".

For example, quoted from the complaint:


Spoiler: § 28



28. Papenhoff has admitted that the source code developed via the re3 and reVC
projects is not original, but rather is (and was intended to be) a copy of the original. In fact,
Defendants have bragged that their derivative source code was created by working backwards
from Take-Two’s final “machine” code to re-create the human-readable code in which GTA was
programmed:

“GTA 3 and Vice City were originally written in [programming
language] C++ . . . The compiled executables that are shipped are in
machine code. So the general task is to go from machine code back to
C++. . . . To go back to C++ is by no means a simple 1:1 mapping, but
over the last 10 or so years decompilers have appeared that help with this
process. . . . So what we typically do is work with the output of the
decompiler and massage it back into readable C++.” Id.



On which they specifically hold the copyright to. Appended as a fact:


Spoiler: § 20



20. Take-Two is the owner of valid registered copyrights in the Games, including PA
1-151-010 and PA 1-151-011. Take-Two’s exclusive rights in the Games include the rights to
reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and adapt the Games, including by creating derivative
versions, and versions of the Games that run on new platforms or technologies (sometimes
referred to as “ports.”).



But they also mention, original assets being distributed:


> "but also contain Take-Two’s
> original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets"





Spoiler: § 23



23. According to Defendants, the re3 GitHub Repositories purportedly contain “the
fully reversed source code for GTA III... and GTA [Vice City].” More specifically, via the re3
GitHub Repositories, Defendants are distributing to the public dozens, if not hundreds, of
derivative source code files for the Games. These source code files not only contain the derivative
software code that enables the Games to run on a player’s computer, but also contain Take-Two’s
original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets. Additionally, the
re3 GitHub Repositories include links to locations where members of the public can download a
complete, installable build of the re3 and reVC software.



The second claim is specifically against the users filing a counter notice against the DMCA notice and takedown done earlier.

Wanting $150.000 per game plus all other expanses paid for, all the derived work handed over and stop the work on Liberty City Stories.
Quite curious how this ends. The community better start raising some funds i guess.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

This is a clear copyright violation, completely separate from Bleem (which is therefore off topic from this discussion). Emulating a PlayStation to run original CD's and reverse engineering and publishing copyrighted material from a game to allow it to run is legally very different.

Ideas expressed in the origjnal source code are copyright and they are copied with permission into the binary and re3 copied them into the reverse engineered source code.

re3 already admit to it, so the case will just be arguing over whether long standing copyright law is valid.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> The first claim is about distributing "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code".
> 
> For example, quoted from the complaint:
> 
> ...


Well if original assets are used. That's a big nono.
However, I have a hard time seeing that decompiling it and making a working engine out of it, is actually illegal. As I said it's kind of how the emulators worked. They decompiled them and reversed engineered it. It's even emulating hardware. So it's even a bigger nono originally right?



> Take-Two’s exclusive rights in the Games include the rights to
> reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and adapt the Games, including by creating derivative
> versions, and versions of the Games that run on new platforms or technologies (sometimes
> referred to as “ports.”)


 Not sure if this actually is enforcable in a court. But we shall see. Sad if so are really.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> As I said it's kind of how the emulators worked.



It's not. Emulators pretend to be hardware, so the game executable is just the copy that you have legally bought which was licensed by the copyright holder. They can't force you what you can do with the copy you purchased, but they can legally prevent you from making additional copies and distributing them (this is what the copyright is, a right to control copies)

Reverse engineering an executable has made a copy of it and distributed it, in a modified form but that is still covered & without permission.

In countries that allow reverse engineering for interoperability, you aren't allowed to distribute any of the copyright information that you obtained. You can only use it to create your own work, which could be an emulator or something that communicates with the software (as long as it doesn't violate the DMCA/EUCD/etc).

The game code is protected by copyright law just as much as any artwork.

If they had reverse engineered it and published a specification for others to implement then any engine that was created would be free of any copyright issues (software patents/DMCA/etc however might be a problem). But from what they wrote on github, that isn't what they did.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not. Emulators pretend to be hardware, so the game executable is just the copy that you have legally bought which was licensed by the copyright holder. They can't force you what you can do with it, but they can prevent you from making additional copies and distributing them (this is what the copyright is, a right to control copies)
> 
> Reverse engineering an executable has made a copy of it and distributed it, in a modified form but that is still covered & without permission.
> 
> The game code is protected by copyright law just as much as any artwork.


You still need to own the GTA games to play them on the RE engines.

Now I don't know 100% HOW the code is dumped, written, adapted. But if it's as I suspect, written from scratch. Just dumped and written. It's more or less as an emulator, but for this specific game.

So what do you feel about ScummVM then?


----------



## Deleted member 323844 (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not. Emulators pretend to be hardware, so the game executable is just the copy that you have legally bought which was licensed by the copyright holder. They can't force you what you can do with the copy you purchased, but they can legally prevent you from making additional copies and distributing them (this is what the copyright is, a right to control copies)


Bios and proprietary API are usually HLE'd. I think it could be similar in that way.


----------



## NelGibs (Sep 3, 2021)

PS2 iso and android apk data still floating around. Cracked PC version also available readily I believe. Honestly, only GTA 2 and 4 worth it. It'd be better for T2 to make R* do GTA reboot or other great undertakings. Homebrew keeps their older games in the spotlight again. They sould release them on GOG if they really love their fanbase.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not. Emulators pretend to be hardware, so the game executable is just the copy that you have legally bought which was licensed by the copyright holder. They can't force you what you can do with the copy you purchased, but they can legally prevent you from making additional copies and distributing them (this is what the copyright is, a right to control copies)
> 
> Reverse engineering an executable has made a copy of it and distributed it, in a modified form but that is still covered & without permission.
> 
> The game code is protected by copyright law just as much as any artwork.


Reverse engineering is protected in copyright law in most instances, it falls under fair use. The DMCA specifically states that an end-user is entitled to reverse engineer a piece of software, including breaking copy protection mechanisms, in order to achieve interoperability with other computer programs, in this instance a launcher on an unsupported system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering


> According to Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f)), a person in legal possession of a program may reverse-engineer and circumvent its protection if that is necessary to achieve "interoperability," a term that broadly covers other devices and programs that can interact with it, make use of it, and to use and transfer data to and from it in useful ways. A limited exemption exists that allows the knowledge thus gained to be shared and used for interoperability purposes.


Not only is what they're doing legal and permitted on an individual level, they are allowed to share the knowledge gained, which they do on the repository. You're wrong on both counts.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

stranno said:


> Bios and proprietary API are usually HLE'd. I think it could be similar in that way.



API can't be copyrighted, an HLE of a BIOS would not be similar to how the original function worked on the original hardware. The IBM  PC bios is a good legal example of that.

But legally it's very different to documenting an API and implementing similar functionality and decompiling a game.



Foxi4 said:


> Reverse engineering is protected in copyright law in most instances, it falls under fair use. The DMCA specifically states that an end-user is entitled to reverse engineer a piece of software, including breaking copy protection mechanisms, in order to achieve interoperability with other computer programs, in this instance a launcher on an unsupported system.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
> 
> Not only is what they're doing legal and permitted on an individual level, they are allowed to share the knowledge gained, which they do on the repository. You're wrong on both counts.



please stop harassing me with your incorrect posts.

https://www.gerrishlegal.com/legal-...gineering such,which is the protected element.


----------



## Deleted member 323844 (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> API can't be copyrighted, an HLE of a BIOS would not be similar to how the original function worked on the original hardware. The IBM  PC bios is a good legal example of that.
> 
> But legally it's very different to documenting an API and implementing similar functionality and decompiling a game.


Isn't NVN (I guess present in Switch emus) copyrighted by Nvidia?


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

stranno said:


> Isn't NVN (I guess present in Switch emus) copyrighted by Nvidia?



You can't copyright facts. So an API itself cannot be copyright, only novel ideas in the implementation (Wine is a good example of this). 

I am sure T2 will be able to pull out a load of examples in court of how code that could be expressed in a lot of different ways, but was similar to their original source code.

If you take a bunch of source code, a lot of it isn't protectable. But some of it is.

They will have to show evidence of a clean room implementation and I figure they can't.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

I did not expect Take Two/Rockstar to the leading the charge against this decompilations of games lark, especially after Nintendo got their nose so thoroughly tweaked, if not bloodied by previous things, and their general attitude in the past. With this and the turn on mods I wonder what changed up high to cause this sort of thing.

That said I can see the basis for it under the law and their filing makes sense from my understanding of the letter, spirit and intent of the law. Sounds very much like classic derived work rather than anything even vaguely resembling clean room recreation, emulation, interpretation or other means of translation generally allowed by law. Would also represent unfair competition for a work still in copyright. If they also happened to include a bunch of assets within the code then oh dear, but that might be more easily remedied if by some magical means the code is deemed free and clear by some kind of interoperability massive expansion in scope. (Most of) The assets being bundled separately means almost nothing in this; it happens in other things (see half of https://osgameclones.com/ , and also the various attempts on the same link to make free versions of assets) because that is an easy way to keep control of the art for a later official port/rerelease/keep people buying whatever version you still have out there but has no real legal basis for a defence beyond "it could have been worse done by us".
I would rather that they continued to ignore it but I in no way can get to any kind of angry at legal overreach by them. Bog standard and unambiguous law, and not even a good candidate for a further exemption/"get with the times" update.

All that said when this happens in the future* then everybody take a snapshot, there is usually a nice "download all as zip" feature on most repos so you don't even have to install git or whatever arcane software is used. Seems we might need TOR software repos as well.
*and it will; the tech is getting there so we have basically the entire C coding era (PS1/N64 probably through early PS2, PC from about 1995 with earlier still examples to today in some cases but more likely about 2001, GBA through DS in handhelds) to happen yet, the handful of games we have seen thus far is but the trickle before the dam bursts as it will only get easier other than whatever weirdness the devs coded that troubles things in a given game. Plus whatever people more classically disassemble, find is using an interpreted language, have leaked by traditional means or get related engines for. C++ maybe (came after C, needs a bit more resources but offers a whole lot more options, said options making decompilation harder) even coming at some point but that is a far harder task.


----------



## izy (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> You still need to own the GTA games to play them on the RE engines.
> 
> Now I don't know 100% HOW the code is dumped, written, adapted. But if it's as I suspect, written from scratch. Just dumped and written. It's more or less as an emulator, but for this specific game.
> 
> So what do you feel about ScummVM then?


yeah looks like its a fully reverse sourced executable thats compiled using original game assetts
which is why it links directly to steam store page to buy the game

it gets even funnier

*These source code files not only contain the derivative
software code that enables the Games to run on a player’s computer, but also contain Take-Two’s
original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets.

Additionally, the
re3 GitHub Repositories include links to locations where members of the public can download a
complete, installable build of the re3 and reVC software. 


*
they dont because those are part of the game you need to own to compile it and the official github just links to zip files containing latest releases to build the executables using the game itself purchased fro steam store.

*
The Games are virtually identical to the original Games in function, appearance, and gameplay,
except for certain variations and modifications added by Defendants. Thus, a player in possession
of Defendants’ derivative version of the Games can experience the exact same sights, sounds,
story, setting, dialog, and other creative content as they would experience in Take-Two’s original
version of the Games.*

well yeah its just an executable that requires an original game to run i wonder why
this is jsut them trying to twist lawyer garbo


*Defendants have been public about their intent to create and distribute their own
pirated version of the Games, and have used social media and the press to promote the infringing
projects’ visibility as well as to recruit users and developers. For example, on or about February
12, 2021, Defendant Ash R. posted links to the re3 and reVC GitHub repositories to his personal
account on the U.S.-based social media platform Twitter, announcing to his hundreds of followers
(including, on information and belief, ones he knew to reside in the United States) that both GTA3
and Vice City had “been FULLY reverse engineered!”1 Soon after, Ash R. followed up his
announcements with another Twitter post offering a hyperlinked “invite” to the group’s Discord
channel in order to solicit “help” with the projects, and communicated directly in response with *






lmao



So basically they have been reverse engineering the executable from scratch
providing compile scripts on the official repos for multiple systems
linking to official steam store page to buy the game so you can compile it because they dont provide any non reversed assetts

yet nintendo cant take a fully reversed engineered mario rom to court
and take2 think they can take a fully reversed engineered launcher which contains no assets

the best they can do is twist the meanings of reverse engineering and the likes to sound like they have been copying everything


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> I did not expect Take Two/Rockstar to the leading the charge against this decompilations of games lark, especially after Nintendo got their nose so thoroughly tweaked, if not bloodied by previous things, and their general attitude in the past. With this and the turn on mods I wonder what changed up high to cause this sort of thing.



I think this has come off the back of the mods, maybe their lawyers are bored or something.

I actually expected Nintendo to take down the decompilation of Mario 64.



squee666 said:


> So basically they have been reverse engineering the executable from scratch
> providing compile scripts on the official repos for multiple systems
> linking to official steam store page to buy the game so you can compile it because they dont provide any non reversed assetts
> 
> ...



I'd say that both Nintendo and T2 would have a good case in court, if either party chooses not to then it's up to them.

There doesn't seem to be any difference in Mario64 and GTA apart from the language used to describe them. They are both essentially decompilations, whether they are automatic or manual.



squee666 said:


> the best they can do is twist the meanings of reverse engineering and the likes to sound like they have been copying everything



Just because you reverse engineered something, doesn't mean they don't still own the copyright. Reverse engineering is only allowed in good faith, distributing a fully working source code is not allowed in either the US or EU (and likely in any berne convention countries). At some point in some countries you would even need to show exhaustion of other methods to get the information that you obtained by reverse engineering.

Clean room reverse engineering avoids a lot of the issues, but it's a lot more work and requires more people (plus you would need to prove you did it).


----------



## izy (Sep 3, 2021)

I actually expected Nintendo to take down the decompilation of Mario 64.[/QUOTE]
they cant because just like GTA RE3 etc it also requires you to have a prior copy of the game to get all the copyrighted assets to compile their decompilation

since re3 and mario dont actual contain those assets they dont actually have real ground to stand on.
thats why take2 lawyers are idiots since they are quoting soemthing that doesnt exist in original repos


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Just because you reverse engineered something, doesn't mean they don't still own the copyright. Reverse engineering is only allowed in good faith, distributing a fully working source code is not allowed in either the US or EU (and likely in any berne convention countries).


Dosbox?
ReactOS?
Wine?

The source code is code, not assets. Last time I checked if you write the code yourself. It's YOURS. So yes, you do own the copyright to it.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Dosbox?
> ReactOS?
> Wine?
> 
> The source code is code, not assets. Last time I checked if you write the code yourself. It's YOURS. So yes, you do own the copyright to it.



Dosbox, reactos and wine don't include any copyrighted code from the original products as any reverse engineering of the API's didn't go as far as copying the implementation.

