Take-Two Interactive Has Declared Modding of Its Games Illegal

[DurradonXylles]

Software 'ownership' has always been a grey bit of legal nonsense.

Yes, you own the disc, but not what's on it. I mean it's like you music. If you edited an album and redistributed it (even if the person had to own the original album to listen to it) you can bet some legal trouble will rumble your way.

I think it's very 'odd' how people assume they have the right to mod games, like it's some god given right, when really - I can fully understand companies not wanting it to be done. Normally when the hammer comes down on these cases it's because somewhere in the mod, intentional or not, puts the original software at risk from some, possibly amazingly obscure, exploit.

But, but even if the person is in the right and, by law, they are in there rights to mod away - it doesn't matter because they won't be able to afford the fight to prove so.

If a company releases the source code and says 'have at it' then go for it, mod until you can mod no more, otherwise - I think a legal challenge somewhere down the line is inevitable and those involved should understand that.

I mean, look at the NES Mini, thanks to Linux being open source (or something) Nintendo had to give a fair bit of info out on how it worked - which was exploited in days.

Now, modding the NES Mini itself, isn't illegal - but it is 99% going to be used to put illegal ROMs on.

So if Nintendo started trying to (somehow) crack down on people modding the NES mini - they have every right to do so.

I'm not saying it's 'fair' or 'right' I'm saying - that's how it is and it makes sense that's how it is.

And some cases, it's a simple default copyright claim. I mean was Pokemon Nuclear edition going to hurt future Pokemon sales? No, no it wasn't. But if Nintendo isn't seen to be protecting it's IPs it causes legal issues down the line.

That's why Velcro is so aggressive on everything else being called 'clothe and hook' or something else as long as it's not Velcro.

And finally, a modded GTA V, could, potentionly, lead to those people not buying GTA VI - so again, a valid reason of protecting there best interest.

Nintendo wouldn't be able to crack down on NES Mini modding because of said open source software that the OS is built off of, regardless of intent of said modding; at best they can remove sites that host pre-made Linux images to load onto the NES Mini that have ROMs included. Intent is never an issue considered when it comes to software sales or usage therein, with very few exceptions (eg: public threat or harm of another's software/hardware).

The difference between modding a game you own a copy of and making a fan game from the ground up based off of an existing and active video game series is night and day. Pokemon Plutonium was a fan game created without the knowledge or consent of Nintendo. The game was infringing on Nintendo's trademarks and copyrights on the Pokemon brand, and that's why it was given a C&D soon after release.

Ownership and usage rights of software is a large, gray legal area, however there are a good number of cases that have happened over the years and can be referenced as to what various legal systems will consider fair use. "Nintendo vs. Tengen/Atari" had shown that reverse engineering of hardware and software to create clones and workarounds of preexisting hardware/software was perfectly legal. "Sony Computer Entertainment vs. Bleem" had shown that video game hardware emulation is perfectly legal as long as you own a copy of the software that is being played on the emulated hardware. "Google vs. Oracle" had shown that API reference and usage is not patent infringing nor are API's subject to copyright because of how widely used and necessary they are for pieces of software to communicate with each other (despite how many times Oracle has tried to appeal for a reversal of these decisions over the last seven years).

Lastly, people bought GTA V out the wazoo despite GTA IV having a heavy modding community by the time V got a release on PC. A large number of mods existing for a preexisting game is not an excuse for anti-consumer behavior, as the reasons people buy products primarily gauges on interest and quality. Doom already had a large modding community by the time Quake came out in 1997, same thing with Half-Life when Half-Life 2 got released in 2004. Not to mention, a lot of people who were well-known modders ended up getting jobs working on video games for the likes of Valve, Bethesda, Volition, Activision and Sega over the last two decades. Even if someone wanted to make the argument that you don't actually have the legal right to mod software you own, in the realms of video games that's been the norm for decades and would be asinine to attack such communities as most companies have welcomed, and sometimes even worked with, mod authors.

Rockstar has publicly stated multiple times that they actually enjoy seeing community created content, and even said that mods for GTA V were okay as long as they were relegated to single player and weren't being used in GTA Online. Take-Two's decision to shut down OpenIV is anger inducing because this goes completely against what Rockstar said, as Rockstar themselves had no problems with such a tool existing. That's not only giving a middle finger to your customers, that's also discouraging public trust and making your customers look elsewhere to do business with. Legal gray area or not, when you trounce on something people have been doing with your products for many years without issue, people will stop supporting you.