EPIC Bravely Defeats 14 Year Old's Mom In Court To Continue Lawsuit Against Her Son For Cheating In Fortnite
from the punching-down dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about EPIC, makers of the popular Fortnite game, picking up the baton from Blizzard to pretzel copyright law such that it believes it can sue those that cheat in its game for copyright infringement. This belief centers on the claim that these cheaters break the EULA, despite the fact that no actual copying occurs when breaking a EULA. To make PR matters worse for EPIC, the company managed to sweep up a fourteen year old in its lawsuit-blitz. Despite the teenager supposedly being quite brazen in his use of cheats, and in his communications to others about how to cheat in Fortnite, I had assumed that EPIC would find a way to quietly back away from this particular suit, given how shitty the optics would be. It did the opposite, pursuing the case and seeking a summary judgement after the teenager failed to respond. The court refused, however, citing a letter to the court from the teen's mother, who argued that the suit against her son was overkill and, critically, that the argument over the EULA was null because her minor son couldn't legally enter into such an agreement without her input.
Rather than again trying to salvage some PR positivity from any of this, EPIC then decided instead to take on the mother's letter as a legal matter, with its lawyers countering it as a legal argument. EPIC argued that caselaw is clear that such contracts aren't void, even if one party is a minor, so long as that minor enjoyed the benefits of the contract. Unfortunately, the judge in the case has decided that he will not dismiss and will allow this lawsuit to move forward.
“As detailed in plaintiff’s response memorandum, defendant has not shown that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face,”
“[T]herefore, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, and the motion to dismiss must be denied.”
Now, in fairness to the judge, the court is required to adjudicate motions to dismiss with an eye towards favoring the plaintiff. Frankly, it was somewhat of a commitment to fairness that the court even allowed the mother's letter to serve as a motion to dismiss in the first place. On the other hand, it's useful to frame this ruling as one that comes from a judge steeped in the law, favoring a large company with a legal team likewise steeped in legal knowledge, and against the mother of a fourteen year old who cheated in an online game. When seen in that light, this whole thing is plainly ridiculous.
And dangerous, too, particularly as part of a trend in gaming companies misusing copyright law in this way to go after cheaters in online games. Yes, those cheaters are annoying. Yes, this teenager appeared to be a fairly bad actor. And, yes, EPIC has gone out of its way to suggest it wouldn't be trying to bankrupt this family and mostly just wants the cheating to cease. All of that can be true while it also being true that abusing copyright law in this way is both bad and opening a litigious door that we should want to remain shut.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cheating, copyright, fortnite, parents, teenager
Companies: epic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Case law is very clear that children can agree to contracts, but can later walk away from them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fine then, the kid should just return the game and walk away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming the child annulled the contract he's still:
-Responsible to pay for the services consumed
-Responsible for any actions he had taken while under the contract
He is not responsible for:
-Any payments post Annulment
-Any changes in the contract after the fact (for example they change it to require arbitration)
-Any ongoing requirements (including NDAs, subscription terms etc.)
A lawsuit is fine for a minor who was with in the contract terms when the event happened. To say otherwise would mean child actors could do stupid stuff like get paid, then back out of a movie deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can someone please explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In location A "something" is legal (illegal).
A court decision is rendered in location A verifying this.
Someone in location B where the "something" is illegal (legal) uses the court decision from location A to verify and set a presents in location B in opposite to the law in location B.
Then in location C it the "something" is asserted to be both legal and illegal at the same time based on court decision in both location A and location C. At this point a royal cluster fuck or in diplomatic terms a major whoopee exist.
The basic issue here is the failure in law to account for ownership of digital computer programs which are infinite copiable. The solution by software writers to not selling the original program which would have transferred all ownership rights was a typical Hollywood (from Hollywood movie accounting). An end user licensing agreement. You do not own the programs in your computer you just rent them. This gives the software owners the right to inspect their property at any time and also the rights of ownership to any work produced and stored on your computer. you own the hardware which is useless with out the operating system.
If we assume A, B, and C are different countries it is easy to understand how absurd of your producing a paper or report in say Germany which you think is yours as you are the author because of local law and it being owned by Microsoft on Washington State and also owned by Google in California as that is their terms of service in their EULG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
16 year olds are minors (at least where I live). 16 year olds can work in jobs (ibid). Thus, 16 year olds can form contracts. I myself had a formal paper employment contract at 16.
My understanding of what a minor cannot do is enter into a contract that binds their future actions and responsibilities; or more accurately, the minor (or their guardian) can annul their contract at anytime.
If your understanding was correct, no minor could ever buy anything, ever, because a transaction is governed by a contract, even if it is only a verbal contract. Under my understanding, a minor can buy something because once the transaction is completed, there is no future action required (say by handing over cash). What a minor can't (generally) do is buy on credit, because they cannot be held to service that debt, which is why a minor can't, for example, get a loan or a credit card without a guarantor.
As an example of how my understanding works, suppose Alice (a minor) contracts with Bob (Bob's age is irrelevant) for tutoring. Alice agrees to meet with Bob every Monday for 1 hour at specified time for 6 months, and will owe Bob $10 each week, to be collected monthly, and If Alice fails to appear, she still owes Bob the $10. This is a valid contract.