The reverse engineering of GTA does include the original implementation in the source code.

Just because you type it in, doesn't mean you own the copyright of something. If you were reading it from somewhere else then it's a copy.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Dosbox, reactos and wine don't include any copyrighted code from the original products as any reverse engineering of the API's didn't go as far as copying the implementation.
> 
> The reverse engineering of GTA does include the implementation.


But do they? Is it 1:1 the exact same code? Or does the code just do the exact same thing?


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> But do they? Is it 1:1 the exact same code? Or does the code just do the exact same thing?



I already quoted that, it's "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code".
Not originally written.

This also isn't comparable to the sm64 de-compilation since that only offers patches to the original code.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> I already quoted that, it's "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code".
> Not originally written.
> 
> This also isn't comparable to the sm64 de-compilation since that only offers patches to the original code.


"code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code" this doesn't mean it's 1:1...


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> But do they? Is it 1:1 the exact same code? Or does the code just do the exact same thing?



In the case of mario 64 they definitely is the same code as it can produce a bit identical binary.

From the description from re3 themselves I am confident it will have some copyright code transferred over, but as I don't have the original source code I will have to wait until it's bought as evidence in court.



linuxares said:


> "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code" this doesn't mean it's 1:1...



It doesn't have to be 1:1. Things like variable and function names or the placement of brackets aren't copyright anyway, so just because they change doesn't affect whether it's copyright.


----------



## XDel (Sep 3, 2021)

It's funny how they will invest all this money into ruining the lives of a handful of individuals, not so they can reclaim lost profits, of which they are loosing none considering how relatively small and niche the homebrew/port scene is compared to the commercial market; but so they can exorcise power and control, which is what this is really about. The corporations should not have the same rights as citizens, and reverse engineering isn't theft. 

I have only bought one GTA game in my life, but now I want NOTHING to do with this company.


----------



## izy (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> I already quoted that, it's "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code".
> Not originally written.
> 
> This also isn't comparable to the sm64 de-compilation since that only offers patches to the original code.


It builds the following ROMs:


sm64.jp.z64 sha1: 8a20a5c83d6ceb0f0506cfc9fa20d8f438cafe51
sm64.us.z64 sha1: 9bef1128717f958171a4afac3ed78ee2bb4e86ce
sm64.eu.z64 sha1: 4ac5721683d0e0b6bbb561b58a71740845dceea9
sm64.sh.z64 sha1: 3f319ae697533a255a1003d09202379d78d5a2e0
This repo does not include all assets necessary for compiling the ROMs. A prior copy of the game is required to extract the assets.

they literally have a section for compiling the game which like re3 requires an original copy of the game because it requires game assetts which both dont include for copyright reasons

so yeah ofc its gonna have copyright binaries but only when compiled because it grabs them from original game


----------



## wormdood (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> API can't be copyrighted, an HLE of a BIOS would not be similar to how the original function worked on the original hardware. The IBM  PC bios is a good legal example of that.
> 
> But legally it's very different to documenting an API and implementing similar functionality and decompiling a game.
> 
> ...


 you do realize they'll be trying this case in the USA right? ... not in the EU ... Yeah the EU is way more relaxed about the laws involving video games in general that's why you can fail at hacking your console brick it and send it back to the company to get it fixed in the EU but not in the USA


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

wormdood said:


> you do realize they'll be trying this case in the USA right?



I actually have no idea what country re3 are in (EDIT: ok it's in the suit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.384429/gov.uscourts.cand.384429.1.0.pdf the parties are all around the world)

I don't think there is any appreciable difference in any berne convention country though that would allow you to reverse engineer a program and distribute it in source code form.

Reverse engineering being legal and what you do with what you reverse engineered are two different things.

This would be a good place to start reading...

https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq


----------



## codezer0 (Sep 3, 2021)

This kind of bullshit from the Houser brothers, is unfortunately expected. I'm just more surprised that they haven't had their mental disorder level table flipping and tried to just straight up arrest everyone involved in the project sooner.

Considering those bastards automatically sue everyone they fire, and try to arrest anyone that even so much as mods their games now, I was expecting them to jump on this project well before Covid.


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

squee666 said:


> It builds the following ROMs:
> 
> 
> sm64.jp.z64 sha1: 8a20a5c83d6ceb0f0506cfc9fa20d8f438cafe51
> ...



Yeah, you de-compile the copyrighted code and assets yourself.

The software offered is a de-compiler and patches. No actual de-compiled code.



linuxares said:


> "code derived from reverse engineering shipped machine code" this doesn't mean it's 1:1...



They don't claim 1:1 code is distributed. But code converted from original machine code, and modified. Thus not original.

This isn't de-compiling, describing, than recreating the same using your own code.

And this also goes further than the 'fair use' claim from @Foxi4
That allows you to share information on how to do it. Not actually distributing modified code and assets.

Also, take a look at how the software offered by TheFlow for PSVita is done.
With all original code they hook into the existing code from the original android builds.
No de-compiled code used here.
Take-Two would have a hard time taking that down.


----------



## Spider_Man (Sep 3, 2021)

I guess this is why they're now doing the so called "remasters" so they can bitch to a court that this is having an impact on the sales of its so called "remaster".

But I don't get how a court can even consider taking up this case, as none of the files they provide allowed you to gain access to the game illegally.

You had to obtain the game either by purchasing it, or obtaining the game files by other means, which these guys do not link to.

So how can they take legal action against them and not the sites which provide the game files illegally?

This then could open up them been able to take legal action against emulators that allow you to play their games on other devices than its original device it was created for.

I hope the legal system actually enforces the laws rather than side with large companies that think they can throw millions at a court to get what they want, as these guys haven't broken any laws, they have not reverse engineered any of their IP files, all they have done is made a project that can emulate and run their games on other platforms, the user must obtain the game files themselves, if the user decides to obtain them illegally has nothing to do with these guys.

If anything, these projects may have lead to increased sales, if users actually support game devs and purchase the game to then use this project.

But we all know in reality those that are able to "pirate" will pirate, but pretend that they don't.

I myself actually do own these games (multiple consoles) and tho I did use my own game files to play them, i soon deleted them as it didnt play as well as its original.

Also they should thank them, not take them to court, as these guys have just provided proof that there is a demand to have these games ported..... shit sorry "remastered" to current gen consoles.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

squee666 said:


> > I actually expected Nintendo to take down the decompilation of Mario 64.
> 
> 
> they cant because just like GTA RE3 etc it also requires you to have a prior copy of the game to get all the copyrighted assets to compile their decompilation
> ...



As I understand it.

Code counts as creative expression. Be it in the code itself, the arrangement of it into a functioning whole (see also typesetting for old public domain books and stuff there) and such. As there are limited sensible ways to do a task in code you get far more provisions for matching code than you do in music where copying someone's melody wholesale gets you a slap, but that is limited in relevance here.

Taking the code, running it through a disassembler and then calling it your own is not the done thing any more than putting it in a zip file makes it your own thing. Indeed merely looking at a disassembled work can be legally dubious in the eyes of some, some including the law as it is generally interpreted (bit like leaked data or trade secrets/privileged information from a former employer).
Just because your disassembler has some smarts now and can recognise by whatever means a list of a few instructions as being a call to this library which we know, and this code is the library itself that we also know, this type of construct in a high level language... that does not change the fundamental underlying assumption. Still falls under what would be known as a derived work.

There is some scope to do things beyond emulation, interpretation, simulation and translation (and I guess remote play but that is more a technical alternative for someone wanting to have it on a given screen/input combo) that the law does allow/consider acceptable uses/be allowed because substantial non infringing uses. This would be known as clean room reverse engineering. Here you get to observe play, how much you are are allowed to look at plain old memory even being debated at times, and then recreate all the mechanics from that. If it sounds like it would take an age then yes, yes it would; I would hate to do it even for the original NES Mario Brothers never mind a fully 3d open world game with all sorts of one off behaviours and extras, though I suppose there are ways to speed it up (main one being make a functioning version, find where it meets something new/has a crash, fix and repeat). Has however been done for some games, and many protocols and file formats (libreoffice don't sit there with a disassembly of microsoft word looking for how it interprets things, they get to sit there, make a new document, save, type some text, compare blank to text, make text bold, compare, and repeat for however many features they care to implement* and all the potential interactions between said features).
Some would even go so far as to say those that participated in the first stage should be barred from working on the implementation for similar reasons to the leaked data/trade secrets concerns (while they might not have necessarily seen a disassembly they could have and that is good enough to bar them).
Depending upon your reading of the DMCA then bypassing protections could be an issue but that does not appear to a factor in this at this point.

*most people only use 10% of the features available and all that, however the latter part of that phrase is everybody uses a different 10% so hey. Back in games world then how much of it you need, how much you can guess from what you already know (if A=1, B=2, C=3 and you determined it by observation then you probably have a pretty good guess what D=), how much of it you care to make better (pedestrians panic when you fire guns, don't need code Rockstar wrote and instead can make a panicking pedestrian that will likely satisfy the needs of your players, maybe even spice it up a bit and make a concealed carry mod in the process) and how much you care to make over from scratch for the same general principle becoming a debate for the project leaders and the intent of the project. Said changes did however come up in the document where they noted the ones made, presumably as a backdoor for trademark concerns and such like where a product with all the appearance of their product but different functionality might cause confusion in the typical consumer (which would extend to grandma buying games for her snot nosed, but naturally of age, grandkids).

Amusingly enough Rockstar would not be able to turn around as it stands now (there is a reason most lawsuits like this end up with "give us rights to your code" as part of the settlement) and use the disassembled code on the project pages as all the arrangement, interpretation, comments and the like would potentially form reverse engineering project's own copyrighted/copyrightable additions to the code. We will skip the code forensics bit today though as all parties involved seem to agree it started with Rockstar's own code.

Assets of a more classic arty nature (pictures, text, music, vocals, animations...) not being included is generally a testament to them not being free and clear, which when you look at the code as falling under the same remit...


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> The software offered is a de-compiler and patches. No actual de-compiled code.



A script/program that takes an executable and turns it into source code would be completely legal (as long as you don't distribute the generated source), but that isn't what mario64 or gta is.



Retroboy said:


> I guess this is why they're now doing the so called "remasters" so they can bitch to a court that this is having an impact on the sales of its so called "remaster".



It isn't particularly important what the impact is, except on the award of damages.



Retroboy said:


> But I don't get how a court can even consider taking up this case, as none of the files they provide allowed you to gain access to the game illegally.



Like stealing parts of a car can't be used unless you have the rest of a legally purchased car?



Retroboy said:


> So how can they take legal action against them and not the sites which provide the game files illegally?



Some companies do, but it's easier to go after something hosted on github than trying to track down people all round the world.



Retroboy said:


> This then could open up them been able to take legal action against emulators that allow you to play their games on other devices than its original device it was created for.



That isn't illegal.



Retroboy said:


> I hope the legal system actually enforces the laws rather than side with large companies that think they can throw millions at a court to get what they want, as these guys haven't broken any laws,



I am pretty sure they have broken copyright law. Courts don't just give verdicts based on how much money you spend.



Retroboy said:


> If anything, these projects may have lead to increased sales, if users actually support game devs and purchase the game to then use this project.



That isn't relevant, if a company wants to hamper their own sales then legally as the copyright holder they are allowed to do that. You don't have a legal right to increase their sales.



Retroboy said:


> Also they should thank them, not take them to court, as these guys have just provided proof that there is a demand to have these games ported..... shit sorry "remastered" to current gen consoles.



If they didn't have the source code themselves then they should probably hire them, but we'll see. They might not need any help.


----------



## sith (Sep 3, 2021)

A clear SLAPP suit, hope T2 gets embarrassed, they must have very dumb lawyers. People saying there is copyrighted/stolen code are wrong. Try to understand the history of unlicensed games, tengen/atari vs nintendo, sony vs bleem, galoob vs nintendo etc.. there is a clear precedent that you can subvert companies licensing requirements as long as you dont distribute modified works and turn a profit. This type of engine wrapper is exactly like a game genie, useless on its own, not a derivative work but combine it with the official (hopefully purchaced) game and you have something better than the original, for personal use.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> Yeah, you de-compile the copyrighted code and assets yourself.
> 
> The software offered is a de-compiler and patches. No actual de-compiled code.
> 
> ...


Of course they will, because this is not copyright infringement. A similar case went through the courts regarding Sony's reverse engineered BIOS files for the original PlayStation which allowed you to run PSX software without the original BIOS dump which is, admittedly, hard to obtain legally without the right equipment. This is not a winning strategy for Take Two, what the team's doing is permitted by law.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

sith said:


> A clear SLAPP suit, hope T2 gets embarrassed, they must have very dumb lawyers. People saying there is copyrighted/stolen code are wrong. Try to understand the history of unlicensed games, tengen/atari vs nintendo, sony vs bleem, galoob vs nintendo etc.. there is a clear precedent that you can subvert companies licensing requirements as long as you dont distribute modified works and turn a profit. This type of engine wrapper is exactly like a game genie, useless on its own, not a derivative work but combine it with the official (hopefully purchaced) game and you have something better than the original, for personal use.



I disagree with your post, for a lot of the reasons given earlier by me and fast6191.

An engine that was created by reading the original code and implementing it verbatim could easily infringe copyright. This differs to an emulator, because the source of an emulator is equivalent to the chips in the console and any information you obtain by reverse engineering software is used to create something for the game to talk to. If you started with the GTA assets and didn't read the original engine binary at all and managed to make a game that used the assets anyway, then you're fine (as long as you don't distribute the assets).

re3 will need to mount a defense to be able to get certainty from a court whether any laws were broken, which is going to be expensive. I wouldn't waste any money on it, as based on what they posted on github/twitter they clearly are guilty. If you want to fund their legal defense then go ahead, otherwise T2 will get a default judgement.

The original games engine is copyright, distribution of it in any form will be a copyright violation. Even if that form is source code.

Whether that is the outcome you want or not is not relevant. This thread is a good lesson in not getting legal advice from a gaming forum, too many people want an outcome that the law doesn't support.


----------



## sith (Sep 3, 2021)

@smf I guess we will have to see what happens. I completely disagree with everything you have said throughout this thread and since you didn't directly address any arguments i've made I don't think i can respond intelligently. 



smf said:


> An engine that was created by reading the original code and implementing it verbatim could easily infringe copyright.



are you alleging the defendants have done this? when nintendo gigaleak happened dolphin developers went out of their way to say they wouldn't look, did they have the source?? if the opensource program matched t2's source in a provable way i think they would have aleged that in the claim, they did not, they falsely claimed it was a playable, pirated, available game.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

Read up some on decompiled code. It's super grey area, it's not black or white as some try to say it is. Sony vs. Connectix and Sega Vs Accolade are two interesting cases.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

sith said:


> are you alleging the defendants have done this?



I'm saying that I believe that re3 themselves claim on github and twitter that they have done this & expressed worry that they will be sued for it.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-without-so-far-getting-shut-down-by-take-two

_But Take-Two and Rockstar have a reputation for taking a hard-line with fan remakes and others who tinker with their code. Was the team worried about an intervention?

"Yes, we were very much worried about that and tried to stay under the radar for as long as possible," aap says.

"We got a lot of attention when the Switch port happened but nothing from Take-Two. We took that as a sign that they don't care (or are really blind)."_



sith said:


> if the opensource program matched t2's source in a provable way i think they would have aleged that in the claim, they did not, they falsely claimed it was a playable, pirated, available game.



I skim read the suit, but my understanding is they claimed you get a playable game if you combine it with the assets.

I assume they have started trawling through code looking for similarities, but it's a bit early for that. Things like having the same bugs are a big clue, my guess is that T2 will be looking at any bug fixes to see how similar the original code was to theirs.

What I know
1 the engine is copyright
2  re3 appear to have claimed to reverse engineered that and produced equivalent source code.

You can argue that re3 have not given a true representation of what they did, but they'll get a chance to put the record straight in court.



linuxares said:


> Read up some on decompiled code. It's super grey area, it's not black or white as some try to say it is. Sony vs. Connectix and Sega Vs Accolade are two interesting cases.



Neither of those cases involved distribution of copyright work. It is not a grey area at all.


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

wormdood said:


> you do realize they'll be trying this case in the USA right? ... not in the EU ... Yeah the EU is way more relaxed about the laws involving video games in general that's why you can fail at hacking your console brick it and send it back to the company to get it fixed in the EU but not in the USA



The article posted correctly points out the US allows for broader exceptions in the use of decompilation. So in this particular case the US is more “relaxed” than the EU. 

I’m not all that familiar with EU consumer protection laws, but EU warranty protection has nothing to do with whether decompilation is legal or not.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

Jacobh said:


> The article posted correctly points out the US allows for broader exceptions in the use of decompilation.



Whether you're allowed to decompile something and what you do with the decompilation afterwards are legally two things. I think that is one hurdle that people who read that "decompilation is legal" don't get over.

Most articles discuss fair use reasons to decompile, producing a competing product by duplicating the functionality verbatim is not a fair use.

https://courses.cs.duke.edu/cps182s/fall02/cscopyright/Copyrights/Copyright-Fairuse.htm

_Decompiling object code produces an approximation of the original source code. Merely making this rough copy would usually violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights, even if the person who decompiled the code only used it as a preliminary step in making another work. Someone who reverse engineers software may therefore be liable for copyright infringement unless they can show that reverse engineering is fair use._


----------



## AlexMCS (Sep 3, 2021)

So if you jump through some small hoops to get the same end result, RE is legal, but if you don't, it's not. Right.
In any case, I doubt this code will ever disappear now, and I doubt T2 is going to win this.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

sith said:


> A clear SLAPP suit, hope T2 gets embarrassed, they must have very dumb lawyers. People saying there is copyrighted/stolen code are wrong. Try to understand the history of unlicensed games, tengen/atari vs nintendo, sony vs bleem, galoob vs nintendo etc.. there is a clear precedent that you can subvert companies licensing requirements as long as you dont distribute modified works and turn a profit. This type of engine wrapper is exactly like a game genie, useless on its own, not a derivative work but combine it with the official (hopefully purchaced) game and you have something better than the original, for personal use.



"unlicensed games"
Some company tries to say our device, our rules, we determine what runs on it.
Courts say nope consumer protections say their device, their rules.

Company tries to include trademark asset in required key for unlocking console.
Court says nope, not a valid use of trademark.

Company tricks trusted party of those making device into sending code that is used to bypass protections (This would be Atari vs Nintendo, nice example of "unclean hands"/privileged information  thing I was on about earlier actually).
Company doing the tricking gets slapped for that, though theoretically is allowed to continue were it not for that case.

Company by its own ingeniousness manages to bypass protections (this would be Sega vs Accolade).
Company is told nice one by the courts, carry on if you want. Affirmation of the earlier thing that would have worked if Atari were better engineers.

Galoob vs Nintendo (the game genie case)
Users are indeed allowed to mod code running on their systems without it troubling IP law, and devices to do so can be sold.

Sony and Bleem had two major aspects really.
Generally though this would be where emulation was generally clarified, and arrangements of chips deemed hard to copyright, emulation itself also having substantial non infringing uses even without that (code making, forensics, disabilities, mere use of code you legitimately own aka interoperability that also feeds into hippie whale hugging where you don't want waste if you wanted to go there as well...). Sadly came too late for Bleem that had since run out of money but it is a worthy legacy.

To add on to the list you probably want the various World of Warcraft cases. Mostly that memory and code copying to it/executing in it is part of the normal operation so go do one Blizzard when they tried that on.

All great cases to explore if you want, and right decisions in each of them as far as I am concerned (a rarity in a lot of IP cases and law -- the US has some howlers as far as I am concerned with patents on DNA, patents on software, prior art being basically a non thing in patents, obviousness even more of a non thing in patents, most of the DMCA, copyright extensions... the list goes on).

None of this however says word one about you taking some code that you have no rights to, disassembling it, tweaking it a bit so you can assemble it (or compile it), maybe adding a few comments and releasing that as a whole functional piece of code to the world as being a legit act and not in stark contravention of derived works preclusions. As far as I am aware (and it is certainly the assumption TakeTwo/Rockstar are operating under) this is not a wrapper that acts as an interpreter/bridge/hypervisor/emulator/abstraction layer between the code, a different host machine and its original assets, or a legit recreation of the code that happens to support the original assets in their original format. It is an oh so tempting and effective method of quickly and with minimal resources (both in the project and destination machine) achieving interoperability and much more besides (see list of improvements seen for Mario 64 for but a small list of possibilities there) but I can see no way of this being allowed and still having any kind of usable copyright apply to code in any way whatsoever.
Now if some legal/politico types (or possibility military/national security -- see history of encryption, and probable future of unregulated cryptocurrencies if "think of the children" does not get there first) decided to get a bit uppity and try to block decompilation technology (see also "hacking tools", though the EU courts and lawmakers tend to be more fond of that one and get slapped down hard as well) then I would be most upset and consider that a breach of good sense, though as it would also effectively vanquish coding, the security industry and such overnight then I am not predicting it from more than mouths of a clueless politician that does not know his arse from an atx power supply.

"as long as you dont distribute modified works and turn a profit"
That is certainly an aggravating factor, and one that will see lawyers perk up (money in from business being something you can take to have in turn funded the case, as opposed to a bunch of broke bedroom coders that you will struggle to collect from), but not the ruling or consideration of any of that. Indeed the Galoob thing was seeing them get the right to distribute something to modify a work and gain profits while at it.


----------



## EvilJagaGenius (Sep 3, 2021)

This brings the CSE2 decompilation project to mind, which still isn't (officially) available.  I agree this is certainly an important case, almost all video game preservation depends on reverse engineering in some form.  It doesn't seem like Take-Two has a lot of legal ground to stand on here, alongside straight-up lying in their accusations... it seems they have little more ground than Nicalis had, which is to say none.  Still, I'm hoping the case is treated fairly, the outcome decided based on law, not money.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> So if you jump through some small hoops to get the same end result, RE is legal, but if you don't, it's not. Right.
> In any case, I doubt this code will ever disappear now, and I doubt T2 is going to win this.


Recreating something from observation and recreating it from having the code in front of you (albeit in a diminished form) are two radically different things (especially if you want to get 1:1 equivalence from observation and non code asset format analysis for a game), not a small hoop or something that effectively makes it pointless, hard to showcase the "bad one" as having happened or otherwise unenforceable.

I doubt the code will disappear either (this is far from the first time some company has gone after something open source; I met it more than 15 years ago in video editing and I am sure there are earlier examples, in games we have seen source releases before that had to be retracted later because they did not have the rights to an aspect of the code, usually rad/bink video decoding) and fully expect, dare I say encourage, a nice Streisand effect. However they presumably want a chilling effect on the potential number of mods/ports made as a result, those considering it in the future, open collaboration (forcing it underground will not stop it, however does make it harder/slower) and such like.

As far as Take Two/Rockstar winning. I don't see how they can lose, and if they somehow do then there will probably be 5000 massive software companies funding the appeal as it would speak directly to their existence.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

EvilJagaGenius said:


> It doesn't seem like Take-Two has a lot of legal ground to stand on here, alongside straight-up lying in their accusations... it seems they have little more ground than Nicalis had, which is to say none.  Still, I'm hoping the case is treated fairly, the outcome decided based on law, not money.



What do you think they lied about?

If anyone has any doubt about how the engine was reverse engineered, they live streamed it.



Things to learn:

1. It's obviously a violation.
2. You shouldn't live stream yourself breaking laws.


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> An engine that was created by reading the original code and implementing it verbatim could easily infringe copyright.



My understanding of the law is that this is basically correct.

As people have pointed out in terms of US law the Supreme Court recently affirmed you can’t copyright APIs and recreating them isn’t illegal.  However that case may not directly apply here since it involved externally published APIs that are intended to have other people write software against.

Reverse engineering is not by itself illegal and the use of decompilation to understand an API is also not automatically illegal. The Sega cases people mention are examples of that.

However, this case from what I can tell is a little different and I don’t think anyone can say for sure how a judge would interpret it particularly without knowing the exact details of how re3 and reVC were created.

If they took decompile source and then just ported it straight-up to a new platform they may have some problems defending that. If they recreated the engine APIs from scratch they would have a slightly stronger defense. They may still have trouble since the logic used in the Oracle / Google API case used the fact that the value of the Java API comes from other people using it to write code. That clearly does not apply to the GTA engine. One thing that may help the developers is that they are “transforming” the code to be used on another platform as that did apply in the Oracle case.

ScummVMseems like a similar situation to me, but I’m not sure if those engine recreations technically work the same way or if anyone has ever tried to sue to take down ScummVM.

Anyway, this is different than the Nintendo cases and Take Two has a weaker case I’d argue. Despite some of the things that are obviously wrong in their notice, they may still have a case depending on some of the specifics of how re3 was created and how a judge interprets the laws.


----------



## AlexMCS (Sep 3, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Recreating something from observation and recreating it from having the code in front of you (albeit in a diminished form) are two radically different things (especially if you want to get 1:1 equivalence from observation and non code asset format analysis for a game), not a small hoop or something that effectively makes it pointless, hard to showcase the "bad one" as having happened or otherwise unenforceable



Rebuilding from decompiled assembly code is really not the same as ctrl+c, ctrl+v from the original source.
That's pretty much the *definition *of analyzing what the compiled binary does and recreating it.
And even then, the code derived from decompilation can, and usually will, be quite different from the original source code.
Even more so if written in a different language.

I, OTOH, don't see how they can *win *this.

But TBH I don't really care about laws and regulations.
What matters to me is the underlying principles, and whether they are valid in the first place.
Good luck to the re guys.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> And even then, the code derived from decompilation can, and usually will, be quite different from the original source code.



The differences don't matter, it's expected that it will be different.

Like when a bluray is ripped and converted to mp4 looks different in the bits and also in the quality of the movie. However it's still a copyright violation.

I don't see how T2 can lose.



Jacobh said:


> However, this case from what I can tell is a little different and I don’t think anyone can say for sure how a judge would interpret it particularly without knowing the exact details of how re3 and reVC were created.



Helpfully aap live streamed himself reverse engineering and copy/pasting code (he says so around 17:24)


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> A script/program that takes an executable and turns it into source code would be completely legal (as long as you don't distribute the generated source), but that isn't what mario64 or gta is.



Right, unfamiliar with the sm64 decompilation, there seems to be offered more code and scripts than i initially assumed.
Make me really question why Nintendo didn't take any action yet. Is the code offered straight up decompiled code, or is it used to allow someone else to recreate the actual copyrighted material.

With re3 said material is actually distributed.

@Foxi4 While interesting, not sure if that case really applies here. Do you by any chance know of an actual similar, also more recent, case and result?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Sep 3, 2021)

Hey, but it's okay right? They're just protecting their IP because it'll set a bad precedent if they just let the fucking little guy show they care about their titles. Eat shit, Take Two.


----------



## AlexMCS (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> The differences don't matter, it's expected that it will be different.
> 
> Like when a bluray is ripped and converted to mp4 looks different in the bits and also in the quality of the movie. However it's still a copyright violation.
> 
> I don't see how T2 can lose.



The object of the copyright isn't the video format or representation, it's the video itself.
Games are code by definition. The code itself is copyrighted, along with the assets.

By your definition, nothing could ever be Reverse-engineered.


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Whether you're allowed to decompile something and what you do with the decompilation afterwards are legally two things. I think that is one hurdle that people who read that "decompilation is legal" don't get over.
> 
> Most articles discuss fair use reasons to decompile, producing a competing product by duplicating the functionality verbatim is not a fair use.
> 
> ...



I was pointing out the US has more fair use exemptions for decompilation than the EU as the other poster said the opposite. 

I am not making a statement of whether this is fair use or not. I think it’s slightly less black and white whether this case is illegal than you seem to and like the interpretation of most laws you have to look at a lot of case law, not just a single source. 

I do think you are making a strong argument why this could be illegal, and I generally agree that Take Two has a much stronger case than many other posters here think, but I don’t think you could say for sure how a judge would rule in this case.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> The object of the copyright isn't the video format or representation, it's the video itself.
> Games are code by definition. The code itself is copyrighted, along with the assets.



They copied the code, they livestreamed themselves copying the code (I posted links earlier)



AlexMCS said:


> By your definition, nothing could ever be Reverse-engineered.



You can reverse engineer to find exploits or to find out file formats etc.

re3 isn't just reverse engineering, it's a full decompilation and distribution of the resulting source code. That isn't allowed.



Jacobh said:


> but I don’t think you could say for sure how a judge would rule in this case.



Nobody can, otherwise appeals courts wouldn't exist. But if T2 lose because they make a poor case or the court is confused about what they are seeing, then T2 win at appeal. No software company would want T2 to lose, so there will be plenty of support for them.

Microsoft and apple will be very willing to prevent legal decompilation of windows/ios (which are basically "engines").


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Sep 3, 2021)

No freedom in fan projects!


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Neither of those cases involved distribution of copyright work. It is not a grey area at all.


Neither does the re3 project, as they claim. Courts get to decide if they are not backseat lawyers like us.



smf said:


> TMicrosoft and apple will be very willing to prevent legal decompilation of windows/ios (which are basically "engines").


Please stop. iOS nor Windows are just "engines". If we talk about said kernels. Sure, but it's much more than OS than just being an "engine".


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Neither does the re3 project, as they claim. Courts get to decide if they are not backseat lawyers like us.



Clearly it does contain copyright code



The argument will come down to whether it's fair use to do it or not.



linuxares said:


> Please stop. iOS nor Windows are just "engines". If we talk about said kernels. Sure, but it's much more than OS than just being an "engine".



Both are frameworks that allow you to create/run content, there is no legal difference between them.

If it's legally ok to decompile an "engine" and distribute it, then it's legally ok to do the same with an os.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> @Foxi4 While interesting, not sure if that case really applies here. Do you by any chance know of an actual similar, also more recent, case and result?


This issue isn't really tackled in court that often because there are already some landmark decisions in this regard. As I've stated earlier, the DMCA has a lot of exemptions in regards to reverse engineering, be it via decompilation or guesswork, and one such exemption is interoperability with other systems as described in US Code 1201. A legal license holder can decompile their legally owned software with the express intention of making said software either exchange information with another program or operate on a different system - it violates the EULA, but that's not a criminal act. Regardless of whether reGTA is ruled to be infringing or non-infringing, the crux of the issue is that the court can only rule on the claim of the claimant, not other imaginary infringements that may or may not have occurred. Take Two's lawyers state pretty clearly that the team is, I quote, "*By copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code* for the Games, Defendants have made the Games fully and freely available to the public, have appropriated a market that belongs to Take-Two (namely, the market for modified or handheld versions of the Games), and enabled countless others to now create their own unauthorized, derivative versions of the Games" - that claim needs to evidenced if the suit is to be successful, and we already know that it is at best half-true - it is the end user who actually supplies the assets to the application. The defendants do not supply original source code in any shape or form, they provide a tool that adapts it for the end user. There's a myriad of different ways one could defend themselves from a claim like this, not to mention that the damages in this suit are questionable. In my estimation this is a strengthened effort to force the defendants to cease their activity, which very well might be successful. A legal battle against a multinational corporation is expensive, even if you're in the right.


----------



## EvilJagaGenius (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> What do you think they lied about?



That the reverse-engineered binaries contain game assets.  That's pretty obviously false.


> These source code files not only contain the derivative software code that enables the Games to run on a player’s computer, but also contain Take-Two’s original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets.


MrHuu mentioned it earlier.


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Neither does the re3 project, as they claim. Courts get to decide if they are not backseat lawyers like us.



Hey, i've played Ace Attorney. I know my stuff.


----------



## ZeroFX (Sep 3, 2021)

bunch of motherfuckers they are.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

EvilJagaGenius said:


> That the reverse-engineered binaries contain game assets.  That's pretty obviously false.
> 
> MrHuu mentioned it earlier.



I must have read a different lawsuit.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.384429/gov.uscourts.cand.384429.1.0.pdf

24. Take-Two is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, _*that by combining the software contained in the re3 GitHub Repositories (or the compiled, installable build linked to in the Repositories) with certain pre-existing assets and artwork from the Games*_, members of the public will possess, and can play, complete versions of the Games. These derivative versions of Case 3:21-cv-06831-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 17 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13417517.2 8 CASE NO. 3:21-cv-6831 COMPLAINT the Games are virtually identical to the original Games in function, appearance, and gameplay, except for certain variations and modifications added by Defendants. Thus, a player in possession of Defendants’ derivative version of the Games can experience the exact same sights, sounds, story, setting, dialog, and other creative content as they would experience in Take-Two’s original version of the Games.


I don't see how they are lying and the defendants admit it on twitter/github/youtube.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Clearly it does contain copyright code
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So far he is just looking at how it talks. Nothing wrong with that.

Well yes, what do you think Dosbox and ReactOS is? Reversed Engines! Where they built around it. Capturing the calls for example a game does, and re-direct it to their engine instead. It's literally how emulation works.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Rebuilding from decompiled assembly code is really not the same as ctrl+c, ctrl+v from the original source.
> That's pretty much the *definition *of analyzing what the compiled binary does and recreating it.
> And even then, the code derived from decompilation can, and usually will, be quite different from the original source code.
> Even more so if written in a different language.
> ...



So if I disassemble something, optimise one routine, reassemble it/post my modded disassembly I am free and clear? If not then two routines? Three? You reckon rewriting code in another language, for the sake of argument a whole equivalent output setup rather than an emulation of the previously seen instructions, suddenly makes me the new creator of a work? Do we have to have some kind of test a la the sample tests in music copyright discussions?
Scanning in 10000 book pages is a tedious process, does not mean I can turn around and distribute it.
I can't cover a song with my own instruments, microphone, recording time and go from there without giving some consideration to the songwriter or copyright holder thereof if a different entity. I don't think we can really call this code a parody either.
Ditto scanning in however many frames for a film is tedious. Does not mean I own the rights to the underlying film (and any secondary distribution for soundtrack using other works).

Copyright law in general also tends to not care about exact (though having exact is a consideration) as much as does it represent unfair competition for the original work; at no point did the makers of these projects having to figure out car physics, walk speeds, reaction times for gunplay, draw distance limitations, how not to make the lighting as they copied it all from Rockstar's efforts. How that is anything but basic unfair competition by means of a derived work I do not know.

Underlying principles, fundamental rights, what is necessary for things to actually keep ticking are great things to look to as well. Don't see how we can allow people to take code covered by copyright, disassemble, tweak a few things and have them be able to release it (even for free and without intention of remuneration*) and not have the entire industry collapse. It is the entire thing it is based upon, and up until more recently when decompilers became a more practical concept (though even then still needing skilled operators) the whole thing with compilation being considered as a one way affair posing the practical limit to it as well.

*really quite hard to separate in these days of advertising funded websites, crowdfunding, ebegging, donations and whatnot.



AlexMCS said:


> The object of the copyright isn't the video format or representation, it's the video itself.
> Games are code by definition. The code itself is copyrighted, along with the assets.
> 
> By your definition, nothing could ever be Reverse-engineered.


That would be an example of the competition thing being similar enough. Just because I downscaled the 4k blu to SD does not mean I suddenly own the film.

On reverse engineering being allowed then we do have to ponder laws (whether they are implicit or explicit, that being if the law says nothing on the matter then consider it OK vs if the law says this is not OK then it is not OK).
Here though there are some generally accepted paths and reasons to allow it. As this is not in the traditional clean room regime (not even close) then as we are not concerned with whether Rockstar stole the code from someone, some kind of accessibility, security purposes, probably not going to reach a criticism/review, education is likely not on the cards for this, parody would also be a struggle as mentioned above, fixing broken DRM (still an actively maintained game it seems), museum work (or one of the various things the librarian gets to add to DMCA reviews every few years, assuming they even apply to games which many things the game industry fights tooth and nail to prevent from applying to them), making cheats in single player games (multiplayer can be tricky here) we are left with interoperability of code between platforms, and that generally considered as being to limited to figuring out why my emulator is not working, what APIs it is using or similar, not posting wholesale recreations of every aspect of the code to the public.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> So far he is just looking at how it talks. Nothing wrong with that.



He converts it to C++ and pushed it to here https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...8ce28093990db94743f2/src/renderer/Rubbish.cpp

There is a lot wrong with that


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> I must have read a different lawsuit.
> 
> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.384429/gov.uscourts.cand.384429.1.0.pdf
> 
> ...





Spoiler: § 23



23. According to Defendants, the re3 GitHub Repositories purportedly contain “the
fully reversed source code for GTA III... and GTA [Vice City].” More specifically, via the re3
GitHub Repositories, Defendants are distributing to the public dozens, if not hundreds, of
derivative source code files for the Games. These source code files not only contain the derivative
software code that enables the Games to run on a player’s computer, but also contain Take-Two’s
original digital content such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets. Additionally, the
re3 GitHub Repositories include links to locations where members of the public can download a
complete, installable build of the re3 and reVC software.



There's also the mentioning of the additional distributed assets being copyrighted, such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> There's also the mentioning of the additional distributed assets being copyrighted, such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets.



I haven't checked if it matches the original text, but there is some text in there

https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...47ea867c15a25e411d641d8/utils/gxt/english.txt

Are you sure they are lying?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 3, 2021)

"*Grad* Theft Auto III"


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> I haven't checked if it matches the original text, but there is some text in there
> 
> https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...47ea867c15a25e411d641d8/utils/gxt/english.txt
> 
> Are you sure they are lying?



Who said what about lying?

Just pointed out some of the filed complaints, which seem to be true in this case.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> He converts it to C++ and pushed it to here https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...8ce28093990db94743f2/src/renderer/Rubbish.cpp
> 
> There is a lot wrong with that


That isn't copy-paste... I checked his video compared to this. IDA shows psudeocode = Guessing

https://reverseengineering.stackexc...49/how-to-obtain-x86-64-pseudocode-in-ida-pro


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> That isn't copy-paste... I checked his video compared to this. IDA shows psudeocode = Guessing
> 
> https://reverseengineering.stackexc...49/how-to-obtain-x86-64-pseudocode-in-ida-pro



For the purpose of copyright law, copying code out of an ida window and then changing it to compile is still copying.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MrHuu said:


> Who said what about lying?
> 
> Just pointed out some of the filed complaints, which seem to be true in this case.



Ah, yes. it was EvilJagaGenius.



EvilJagaGenius said:


> This brings the CSE2 decompilation project to mind, which still isn't (officially) available.  I agree this is certainly an important case, almost all video game preservation depends on reverse engineering in some form.  It doesn't seem like Take-Two has a lot of legal ground to stand on here, alongside straight-up lying in their accusations... it seems they have little more ground than Nicalis had, which is to say none.  Still, I'm hoping the case is treated fairly, the outcome decided based on law, not money.





EvilJagaGenius said:


> That the reverse-engineered binaries contain game assets.  That's pretty obviously false.
> 
> MrHuu mentioned it earlier.


----------



## EvilJagaGenius (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> I haven't checked if it matches the original text, but there is some text in there
> 
> https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...47ea867c15a25e411d641d8/utils/gxt/english.txt
> 
> Are you sure they are lying?


Not entirely sure as I don't own any GTA games, but not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  As said before, the RE binaries need the original data files to run and this claim seems to be in direct conflict with that fact.  I assume the lawyers are likely to play it up as if you can download a complete copy of GTA from the Github repo.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

EvilJagaGenius said:


> I assume the lawyers are likely to play it up as if you can download a complete copy of GTA from the Github repo.



You can clearly see in the lawsuit that they don't do that.

Your opinion seems based on passion and feeling rather than facts, which the law works on.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> There's also the mentioning of the additional distributed assets being copyrighted, such as text, character dialog, and certain game assets.


Edit. Whole thing seemed to happen while I was poking around repos. Will leave it for now.
And you are claiming that is a lie?

That would seem like something that is reasonably easy to check for (though sadly we don't appear to have been provided with locations) and I can not begin to count the amount of times devs have opted for some kind for incbin and having an asset in the binary rather than spinning it off as an external assets as that takes effort. If the reverse engineering project slipped up and included a few of those (as opposed to adding some kind of line to a makefile to rip the non code assets from the binary) then that would stand to reason.
Seems a minor aspect of the case though compared to the main question of whether this is some kind of acceptable use/fair use workaround for what is otherwise derived work.

I had a quick look myself
https://github.com/GTAmodding/re3/b...58849feb29d3f2eba/gamefiles/TEXT/american.gxt
Now looks like a fork so might not have been there in the original. However opening that in a hex editor this is but a small sample of what greeted me


> Claude----------------------~g~Hey! Get back in the vehicle!~g~You need some wheels for this job!~g~You need a boat for this job!~g~Don't go solo, keep your posse together!~g~Don't split up, keep the group together!~g~You've dropped your main man, go back and get 8-Ball!~g~Lose Misty and Luigi will lose your face! Go and get her!~g~One of the girls is AWOL, Go back and round her up!~g~You left your honor with the Yakuza Kanbu. You must protect him!~g~An extra gun could be useful. Go back and pick up your contact!~g~Protection means just that -Protect the Old Oriental Gentleman!~g~You want the word on the street? Go see the contact!Press the ~h~/ button~w~ when running to ~h~sprint.You can only sprint for short periods before becoming tired.Press the~h~ ~k~~VEHICLE_ACCELERATE~ button~w~ to ~h~accelerate.Push the~h~ right analog stick~w~ up to ~h~accelerate.Press the~h~ ~k~~VEHICLE_BRAKE~ button~w~ to ~h~brake~w~, or to ~h~reverse~w~ if the vehicle has stopped.Pull the ~h~right analog stick~w~ back to ~h~brake~w~, or to ~h~reverse~w~ if the vehicle has stopped.Press the~h~ ~k~~VEHICLE_HANDBRAKE~ button ~w~to apply the vehicle's ~h~handbrake.Press the~h~ ~k~~VEHICLE_HANDBRAKE~ button ~w~to apply the vehicle's ~h~handbrake.Press the~h~ ~k~~VEHICLE_HANDBRAKE~ button ~w~to apply the vehicle's ~h~handbrake.Press and hold the~h~ ~k~~PED_LOCK_TARGET~ button ~w~to ~h~target~w~ with the sniper rifle.Press and hold the~h~ ~k~~PED_LOCK_TARGET~ button ~w~to ~h~target ~w~with the sniper rifle.Press the~h~ ~k~~PED_SNIPER_ZOOM_IN~ button ~w~to ~h~zoom in ~w~with the rifle and the~h~ ~k~~PED_SNIPER_ZOOM_OUT~ button ~w~to ~h~zoom out ~w~again.Press the~h~ ~k~~PED_FIREWEAPON~ button ~w~to ~h~fire~w~ the sniper rifle.This badge indicates you have a police wanted level.The more badges the higher your wanted level.Sometimes you may need to use pathways not shown on the radar.This is a timed mission, you must complete it before the timer counts down to zero.~r~Misty is morgue-meat!~g~Get out of the vehicle!Drive the vehicle into the garage, then walk outside.~g~Shake the cops and lose your wanted level!~g~They ain't sardines! Get some wheels with enough seats.~g~You've junked your wheels re



Looks like a bunch of assets to me, and well within copyrightable status rather than some kind of "new game, load game, save game, options, exit" type obvious deal. The models folder might even have some artwork too, possibly some fonts as well, but I can't decode that at this point.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 3, 2021)

Take Two/Rockstar Games can piss up a flagpole


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> For the purpose of copyright law, copying code out of an ida window and then changing it to compile is still copying.


No, no it's not. It's literally how reverse engineering works. You decompile it, see what it do. And write your own...
Just because my KIA looks like Volvo, doesn't mean it's a Volvo. It's still a Kia.
I give up. You're just repeating yourself without proper rebuttals to what I say and ask for.

I don't see Adobe suing people left and right that can read the PSD format? For example GIMP. Someone have reversed it, built code to make it work. Even if it's very basic! Yet GIMP still have PSD support.


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Nobody can, otherwise appeals courts wouldn't exist. But if T2 lose because they make a poor case or the court is confused about what they are seeing, then T2 win at appeal. No software company would want T2 to lose, so there will be plenty of support for them.
> 
> Microsoft and apple will be very willing to prevent legal decompilation of windows/ios (which are basically "engines").



Different software companies view intellectual property concerns very differently, so I wouldn't generalize about what all software companies want.

The comparison of GTA to an OS is a bit of stretch, but what exactly has MS done to prevent legal decompilation of their software?  They have in the past been more aggressive about source code leaks (which is not the same thing).  More recently MS has been much more embracing of open source software and they've published the source of .Net and many windows libraries for a long time.  Developers also regularly decompile the libraries, and MS doesn't try to prevent that.

https://github.com/microsoft
https://referencesource.microsoft.com/

Yes, they do not publish their core OS source code, buy I am unaware of any legal actions they've brought to prevent someone from decompiling, nor would it serve much of a purpose.  I seriously doubt that MS cares about this case at all mostly because it won't have any real impact on them one way or the other and they've got plenty of other things to worry about.

Anyway, I do agree with you that Take Two has a much stronger case here than most other posters seem to think, but copying  the output of a decompiled software is different than copying source.  While decompiling and copying code can be a copyright violation it is not 100% guaranteed to be.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> No, no it's not. It's literally how reverse engineering works. You decompile it, see what it do. And write your own...



No, that isn't reverse engineering. You can reverse engineer something without writing equivalent code.

You're describing decompiling, which you're not allowed to share the result of publicly.

In the case of Phoenix writing their own BIOS that was compatible with IBM's, they had two separate teams of people. One team looked at the code and wrote documentation of it. The second then took that specification and wrote the code.

Clearly that isn't what happened here.



linuxares said:


> I don't see Adobe suing people left and right that can read the PSD format? For example GIMP. Someone have reversed it, built code to make it work. Even if it's very basic! Yet GIMP still have PSD support.



They probably reverse engineered the format by editing files, clicking save & looking at them in a hex viewer, not decompiling the binary.

The reason why we're not progressing here isn't me.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> The reason why we're not progressing here isn't me.


You keep telling yourself that. To me it sounds more you don't know what reverse engineering is. Anyways, out of thread for now!

Det är fredag mina bekanta!


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> And you are claiming that is a lie?
> 
> That would seem like something that is reasonably easy to check for (though sadly we don't appear to have been provided with locations) and I can not begin to count the amount of times devs have opted for some kind for incbin and having an asset in the binary rather than spinning it off as an external assets as that takes effort. If the reverse engineering project slipped up and included a few of those (as opposed to adding some kind of line to a makefile to rip the non code assets from the binary) then that would stand to reason.
> Seems a minor aspect of the case though compared to the main question of whether this is some kind of acceptable use/fair use workaround for what is otherwise derived work.
> ...



You must have mistaken me with someone else.
I just clarified my quote referenced by someone.

Never mentioned anyone lying, in fact, reading the complaints they have a lot of valid points.
Not all of them, but most are. 

But you're absolutely right.

The only ones lying here are the ones saying they gonna ditch all their Nintendo devices.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> You keep telling yourself that. To me it sounds more you don't know what reverse engineering is. Anyways, out of thread for now!



Yes, I know what reverse engineering is. I've been doing it for a very long time and hardly ever did it involve writing code that behaved the same as code I was studying.

Maybe you should re-evaluate your own bias.



MrHuu said:


> Not all of them, but most are.



What claims don't you think are valid?



Jacobh said:


> Anyway, I do agree with you that Take Two has a much stronger case here than most other posters seem to think, but copying  the output of a decompiled software is different than copying source.  While decompiling and copying code can be a copyright violation it is not 100% guaranteed to be.



It's different from a technical perspective, but in court they would argue that it's equivalent. This happens a lot because laws are written ahead of time and don't anticipate future technological changes.

Even copying out of source code isn't guaranteed to be a copyright violation, but I don't see how you could avoid a violating copying either all of the source code or all of a decompiled binary.

If translating binary to source removed the copyright, then don't you think translating from source to binary would too?

Can we just decompile any game engine and then use it ourselves commercially?

I think Microsoft would be interested in any one decompiling their code, which is why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS uses a clean room technique


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> What claims don't you think are valid?



Paragraph 4:


> By copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code for the
> Games, Defendants have made the Games fully and freely available to the public,..



Copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code does NOT fully and freely make the game available to public.


----------



## EvilJagaGenius (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> You can clearly see in the lawsuit that they don't do that.
> 
> Your opinion seems based on passion and feeling rather than facts, which the law works on.


Perhaps I am, but it remains to be seen.  I reiterate that I hope this case is settled by facts and law, and not who slings the most money around.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> Copying, adapting, and distributing derivative and original source code does NOT fully and freely make the game available to public.



I guess that will depend on what evidence they have from the discord server.



EvilJagaGenius said:


> Perhaps I am, but it remains to be seen.  I reiterate that I hope this case is settled by facts and law, and not who slings the most money around.



It's likely to be the person who has the facts, law and most money, T2.


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> They probably reverse engineered the format by editing files, clicking save & looking at them in a hex viewer, not decompiling the binary.



PSD files are not compiled executable so you can’t “decompile” them.  I’m not sure what you mean by “clicking save,” but reverse engineering then was more than just opening the files in a a hex editor. 

You also can’t copyright a file format, so this is mostly irrelevant to the conversation anyway. You have some good points, this one isn’t strengthening your case.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

Jacobh said:


> PSD files are not compiled executable so you can’t “decompile” them.  I’m not sure what you mean by “clicking save,” but reverse engineering then was more than just opening the files in a a hex editor.
> 
> You also can’t copyright a file format, so this is mostly irrelevant to the conversation anyway. You have some good points, this one isn’t strengthening your case.



I know. I think you misunderstood my point

You certainly can reverse engineer a file format with examples of those files & creating those examples yourself is the easiest way to get the most examples, the file format isn't copyright & any information you gain from looking at files in a hex editor is fine.

But if you decompiled Photoshop and copied a lot of their PSD saving code, then it would be legally problematic for you (if they found out and cared). It wouldn't be enough that you copied their code for interoperability.

If you've never reverse engineered a file format by looking at examples using a hex editor then you may not understand how to do it.


----------



## MORSHU8KRTXON (Sep 3, 2021)

I thought piracy wasn't involved in the projects.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MORSHU8KRTXON said:


> I thought piracy wasn't involved in the projects.



I think it's more complex than saying you don't support piracy and hoping that lawyers leave you alone.

It's the copyright holders decision whether to leave you alone and the court to decide if they have a case.

That DMCA counter claim is looking like a mistake


----------



## MrHuu (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> I guess that will depend on what evidence they have from the discord server.



Assuming full builds with the actual game included being distributed on discord, leads me to believe this wasn't done by the ones responsible for the Github repository.

In this case they also are being held responsible for what the community did with their provided software.

Shouldn't the available downloads offered on discord, held separate from the work distributed on the Github repository?


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 3, 2021)

Mr.Faq2015 said:


> The document reads that Take Two claims the builds that the people provide on the repos (if any... haven't actually checked the repo) are fully functional and can be played. I would assume this is gonna be the breaking point as it's most certaintly wrong (again, no clue cos I haven't checked), but there's also a bunch of other things that are just wrong outside of the classic "legally demonizing the people you're suing". Also apparently you can still buy GTA on the Playstation 1 and the original Xbox (epic 2011 rereleases) according to Take Two...
> Lovely lovely copyright circus, never ceases to amaze me


sadly watch them bribe er persuade the judge to dismiss the fact their claim is wrong and still side with T2, money can buy justice now it seems


----------



## Jacobh (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> I know. I think you misunderstood my point
> 
> You certainly can reverse engineer a file format with examples of those files & creating those examples yourself is the easiest way to get the most examples, the file format isn't copyright & any information you gain from looking at files in a hex editor is fine.
> 
> ...



I have reversed engineered file formats before.  The PSD file format was not reverse engineered only by opening a file with a hex editor, and it's more complicated than bitmapped images or the types of assets typically included in a game rom. 

Decompiling Photoshop code and implementing something to save PSD files may or may not be legally problematic depending on the specifics.  Adobe publishes the specification for PSD, so for this specific example it wouldn't be necessary, but it also would not be legally problematic: https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the Take Two case.


----------



## smashbro596 (Sep 3, 2021)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Back in February 19th, 2021, Take-Two sent DMCA notices to the reverse engineered projects re3 and reVC, (hosted on GitHub). After the takedowns, the project leaders filed a counter-claim, effectively restoring the projects and their whole repositories.
> 
> Today, September 2nd, 2021, Take-Two has taken legal action in the state of California, USA, claiming the projects and whole repositories are infringing on the copyrights of their games, Grad Theft Auto III & Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
> Not only is Take-Two suing the main repositories, but also against forks and derivative work (and the devs behind them) that sent the counter-claim back in February, like the PS Vita & Nintendo Switch forks.
> ...


i sincerely hope this rules in favor of the modders.
it's not infringing on copyright. we should be allowed to fix and improve games that are nearly 2 decades old.
besides, you still need the game purchased already (if you want the best experience, don't pirate... that shits unstable as hell with reverse engineering), so take-two STILL has money from the purchases.


----------



## Spider_Man (Sep 3, 2021)

smf said:


> A script/program that takes an executable and turns it into source code would be completely legal (as long as you don't distribute the generated source), but that isn't what mario64 or gta is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wow you took the time to quote snippets of my post.

sorry pal, but this is the problem with the justice system, and the likes of nintendo that can sue any fucker they want.

this forwarder project regardless, is not breaking any copyright laws, they do not provide anything relating to GTA3 or VC game.

the user has to source the required game and its files in order to play the game on the PSV/SWITCH.

unless these projects provided the games and its files, then sure, thats breach of copyright.

but the project and files they provide are completely useless on their own and cant be used.

now, if i legally purchase the game, i own it, if i want to copy the game files off my computer onto an sd card then use this project to then play the game i legally purchased on a switch, then no law has been broken by the team.

if i illegally download the games that there is where they can take legal action, but against the source providing GTa3/VC game files.

Not the project, as again, it contains nothing, 0 of their code/game files what ever.

all theyre doing is trying to claim damages as they now decided to port these over and pretend to remaster them.

trying to maximise sales, when its not really going to be a block buster, as we already have these games, regardless if i can now copy the game i already own and play on a psv or switch.

its not going to damage their sales at all, but this is likely the angle theyre trying to pull off.


----------



## pedro702 (Sep 3, 2021)

this is just becuase they are releasing the remaster trilogy and dont want people running around with free recompilations with hd textures and mods while they will sell them soon lol


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

MrHuu said:


> Assuming full builds with the actual game included being distributed on discord, leads me to believe this wasn't done by the ones responsible for the Github repository.
> 
> In this case they also are being held responsible for what the community did with their provided software.



According to the suit, it was their discord that they invited people to. Contributory copyright infringement is a way more complicated subject. I don't actually know if there discord did have any links, but in any case

_Defendants have made the Games fully and freely available to the public_

could be argued that the games are available fully playable on the wiiu because of the defendants.

Without the defendants it was not available.



MrHuu said:


> Shouldn't the available downloads offered on discord, held separate from the work distributed on the Github repository?



If there was any discussion of assets being downloaded then I'm not sure that would help.

Regardless the engine itself is a copyright infringement, so their case still works.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 3, 2021)

pedro702 said:


> this is just becuase they are releasing the remaster trilogy and dont want people running around with free recompilations with hd textures and mods while they will sell them soon lol


That's PCGamer's take on it as well


----------



## pcwizard7 (Sep 3, 2021)

my guess is this is due to them re-releasing the trilogy again on all platforms soon including the switch


----------



## pedro702 (Sep 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> That's PCGamer's take on it as well


in all honesty i hope they are released, i would love some gta trilogy remastered for old times sake and i will buy it if the rumors are true.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

Retroboy said:


> and the likes of nintendo that can sue any fucker they want.



Well obviously you need to be able to sue anyone you want, because it's only when you get to court that they decide who is right or not. I certainly don't think it's frivilous.



Retroboy said:


> this forwarder project regardless, is not breaking any copyright laws, they do not provide anything relating to GTA3 or VC game.



It's not a "forwarder project", it's a copy of copyright code.



Retroboy said:


> unless these projects provided the games and its files, then sure, thats breach of copyright.



It's a breach anyway, it's a copy of copyright code of the engine.



Retroboy said:


> but the project and files they provide are completely useless on their own and cant be used.



In terms of copyright that doesn't matter. If you created your own assets to go with the engine, then you're still violating their copyright on the engine.



Retroboy said:


> now, if i legally purchase the game, i own it, if i want to copy the game files off my computer onto an sd card then use this project to then play the game i legally purchased on a switch, then no law has been broken by the team



You've violated the copyright of the engine, buying a copy of the game doesn't really do anything to help that.



Retroboy said:


> Not the project, as again, it contains nothing, 0 of their code/game files what ever.



It contains the copyright code of their engine.



Retroboy said:


> its not going to damage their sales at all, but this is likely the angle theyre trying to pull off.



I doubt they care about the opinion of people who violate their copyright. I don't care at all what it does to their sales.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pedro702 said:


> this is just becuase they are releasing the remaster trilogy and dont want people running around with free recompilations with hd textures and mods while they will sell them soon lol



If that is true then that is understandable, legally it doesn't make much difference apart from damages. We'll see how it plays out anyway.


----------



## VashTS (Sep 3, 2021)

this is like composing a song and then some other song writer suing you because you used the same chords and notes. melody/rhythm/lyrics/everything else all different, just same notes/chords.


----------



## LeyendaV (Sep 3, 2021)

I better see everybody throwing shit at this the same way they do at Nintendo, especially those who always name this project as example of companies not messing with fan made ports.


----------



## Dungeonseeker (Sep 3, 2021)

PSA: This lawsuit was always inevitable, R* issued a DMCA which is a legal proceeding, the coders filed counter claims, R* only then had 2 options...

1) Admit they were wrong in filing the suit and open themselves up to potential legal action for doing so
2) Make the matter official and sue in court

Since option 1 was never going to happen they chose option 2 which (IMO) was the VERY wrong choice. 

Remember earlier when I said potential legal action? Option 1 had a chance of them getting away scot free, if my understanding of the project is correct then option 2 is almost a certain lose for R*.

Its already well established that clean room reverse engineering is not illegal and has been since IBM sued Compaq in the 70s for reverse engineering the IBM PC Bios and creating their own clone of it, IBM lost, badly. So badly it almost caused them to collapse.


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Sep 3, 2021)

pedro702 said:


> in all honesty i hope they are released, i would love some gta trilogy remastered for old times sake and i will buy it if the rumors are true.


While true, lets hope more however that if it is true that its not a Warcraft 3 Reforged level disaster of a remastering. That will really give these mods the far edge over the official remasters if that is indeed the case.


----------



## jurassicplayer (Sep 3, 2021)

Just shuffled through a couple of the points on the claim. This is abysmal.


Spoiler











I almost wouldn't be surprised if Take-Two was trying to take down re3/reVC just to take "derivative source code" and use it.


----------



## SANIC (Sep 3, 2021)

ShadowOne333 said:


> ​The resolution of this case might be one of the biggest legal battles of this decade in terms of gaming, homebrew, hacking and reverse engineering, as other projects that have flourished under reverse engineered premises could be affected in the event of Take-Two winning the case.



Woah we're only one year into the decade, that seems kind of steep.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 3, 2021)

Dungeonseeker said:


> Its already well established that clean room reverse engineering is not illegal and has been since IBM sued Compaq in the 70s for reverse engineering the IBM PC Bios and creating their own clone of it, IBM lost, badly. So badly it almost caused them to collapse.



Which would be fine if this was a clean room procedure governed project. It wasn't, they even apparently broadcast themselves in a video doing not that if the videos earlier in the thread are anything to go by, and I doubt they would have got it compiling as well as it does (1:1 but for their additions) via clean room techniques this century.



VashTS said:


> this is like composing a song and then some other song writer suing you because you used the same chords and notes. melody/rhythm/lyrics/everything else all different, just same notes/chords.


No this is more akin to you buying a CD, transcribing all the notes, vocals and selling the sheet music as sort of your own project (or at least one not concerned by the original artist), and possibly slipping in a few samples as well if the other claims are anything to go by.



smashbro596 said:


> i sincerely hope this rules in favor of the modders.
> it's not infringing on copyright. we should be allowed to fix and improve games that are nearly 2 decades old.
> besides, you still need the game purchased already (if you want the best experience, don't pirate... that shits unstable as hell with reverse engineering), so take-two STILL has money from the purchases.


I mean I am all for going back to statute of queen anne copyright term lengths rather than the nonsense we have today ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/new-in-the-public-domain-for-2021.580143/ https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2021/ ), indeed I would be thrilled to roll back to 1978 lengths where today we would instead be able to remix works from 1964 rather than 1925. Don't know that this is the place to argue for it though. If there were any software patents involved though then they might be expiring about now.
Equally fixing and improving games is different from disseminating a complete working copy of the source code derived from the original code. The former is if not legal (the Galoob vs Nintendo case speaking somewhat to this, as might the Blizzard Warcraft stuff) then something I have never seen troubled in any real capacity (there is what Tecmo Beach Volleyball stuff for the xbox ( https://www.theregister.com/2005/02/10/tecmo_sues_xbox_game_hackers/ https://www.theregister.com/2005/05/27/tecmo_drops_ninjahacker_suit/ ) and don't particularly expect to any time soon.
Take two/Rockstar still getting money for it is almost immaterial in this; copyright does allow you to dictate what is done with the works, outside of resale and the usual fair use factors of which this is neither from where I sit.


----------



## wormdood (Sep 3, 2021)

Jacobh said:


> The article posted correctly points out the US allows for broader exceptions in the use of decompilation. So in this particular case the US is more “relaxed” than the EU.
> 
> I’m not all that familiar with EU consumer protection laws, but EU warranty protection has nothing to do with whether decompilation is legal or not.


 my comparison there was to illustrate the difference between a country thats laws allow you to modify technology that you purchase, even if it includes copyrighted software on it being the EU, and a country that spearheads copyright claims (thanks primarily to Disney/hollywood) being the USA. I say that to say that just because it would likely be deemed legal in the EU doesn't mean it would be deemed legal in the USA 

But what do I know I'm not a lawyer or a judge just a guy with an opinion


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Sep 3, 2021)

I'd TakeTwo shits on them.


----------



## Soulsilve2010 (Sep 3, 2021)

jurassicplayer said:


> I almost wouldn't be surprised if Take-Two was trying to take down re3/reVC just to take "derivative source code" and use it.



Exactly what I was thinking,lazyness and greed go hand in hand when it comes to game companies.It's always been about money and nothing else.


----------



## smf (Sep 3, 2021)

Dungeonseeker said:


> they chose option 2 which (IMO) was the VERY wrong choice.



The wrong choice was when re3 countered the DMCA take down. That was a get out of jail free card, T2 suing has no downside for them.

_*On or about April 8, 2021, Defendant Morra sent to GitHub a Section 512(g)(2)(b) counter notice, stating, under penalty of perjury, that the repository available at https://github.com/td512/re3 was removed and disabled by GitHub “as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.”*_

The repository wasn't removed because of a mistake and it wasn't removed because of a misidentification.



Dungeonseeker said:


> Its already well established that clean room reverse engineering is not illegal and has been since IBM sued Compaq in the 70s for reverse engineering the IBM PC Bios and creating their own clone of it, IBM lost, badly. So badly it almost caused them to collapse.



It is also established that re3 isn't clean room reverse engineering, they did it the illegal way.



wormdood said:


> my comparison there was to illustrate the difference between a country thats laws allow you to modify technology that you purchase, even if it includes copyrighted software on it being the EU, and a country that spearheads copyright claims (thanks primarily to Disney/hollywood) being the USA. I say that to say that just because it would likely be deemed legal in the EU doesn't mean it would be deemed legal in the USA



This would be illegal in the EU as well.



SANIC said:


> Woah we're only one year into the decade, that seems kind of steep.



It really was stupid of re3 to allow it to get his far, they should have just gone underground on the DMCA. There will now be legal certainty, which will mean that Nintendo are more likely to take down Mario64 etc.

Because there is really no way that T2 can lose, a court would have to unwind a lot of copyright law. Which you might want, but that isn't really how it works.



jurassicplayer said:


> I almost wouldn't be surprised if Take-Two was trying to take down re3/reVC just to take "derivative source code" and use it.



If they wanted to be able to use the source code they would have contacted them to negotiate, it would have been much quicker and cheaper for T2.


----------



## 64bitmodels (Sep 3, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> Take Two/Rockstar Games can piss up a flagpole


how the hell would that work????


----------



## cashboxz01 (Sep 3, 2021)

Why don't they invest that money into creating a new midnight club series game? It's quite lazy and stupid to milk out a title for over 20 years. buying the title once should entitle you to the rights on all platforms. As much as I hate the restrictions on Apple's App Store, the one thing I do like is that I don't have to buy the good games (ones without in-app purchases) on each new iPhone or iPad I get.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> The wrong choice was when re3 countered the DMCA take down. That was a get out of jail free card, T2 suing has no downside for them.
> 
> _*On or about April 8, 2021, Defendant Morra sent to GitHub a Section 512(g)(2)(b) counter notice, stating, under penalty of perjury, that the repository available at https://github.com/td512/re3 was removed and disabled by GitHub “as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.”*_
> 
> ...



The only thing this might lead to is a version of GitHub on tor.


----------



## 64bitmodels (Sep 3, 2021)

cashboxz01 said:


> Why don't they invest that money into creating a new midnight club series game? It's quite lazy and stupid to milk out a title for over 20 years. buying the title once should entitle you to the rights on all platforms. As much as I hate the restrictions on Apple's App Store, the one thing I do like is that I don't have to buy the good games (ones without in-app purchases) on each new iPhone or iPad I get.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


TBF GTA5 & GTA online has basically filled the midnight club hole- they have lots of open world racing content in those games. I don't LIKE GTA online, but it's there


----------



## Kopimist (Sep 4, 2021)

Original games still need to be purchased for these unofficial ports to work. How is that piracy? If anything, its increasing sales of the original games.
This should be protected under the Fair Use Doctrine. What a douche move Take Two


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 4, 2021)

Analogy time!

Note: This is supposed to explain fair use in a way I can understand.

Let's say I have bought some random painting and have it hanging in my room.
This painting comes with a set of lights which must be placed in a particular orientation for the painting to be visible.
Let us also consider the painting and the lights to be one piece of artwork.
But let's say I want to move to a different room.
Now, I literally have to wait forever for the artist to show up and move everything to the new room.

But let's say there are some lights (lets call them Vta Lights, or VL for short) that make the painting visible regardless of where you put them.
If VL were exactly the same as the original ones the artist could say "hey those are my lights; you just copied them!"
But if they were designed only to copy the function of the original lights (making the painting appear) you could say "look man, I had to 'cause you were so slow."

Here's where it gets tricky.
What if you took apart the original lights to find out how they worked ("functional principles")?
If it was only for that (and nothing else) you should be okay, since any similarities will probably* be considered "external considerations" or "expression necessarily incident to the idea."
But if you copied anything else that was unrelated to the function of VL, then you are in trouble, since that would be protected by copyright as an "expression."
The problem is, the functional aspects and everything else might be all jumbled up together, which makes it really hard to reverse engineer completely safely.
But based on some court cases (Atari v. N, Sega v. Accolade, Sony v. whoever) the court seems to be fairly lenient unless it's obvious you just copied it directly.

Also, if the artist patented his lights, you're screwed.

* I ain't no lawyer, so this might not be true, plus some of this stuff would be argued about anyways. Actually, all of this might not even make sense.

Bad grammar alert: "I" and "you" are interchangeable.


----------



## Sheimi (Sep 4, 2021)

smf said:


> It is also established that re3 isn't clean room reverse engineering, they did it the illegal way.


Could you elaborate please?


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 4, 2021)

I just read through the source document, and I noticed that nowhere does it mention reverse engineering of any kind (except for in quotes).



Sheimi said:


> Could you elaborate please?



I can try to elaborate a bit, since I am here already.

What they did was decompile the machine code, also known as object code. This gives them a rough idea of how the program works, which enables them to more easily write their own program that does essentially the same thing as the original.

This is in contrast to "clean room" or "black box" reverse engineering, which involves a lot of educated guessing and testing (it's usually harder) to figure out how something works.

The second is pretty solidly legal, while the first is only legal under some circumstances.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 4, 2021)

As to what these circumstances are, there is this thing called fair use and it is sort of ambiguous, especially with regards to computer programs.

This is how they decided what fair use was in Sega v. Accolade:

"... disassembly of copyrighted object code is, as a matter of law, a fair use of the copyrighted work if such disassembly provides the only means of access to those [functional] elements of the code that are not protected by copyright and the copier has a legitimate reason for seeking such access."

https://openjurist.org/977/f2d/1510


----------



## Guggimon (Sep 4, 2021)

I hope T2 will lose this and if they win.... I hope the whole world will boycott T2 for doing an absolute dickmove...


----------



## VinsCool (Sep 4, 2021)

If even Nintendo, as lawsuit happy as they are, were unable to get Mario 64 down, it's unlikely the reverse engineered GTA games will be taken down.
They can sue as much as they want, reverse engineering is legal as far as I know, they can only be in trouble if they include full original assets, otherwise, there's nothing to claim.


----------



## smf (Sep 4, 2021)

Sheimi said:


> Could you elaborate please?



Clean room is where someone reads the code and writes a high level description of what the function does, so that it can be implemented by someone else.

They live streamed themselves using tools that converted the binary to pseudocode that is then copy and pasted and changed to make it compile as c++.



Zajumino said:


> As to what these circumstances are, there is this thing called fair use and it is sort of ambiguous, especially with regards to computer programs.
> 
> This is how they decided what fair use was in Sega v. Accolade:
> 
> ...



That is for a small piece of code at the start of the game that is purely for allowing them to run their own game on a platform.

This is not the same situation & I'm not sure if the court would come to the same decision today, as the DMCA has been introduced since then.



Zajumino said:


> I just read through the source document, and I noticed that nowhere does it mention reverse engineering of any kind (except for in quotes).



I think that is because re3 use the term, but I would say they misused it. Reverse engineering just means you figure out how it works, not duplicating and distributing it.

Wanna buy a reverse engineered rolex watch? It's legal, I reverse engineered it myself.



VinsCool said:


> If even Nintendo, as lawsuit happy as they are, were unable to get Mario 64 down



They seem to have successfully gotten some binaries taken down. However they don't seem to have tried to get the source code taken down. If T2 are successful then I would expect Nintendo to follow.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 4, 2021)

smf said:


> That is for a small piece of code at the start of the game that is purely for allowing them to run their own game on a platform.
> 
> This is not the same situation & I'm not sure if the court would come to the same decision today, as the DMCA has been introduced since then.



The principle still applies, as it did in Sony v. Accolade.

"The question then becomes whether the methods by which Connectix reverse-engineered the Sony BIOS were necessary to gain access to the unprotected functional elements within the program."

And the same applies to this case as well. For example, you could argue the following:
The copying involved in reverse engineering was not "necessary" because you can see what it does by playing the game (or some other method). In other words, maybe they could have figured it out without decompilation.
Therefore, it is not fair use.
(Note that this would have to apply to every part of the game for it to work, and since I am not familiar with the game or its source code, I wouldn't know.)

Basically, the entire case hinges on how to separate the "functional" parts of the program from the "expression" part, and that is why the results of these kinds of cases are not easily predictable and are unlikely to be pursued.

Disclaimer: All of my knowledge on this subject has been gathered in the past few hours.



smf said:


> I think that is because re3 use the term, but I would say they misused it. Reverse engineering just means you figure out how it works, not duplicating and distributing it.
> 
> Wanna buy a reverse engineered rolex watch? It's legal, I reverse engineered it myself.



But there is a difference (legal term used: transformative). The reverse engineered stuff is not exactly the same (probably) and has been compiled for other systems. If you wanted to differentiate them further then you would have to do a side by side comparison with the original source.

What you are saying is sort of like saying any watch you make while referencing a rolex is a duplicate because they all tell time.

A comparison with Sony v. Accolade might apply here. The Digital Station or whatever they called it performed roughly the same function as a real PS, yet the only thing Sony even went after them for was the BIOS (although you can't really decompile hardware, but that isn't the point here). A precedent established in Sega and strengthened in Sony was that intermediate copying is of little weight, unless the final product contains infringing material. And determining what is infringing material and what isn't is hard, like mentioned earlier.


----------



## smf (Sep 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Basically, the entire case hinges on how to separate the "functional" parts of the program from the "expression" part, and that is why the results of these kinds of cases are not easily predictable and are unlikely to be pursued.



In terms of a larger amount of code being copied for functional/interoperability reasons, I think this is a good comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp.

There aren't that many cases because people generally aren't brazen to copy code wholesale and then try to defend themselves in court.

Companies abusing open source licenses is kind of similar, because they turn into copyright infringements if you break the license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

And a lot of that software could be argued to be frameworks/functional pieces of code.



Zajumino said:


> But there is a difference (legal term used: transformative). The reverse engineered stuff is not exactly the same (probably) and has been compiled for other systems. If you wanted to differentiate them further then you would have to do a side by side comparison with the original source.



The changes made either by a computer program or person when compiling source to binary and then back again are not transformative.

It would be like taking the text of a book and putting it through google translate, correcting any errors and then selling it while claiming it is your own work. It's now in a different language, but the authors copyright has still been violated.



Zajumino said:


> A comparison with Sony v. Accolade might apply here. The Digital Station or whatever they called it performed roughly the same function as a real PS, yet the only thing Sony even went after them for was the BIOS (although you can't really decompile hardware, but that isn't the point here).



I'm not saying that it's illegal to create an engine that allows you to run the GTA games, which would be equivalent to your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_Corp.
_*While Connectix did disassemble and copy the Sony BIOS repeatedly over the course of reverse engineering, the final product of the Virtual Game Station contained no infringing material.*_

You're just not allowed to create your own engine by putting someone elses binary through a program which converts it to source code/pseudo source code and then distribute it, because that would contain infringing material.

The connectix court case went over the details of how the PlayStation was reverse engineered in great detail, I know one of the developers involved. If they had done what re3 showed in their live stream, then the decision would have been different.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 4, 2021)

smf said:


> In terms of a larger amount of code being copied for functional/interoperability reasons, I think this is a good comparison.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp.



The reason for apple's win was because there were other ways to achieve the same function without verbatim copying (it seems to have been a bit for bit copy too)



smf said:


> There aren't that many cases because people generally aren't brazen to copy code wholesale and then try to defend themselves in court.



I was referring to the fact that large companies do not want to risk a loss when there is not much to gain, especially when it could impact the entire industry.



smf said:


> And a lot of that software could be argued to be frameworks/functional pieces of code.



What is protected is the function and not the code itself. These kinds of things happen when people just copy-paste. It is obvious because everything is open source. It would be perfectly fine to look at the code and then write your own based on the techniques that you saw being used.




smf said:


> The changes involved when compiling source to binary and then back again are not transormative.



You may be right about that, but the end result does enable people to play GTA on other systems, which is similar to what Connectix did. The new binary provides roughly the same functionality, but did not copy any "expression" (we hope).



smf said:


> I'm not saying that it's illegal to create an engine that allows you to run the GTA games, which would be equivalent to your argument.



Pardon my bad analogies.
What I was trying to say was that just because you use something as a reference while you make something that is functionally similar doesn't necessary mean it is a duplicate. For example, many violins are based on the ones made by two Italian guys, and they all function the same way, but that doesn't mean were are all made using the exact same techniques or materials.
Basically, my point is that decompiling stuff and using that as a reference as to how it works is different than copy-pasting the original source code. It is definitely not an exact copy of the original, but some parts may or may not infringe on copyright. We just don't know for sure.



smf said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_Corp.
> _*While Connectix did disassemble and copy the Sony BIOS repeatedly over the course of reverse engineering, the final product of the Virtual Game Station contained no infringing material.*_
> 
> You're just not allowed to create that engine by putting the binary through a program which converts it to source code/pseudo source code and then distribute it as it would contain infringing material.



The thing is, at this point we don't even know which parts were taken from decompilation, and even then we would have to wait for the court to decide if they were "functional" or "expressive." Or whether decompilation was appropriate in the first place.

So do these GTA projects contain infringing material? The answer to this question lies in how the disassembly was used. For Connectix, it was okay. For this situation, all we can do is speculate until more facts are gathered or a court decision happens. Also notice how a lot of these cases get appealed.


----------



## smf (Sep 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> The reason for apple's win was because there were other ways to achieve the same function without verbatim copying (it seems to have been a bit for bit copy too)



It was identical, but changing some bits wouldn't have helped. They could have made a clean room clone, like Phoenix did of the IBM bios, but chose not to.

They won the original case because they managed to argue that a binary wasn't copyright, only a printed copy of the source code was. However the court found on appeal that this was an incorrect application of the law. The output from going from source to binary is still covered by the original copyright, so it's safe to assume that the translation from binary back to source is still covered.



Zajumino said:


> Pardon my bad analogies.
> What I was trying to say was that just because you use something as a reference while you make something that is functionally similar doesn't necessary mean it is a duplicate. For example, many violins are based on the ones made by two Italian guys, and they all function the same way, but that doesn't mean were are all made using the exact same techniques or materials.



Sure, you can learn how to make a watch by taking a rolex apart. But you can't then make a watch that looks like a rolex.



Zajumino said:


> Pardon my bad analogies.
> Basically, my point is that decompiling stuff and using that as a reference as to how it works is different than copy-pasting the original source code. It is definitely not an exact copy of the original, but some parts may or may not infringe on copyright. We just don't know for sure.



The live stream that aap did, shows him copy and pasting from the output of ida and that is what is in github.



Zajumino said:


> Pardon my bad analogies.
> The thing is, at this point we don't even know which parts were taken from decompilation



From what re3 have said publicly, it is 100% of it from decompliation. There will be a huge hurdle for them to overcome to argue that it was not.



Zajumino said:


> Pardon my bad analogies., and even then we would have to wait for the court to decide if they were "functional" or "expressive."



It's impossible, after copying 100% of the code, to not have picked up something expressive.
It would change a lot of understanding of copyrighting of software, if the engine didn't include something expressive.



Zajumino said:


> So do these GTA projects contain infringing material? The answer to this question lies in how the disassembly was used. For Connectix, it was okay. For this situation, all we can do is speculate until more facts are gathered or a court decision happens. Also notice how a lot of these cases get appealed.



There are the possible outcomes as I see it

1. there is no defense and instead T2 get a default judgement, github will be forced to remove all copies & if they can track down the developers world wide then they could go after them in their own countries (if they care enough).
2. re3 mount a defense based on fair use
3. re3 magic up evidence that shows it was a clean room reimplementation.

From the evidence re3 have posted publicly on github/twitter/youtube over the last couple of years, outcome 3 seems unlikely as everything shows that it is just copy and pasted out of ida (including the bugs).

outcome 2 will change how copyright applies to run time environments like java, libraries, etc. It's not really important that you can't run the game without extra files. The code itself is copyright, you aren't legally allowed to photo copy half of a book for example. What happens if someone now creates alternate assets for the GT3 engine?

A script for ida/ghidra that allowed you to create the source code locally from the original binary and then compile and run that is more likely to be seen as a fair use

I think outcome 1 is the most likely.


----------



## Dungeonseeker (Sep 4, 2021)

smf said:


> The wrong choice was when re3 countered the DMCA take down. That was a get out of jail free card, T2 suing has no downside for them.
> 
> _*On or about April 8, 2021, Defendant Morra sent to GitHub a Section 512(g)(2)(b) counter notice, stating, under penalty of perjury, that the repository available at https://github.com/td512/re3 was removed and disabled by GitHub “as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.”*_
> 
> ...



Fair enough then, I was under the impression it was done cleanly. Just watched MVGs video and its pretty obvious they did it the dirty way.

The copyright claim is cut and shut, TT will win.


----------



## scoobydude51 (Sep 4, 2021)

Wow. The amount of people in denial here is insane.

the code was 100% infringed, even if they modified it a little bit.


----------



## livid_hen (Sep 4, 2021)

scoobydude51 said:


> Wow. The amount of people in denial here is insane.
> 
> the code was 100% infringed, even if they modified it a little bit.


What code was there to modify?

Just watched the MVG video... I hadent realized that this was made differently than the SM64 decomp! Thats kind of worrying.


----------



## GaryOderNichts (Sep 4, 2021)

livid_hen said:


> What code was there to modify?
> 
> Just watched the MVG video... I hadent realized that this was made differently than the SM64 decomp! Thats kind of worrying.


SM64-decomp was also done in the same way. They just didn't mention the reverse engineering tools on their repo.
The only thing that's different is that sm64 didn't have debug symbols.


----------



## MK73DS (Sep 5, 2021)

GaryOderNichts said:


> SM64-decomp was also done in the same way. They just didn't mention the reverse engineering tools on their repo.



Prove it.


----------



## GaryOderNichts (Sep 5, 2021)

MK73DS said:


> Prove it.


Join their official discord and see for yourself.
They mostly used the disassembled assembly and not directly decompiled code. So that's a fair point I guess.
If that makes a big difference for court is debatable.
I'm also not sure if the function names can make a difference in terms of copyright. That would be interesting for re3.

(Getting a 100% binary accurate decompilation without using disassembly is almost impossible.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 5, 2021)

MK73DS said:


> [Super Mario 64 uses the same techniques as this did which saw a lawsuit filed]Prove it.



We could go into computer forensics if you want. However on balance of probability then they made a version of the code that compiles to byte for byte the original game, warts and all. Even if they had a 1000 strong team that did it full time since the original game was released back in the 90s the chances of that happening are so minute as to not even be worth considering. I would be impressed if they could do that for windows 3.11 minesweeper with the same provisos, never mind a complicated 3d world game for the N64 that has such random functionality as is described in the following sorts of videos



Two people write the same short story, song, poem, take the same photo... there could be some doubt. You get to ask for earlier copies, whether they crossed paths, whether one could have been influenced by another (same location around the same time), whether it is based off an earlier work of some form and is an obvious change... usual copyright case stuff.
Two groups write the same thousands and thousands of lines long code for a complicated game that compiles to something exactly the same as another. Forensics at this point is basically academic**.

If said thousand strong group had started back in the 90s, limited themselves to static non code analysis, maybe some cheat type memory viewing and the like then they might have made a functional clone that plays basically the same as far as anybody cares; there are what 30 moves really, a few dozen enemy behaviours you could map from video, including non linear acceleration, you could do some kind of unit test for camera to divine its behaviours (personally I would want to make them better, https://web.archive.org/web/2016051...loads/332-aim-assist-cameraReady-v8-final.pdf https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNSQIyNpVGHeak6isbP6AHdHD50gs8MNXF1GCf08efg/pub?embedded=true , but maybe we are deliberately cloning and not straying), quarter frame position checks is a bit outside the box but not that unreasonable when playing with floats, 3d level layout will follow one of a handful of formulas* that look obvious when you know what to look for, you could probably track or trick any 3d effects to not showing up (see various graphics based cheats in all manner of N64 games from wireframe to no textures to whatever else) and calculate differences... even with all that then a functionally identical (which is radically different to byte for byte in something this complicated, indeed it would be impressive for tic tac toe/noughts and crosses) it would still be a massively impressive project. All the things covered just now would also be the general theme of a clean room project, and if it sounds horribly long winded and tedious then yes, yes it is.

*basic 3d model, model of "track" as you want to control behaviours without having to calculate 3d collisions all the time (more prominent in racing games as a concept hackers care about; see mario kart kcl files if you want a reasonable start in such fields), powerups/interactable objects, animated objects, enemy placement/spawners... might be all in one, might be 3 major ones as seen in a lot of 2d games, might be all five or spun into even more. Each of those is likely to be one of of the two major 3d model approaches (bones and vertices, the victor tending to be picked based on the hardware the system uses that you could reasonably know) or some flavour of coordinate system.

**though actually as 99% of stuff here we ever see in court cases is "you used this open source project and we can prove it from the code", "you used this leaked code/specification and we can prove it", "you copied these lines from this as it has the same bugs*** we had that nobody else would have programmed in"  and "you took this code when you left the company and we can prove it" then it might actually be somewhat interesting to ponder.

***concept going back to maps https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/670-nil-how-to-hide-an-elephant-the-1923-gold-coast-survey video on similar matters, the telephone directory cases are another popular one for this https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/ , and seen somewhat recently when it was shown google was scraping lyric websites https://www.masslawblog.com/contracts/does-genius-have-an-illegal-scraping-case-against-google/


----------



## MK73DS (Sep 5, 2021)

GaryOderNichts said:


> Join their official discord and see for yourself.
> They mostly used the disassembled assembly and not directly decompiled code. So that's a fair point I guess.
> If that makes a big difference for court is debatable.
> I'm also not sure if the function names can make a difference in terms of copyright. That would be interesting for re3.
> ...





FAST6191 said:


> We could go into computer forensics if you want. However on balance of probability then they made a version of the code that compiles to byte for byte the original game, warts and all. Even if they had a 1000 strong team that did it full time since the original game was released back in the 90s the chances of that happening are so minute as to not even be worth considering. I would be impressed if they could do that for windows 3.11 minesweeper with the same provisos, never mind a complicated 3d world game for the N64 that has such random functionality as is described in the following sorts of videos
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't see why having a byte to byte compiled ROM is a proof of them using the decompiled code.
As far as I know, it is legal to decompile the ROM, document it and write code with help of this documentation. And yes, in a vacuum I agree that having a byte to byte perfect copy is miraculous. But here we aren't in a vacuum : they can compare their builds and the original ones and tweak their code until they match, without never **seeing** the decompiled code.
The poem analogy isn't that great because you can't check if your poem is the same as another one without looking at its "source code". Here you can compare your build with the official build without having access to the decompiled source code, which makes it legal as far as I know.

I can't be sure they didn't used directly decompiled source code but you can't prove they did either with this argument.

Then, everything follows : a byte to byte perfect copy obviously behaves exactly the same as the original one.

Also, I'd like to add that they do NOT have the same thousands and thousands lines of code. Different code can produce the same output after compilation. Their work is very impressive and the fact that even Nintendo can't take it down (Nintendo!!) is a strong argument towards the legality of their approach, though it isn't a proof of them never using directly the decompiled source code.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 5, 2021)

If this is a civil suit then you have the standard is not the beyond all reasonable doubt of criminal cases (percentages are tricky but call it 99%) and instead it is more like 51%.

Similarly 
"it is legal to decompile the ROM, document it and write code with help of this documentation"
Not in any court case or sensible reading of various copyright laws (intent, previous interpretation or spirit) I have ever seen. It is also a textbook case of derived work, which is something copyright law is quite concerned with. Doing so would similarly render copyright of code basically pointless in about 5 seconds, or the 5 months it takes to train up a new crop of assembly programmers and hackers from your existing stock of programmers.

If then the only means they have to legally create something is the tedious as you like clean room method I described before then them having 1:1 code means they copied it from somewhere (leak, disassembly and manual creation, decompilation using fancy tools, decompilation using an export of the dynamic recompilation of emulators... it matters little as far as the clean hands idea in law is concerned, though I suppose technically that makes you right and I can't be sure they did not somehow have access to the Mario 64 late beta leak and use that rather than decompiled code by dint of 1:1 existence, such a thing would require comparisons of things there and an inference based on the similarities or lack thereof).


----------



## livid_hen (Sep 5, 2021)

GaryOderNichts said:


> SM64-decomp was also done in the same way. They just didn't mention the reverse engineering tools on their repo.
> The only thing that's different is that sm64 didn't have debug symbols.


I'm not saying they can't get sued for it, but the sm64 one was a clean room project. One group de-compiles the code, and writes a document describing the requirements to get the files to run, then another team builds the game from the ground up based on those listed requirements. Then the one that was built from the document gets distributed.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 5, 2021)

this is why corperate takeovers (I don't even call them partnerships) 99% of the time always bad for the original IP holder because their opinion means jack sh*t  think of how rockstar origionally view PC mods (even after the "hot coffee"incident even though their view soured about it they still cared very little about mods same with Gamefreak's view on Pokemon fan games) but it means jack shit to their masters they just want them to be the obedient dogs they should be, sad part is they can't break away either the should have read the contracts before signing. now I don't know about Japanese business law but if it's anything like their copyright laws well their stuck in a bad marriage without the option to divorce


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 6, 2021)

livid_hen said:


> I'm not saying they can't get sued for it, but the sm64 one was a clean room project. One group de-compiles the code, and writes a document describing the requirements to get the files to run, then another team builds the game from the ground up based on those listed requirements. Then the one that was built from the document gets distributed.


A) That is not clean room reverse engineering. Still derived directly from the code even if you have another party implement it afterwards.
B) Why are you so sure that was the method used? There was no real mention of that in any of the documentation I saw, though I was more interested in the code so guess I might have missed that (not that it means anything if it did happen that way).


----------



## CoolMe (Sep 6, 2021)

What's Rockstar stance in this? Or they would go with whatever makes more money for them in this case i guess.. Is this legal BS just because the remasters are on the horizon, to prove some kind of point?


----------



## GaryOderNichts (Sep 6, 2021)

MK73DS said:


> I don't see why having a byte to byte compiled ROM is a proof of them using the decompiled code.
> As far as I know, it is legal to decompile the ROM, document it and write code with help of this documentation. And yes, in a vacuum I agree that having a byte to byte perfect copy is miraculous. But here we aren't in a vacuum : they can compare their builds and the original ones and tweak their code until they match, without never **seeing** the decompiled code.
> The poem analogy isn't that great because you can't check if your poem is the same as another one without looking at its "source code". Here you can compare your build with the official build without having access to the decompiled source code, which makes it legal as far as I know.
> 
> ...





livid_hen said:


> I'm not saying they can't get sued for it, but the sm64 one was a clean room project. One group de-compiles the code, and writes a document describing the requirements to get the files to run, then another team builds the game from the ground up based on those listed requirements. Then the one that was built from the document gets distributed.


I just checked the first commit on the official repository.
It still contains directly disassembled code with no labels and memory addresses for functions. This is 1:1 code from the official game.
Even containing file offsets and the original instructions as hex.
https://github.com/n64decomp/sm64/tree/89e86908578d2fdc424f9f47d91b1d82948eaa59/asm/non_matchings
These functions were later translated into C as well.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 6, 2021)

smf said:


> It was identical, but changing some bits wouldn't have helped. They could have made a clean room clone, like Phoenix did of the IBM bios, but chose not to.
> 
> They won the original case because they managed to argue that a binary wasn't copyright, only a printed copy of the source code was. However the court found on appeal that this was an incorrect application of the law. The output from going from source to binary is still covered by the original copyright, so it's safe to assume that the translation from binary back to source is still covered.



Everything here is true except for the last sentence, which I am not sure about. It might be possible that it only works one way, because the reverse engineered source code is different from the original, and when it is compiled, the binaries are also different. There may be other court cases that clarify this, but as a guess, perhaps the source and corresponding binaries are treated as a set.



smf said:


> Sure, you can learn how to make a watch by taking a rolex apart. But you can't then make a watch that looks like a rolex.



It is my understanding that the appearance of a rolex is protected under copyright regardless of if you take one apart, since it has no influence on the function of the watch.



smf said:


> The live stream that aap did, shows him copy and pasting from the output of ida and that is what is in github.



This is supposed to be a valid way of studying how the game works, but based on other things you have said, they haven't done much else. Theoretically, if they did not declare their project to be completed, maybe they could have kept their code available as an intermediate copy (assuming you are allowed to have those public). Perhaps this is why T2 waited so long to do anything.



smf said:


> It's impossible, after copying 100% of the code, to not have picked up something expressive.
> It would change a lot of understanding of copyrighting of software, if the engine didn't include something expressive.



It really depends on the nature of the original work. In Sony v. Connnectix, the BIOS was considered to be purely functional, and the court did not find any infringing material in the clone.
In this case, the engine probably has expressive elements, but it does not matter if they do not end up in the final product. The ones that do could be passed off as some of the exceptions to copyright. If the amount that remains is small in significance it might be overlooked.

Basically, it depends on what the court finds. However, in this case, given the degree of similarity to the original, I think they would find enough to disqualify fair use.



smf said:


> There are the possible outcomes as I see it
> 
> 1. there is no defense and instead T2 get a default judgement, github will be forced to remove all copies & if they can track down the developers world wide then they could go after them in their own countries (if they care enough).
> 2. re3 mount a defense based on fair use
> ...



Because they decompiled the original, fair use has always been their only chance, but things do not look favorable for them.

The point of clean room is to be able to go to court and say it was impossible to have had copyrighted material in your work. Referencing a decompilation defeats the purpose of clean room (for those doing the recreation).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> A) That is not clean room reverse engineering. Still derived directly from the code even if you have another party implement it afterwards.



The key is to have a lawyer check to see if there was no copyrighted material in the documentation.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 6, 2021)

GaryOderNichts said:


> Join their official discord and see for yourself.
> They mostly used the disassembled assembly and not directly decompiled code. So that's a fair point I guess.
> If that makes a big difference for court is debatable.
> I'm also not sure if the function names can make a difference in terms of copyright. That would be interesting for re3.
> ...



Disassembled assembly likely implies that the original was only used in order to study its functional aspects, which are not covered under copyright.

Having function names of the original source code would imply that it was looked at and directly copied from (or it could be a coincidence). Otherwise, function names are automatically generated by the decompilation process or added in afterwards. With regards to copyright, function names would typically be used as evidence of infringing code, but are otherwise largely irrelevant. Even from a programmer's perspective, the only purpose of function names is to make code easy to work with.


----------



## duwen (Sep 6, 2021)

Seems like they don't give a fuck that Bully was also RE'd.


----------



## Prb (Sep 6, 2021)

if take-two would have just released them and made some money for themself none of this would have been necessary

Don't you just hate sour grapes


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 6, 2021)

Prb said:


> if take-two would have just released them and made some money for themself none of this would have been necessary
> 
> Don't you just hate sour grapes


No. There is still great appeal in a reverse engineered back to source game, ones that will continue to see these made in secret (or be like ROM sites/let's plays where lists of devs and pubs that are accepting/care and those that don't) if this does go wide and decompilation tools get more and more advanced; while they have been somewhat practical for a little while I would have still been wrong on the timeline here and was expecting another few years at least, especially for console based stuff, as most things in decompilation are still more theoretical stuff that is the subject of research phds and them looking more to advance things a bit rather than rock the boat.

The amount of mods you can do vs the baseline what the devs envisioned in the API, and made tools for, even a good one (and there are so very few of those) or hoping some assembly capable hacker* is massive.

*assembly is rarely taught in schools (if you are curious I suggest https://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/ https://stuff.pypt.lt/ggt80x86a/asm1.htm and maybe as a more gentle into then this video series, and what little is will rarely be to be used in anger as much as demonstration of why you don't call a function within a function. Indeed many modern compilers might not even support it (gets in the way of various types of security). Even ignoring all that and magic summoning a decent assembly coder the amount of time such things take vs messing with source code (which can be done by almost anybody for some more basic things;if you find a variable saying draw distance and pump it up in most games it might grind a vintage supercomputer to a halt but given your phone today probably has more power...) is considerable.
I might even go so far as to say number of times games saw assembly hackers step in on PC games since the late 90s when I started following all this to do more than remove anti piracy, remove Windows version checks (they sometimes try to gently encourage people to upgrade for no technical reason), remove multiplayer server checks, occasionally be the ones to make widescreen work, and maybe occasionally search things for evidence of future updates (though most things you see erroneously attributed to "dataminers" on gaming news sites are more someone pressing find strings in a hex editor) is minimal, and indeed I reckon you are more likely to find people using assembly in anger in console game hacks where it is still considered hard but an essential step on the path to becoming good there.
That is also saying little about expanding it beyond its baseline abilities; want a make a world 500 times the size, or maybe streaming, multiplayer, all new graphics... all well within reason where the assembly type might be faced with a nightmare project.
General bug fixing; most mods tend to work within parameters of the game. Remove items, maybe block a way, maybe change some stats, maybe make ammo rare, changing a spawn point... this you are literally controlling the game's code and all that entails.
It also feeds back into more conventional level editing as you literally know how the game works/handles data now.

The ability for glitch searchers, speedrun types, cheat makers, in game animation/machinima types to do their bit with this sort of thing is also massively expanded by having source code to play with/look at/ponder.

Some graphics tweaks already mentioned but higher res, widescreen, ultrawidescreen, multi monitor, odd aspect ratio (maybe you have a 16:10), 3d glasses... go from hacky nasty method ( https://www.wsgf.org/ for many) to glorious and able to fix bugs. Nice new filters also get to be a thing.

Porting to other systems as no financially sane dev will port it to half the things it got ported to.


----------



## smf (Sep 7, 2021)

GaryOderNichts said:


> They mostly used the disassembled assembly and not directly decompiled code. So that's a fair point I guess.





livid_hen said:


> I'm not saying they can't get sued for it, but the sm64 one was a clean room project. One group de-compiles the code, and writes a document describing the requirements to get the files to run, then another team builds the game from the ground up based on those listed requirements. Then the one that was built from the document gets distributed.



sm64 can't be clean room, no matter how many people were involved, as they said they went to great effort to make sure their source code compiled to the exact same binary as the original.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020...e-effort-to-reverse-engineer-n64-source-code/

"Our goal is to match byte for byte the original assembly code of all functions in the game [after running through the compiler]," Kenix said.

"When there are optimization flags, you have a harder time matching a loop to a 'for' vs 'while' [statement] etc.," Kenix said. "You have to try all equivalent patterns of code until you find the one that matches."

Whether they used a decompilater or disassembler and manually decompiled is irrelevant.



Zajumino said:


> Everything here is true except for the last sentence, which I am not sure about. It might be possible that it only works one way, because the reverse engineered source code is different from the original, and when it is compiled, the binaries are also different.



No, it's not just one way. The differences are irrelevant as copyright isn't limited to bit for bit copies.

Otherwise you could copy a book by changing the formatting, or a movie by mp4'ing it.

The question is whether any expressive code is left, and that is pretty likely if you decompile it all.


----------



## Zajumino (Sep 8, 2021)

smf said:


> No, it's not just one way. The differences are irrelevant as copyright isn't limited to bit for bit copies.
> 
> Otherwise you could copy a book by changing the formatting, or a movie by mp4'ing it.
> 
> The question is whether any expressive code is left, and that is pretty likely if you decompile it all.



You made me think it was not covered by precedent when you said "it's safe to assume." Therefore, it's your fault I was wrong.
Anyways, I found this: "The computer file generated by the disassembly program, the printouts of the disassembled code, and the computer files containing Accolade's modifications of the code that were generated during the reverse engineering process all satisfy that requirement."

With that being said, it can be very difficult to prove that a certain binary was derived from another. The way Apple did it only worked because they were comparing two binaries that were exactly the same, and so contained certain bit patterns that had no impact on the functioning of the code.


----------



## smf (Sep 9, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> With that being said, it can be very difficult to prove that a certain binary was derived from another.



Generally yes, but the people behind mario and gta have provided their own evidence.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 10, 2021)

Would I expect someone that otherwise does well in obfuscation contests (judging or making) to be able to lift some code and have me never know (possibly even with source code to both in front of me)? Certainly.
Average person copying code (which by design are generally lazy else they would have rolled their own) of some kind of substantial length? Different matter entirely. Even someone with some basic skills and seeking to obscure things will probably be caught barring them spending more time than would be necessary to make it from scratch.

Bug matching (bugs are inevitable here, http://gria.org/programming-errors-three-common-types/ https://textexpander.com/blog/the-7-most-common-types-of-errors-in-programming-and-how-to-avoid-them for those not familiar with the general idea of programming errors), unoptimised code ( https://media.ccc.de/v/27c3-4096-en-code_deobfuscation_by_optimization ), function names (if present), ordering of code... and that is saying nothing about any traps placed there to detect this (happens often enough for people wandering off with code samples to new jobs).
Granted in this case it is all academic from where I sit; you don't get 1:1 binaries for massively complicated code like this* in a fan project (or even a nation state project) in this kind of timeframe without dipping into the copyright bothering methods.

*I have not bothered to do some kind of line count here, not that I particularly like line counts as a general concept for programming effort, but I doubt anybody would make the argument this is some kind of basic programming effort that any random say phd computer science student might make in a C family language off their own back.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Sep 10, 2021)

From the names alone, I thought this was about Resident Evil, admittedly.


----------



## smf (Sep 11, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Average person copying code (which by design are generally lazy else they would have rolled their own) of some kind of substantial length? Different matter entirely. Even someone with some basic skills and seeking to obscure things will probably be caught barring them spending more time than would be necessary to make it from scratch.



If the average person didn't advertise that they had copied the code, then it's basically almost impossible that someone would ever audit their code. If they don't do something stupid like include text strings/debug symbols that are copied verbatim then even if someone does look at their code, then it would be very unlikely anyone would spot anything.



FAST6191 said:


> Bug matching (bugs are inevitable here,



If two people implement an engine independently then they will both have bugs, but they will likely have different bugs.
It's like if we both flip a coin then we should get roughly 50/50 heads/tails, but we won't have the same sequence.



FAST6191 said:


> Granted in this case it is all academic from where I sit; you don't get 1:1 binaries for massively complicated code like this* in a fan project (or even a nation state project) in this kind of timeframe without dipping into the copyright bothering methods.



I can't see how they could match 1:1 binaries without violating copyright. Even if someone wrote a description of the function and you implemented it, as soon as you start comparing the output and changing the source so that binaries match then you've failed.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 11, 2021)

smf said:


> If the average person didn't advertise that they had copied the code, then it's basically almost impossible that someone would ever audit their code. If they don't do something stupid like include text strings/debug symbols that are copied verbatim then even if someone does look at their code, then it would be very unlikely anyone would spot anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Given the paranoia of tech companies and what I have seen there (and what others can handily see with the no compete aspects of contracts, some might be thrown out in court but if they are there in the first place) I would not sign on for the first part of that, even if I would bet on it not being tracked down.

As far as 1:1 matching, and ignoring the hidden functionality/compiler left it in problem (compiler optimisation was not exactly as much of a thing as it is today, see also hot coffee if we need an example relevant in this discussion), then I can see a path with one way functions/hashing/trapdoor functions (combined with some kind of function name and branch/jump... I don't know if anonymiser is the right word but hopefully you see where I am going). You would doubtless have to explain it in court and it would offer no real advantage over basic clean room, indeed be actively more work for very little practical gain, but it is what I could see as a not so copyright troubling path to 1:1 vs anything in the straight disassembly, decompilation and bonus of someone leaving some symbols somewhere camps.


----------