Alice, by virtue of being a minor (or her guardian exercising Alice's rights on her behalf), can annul the contract at any time. Let us say that Alice attends the first session, misses the second, and then that Tuesday annuals the contract. My understanding is that Alice owes Bob the $20 incurred while the contract, but does not incur any additional charges, even though a non-minor (or a minor who did not annul the contract) would owe an additional $10 each week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contract?
There suing under copyright law, and kids dont get protection from that.
The fact that only a valid contract gives you permission to use it, means that the fact he COULDNT enter into a contract screws him utterly under coipyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
You wanna give away your content for free without any checks or account creation? Well, you're gonna struggle to ban players, it's the trade-off for being easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?
Correct, which is why they don't actually sell it to you and instead issue a license which has terms and conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contract?
This is where the DMCA comes in. If by modifying a work after purchase you have to bypass a digital restriction, you have violated the DMCA. Fair Use doesn't come into play, only the list of DMCA exemptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract?
Lots of software is used in this manner, particularly FOSS, since the GPL is not a EULA that purports to allow the use of GPL’ed software. In fact, EULAs are largely pointless other than to radically tilt the playing field in favor of publishers. They basically never do anything beneficial for users at all.
The tricks will be 1) whether the kid owned the copy in the absence of the EULA, and 2) use of the online features and servers etc without a EULA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
David Cassidy's case was landmark in this and I think there are some exceptions for child actors since otherwise a production could be held hostage the way Cassidy did The Partridge Family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban?
He also not only used cheats which f*ks over other players, he openly bragged about it on a Youtube channel which has 8000 subscribers.
When they tried to get the video taken down, the annoying little sh*t filed a counter-notice. The only option then is to sue or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ban?
Trading donations for guides on how to cheat the same way as he did, like this kid did, ought to break some law. Probably not copyright though, as it's really not made for this kind of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ban?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because Hansel & Gretel couldn't be bound by the terms of the EULA hidden in the gingerbread house's garden doesn't mean the Witch wasn't fully with-in her rights to force Gretel into servitude as a maid & demand that Hansel forfeit his life for having enjoyed the benefits of the gingerbread house keeping them from dying when their parents attempted to murder them by leaving them in the forest.
It is so ordered that Gretel will serve as the Witches maid for as long as she shall live & Hansel will eat everything the Witch provides and stop trying to pretend she hasn't sufficiently fattened him for slaughter, the minor children are reminded that the EULA also has prohibitions against shoving the Witch into an oven to murder her thus freeing said minor children to live happily ever after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 14th time? well to h@ll eith the sociopathic little dck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic really doesn't know how to do shit right anymore, do they?
The boxed versions of UT99 through UT2K4 unfortunately all had DRM that was forced onto Epic by their publishers, however, Epic kindly provided a removal for in future patches for those games, because they recognized that DRM is stupid and wrong, and that it hurts the consumers.
But this isn't the same Epic we used to have.
Now they develop Windows-only games, they embrace DRM entirely and their overzealous automated anti-cheat middleware blocks legitimate Wine users from enjoying Fortnite on other operating systems. When that middleware doesn't work, they abuse copyright law to take down cheaters.
Don't get me wrong, I believe cheaters should be hung, drawn and quartered in a public square, but suing them accomplishes nothing. It is important that we apply the correct type of justice to whatever the situation warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Epic really doesn't know how to do shit right anymore, do they?
You believe game cheaters should be "hung, drawn and quartered in a public square"? What kind of a sociopathic fuck are you anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Epic really doesn't know how to do shit right anymore, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Epic really doesn't know how to do shit right anymore, do they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you meant anus of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats to EPIC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid kid has a lifetime ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid kid has a lifetime ban
It is likely that the TOS was not presented to him until after the download. In any case, when the copy was initially downloaded, he had not yet cheated with that copy and thus was not yet in violation of the TOS. You can't retroactively be infringing, just like you can't retroactively be trespassing. One could also argue that if he downloaded a copy of the software from the Epic servers, it is Epic who actually made the copy, not him. Even if he somehow tricked them into sending him a copy, they are still the ones who sent it.
Also, according to 17 USC 101, "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed..."
If something is in computer memory, is it really "fixed"? It will disappear if the power goes out, and the variables change from moment to moment. I would argue that anything in computer memory (as opposed to a hard drive) is transitory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid kid has a lifetime ban
If you move into a vacant house without permission you probably are trespassing, even if you weren't told so until after you moved in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep this in mind about EPIC
No organization that actually cared about the privacy and security of its supporters would do such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Epic", not "EPIC"
That's a confusing headline. The story is about Epic Games, not the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if I was a judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if I was a judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if I was a judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: if I was a judge
And that's why it's a good thing you're not a judge. Because not only do you lack a basic understanding of how the law works, you haven't even spent thirty seconds thinking your argument through to its logical conclusion.
One: You are advocating that a judge should say "You have to sue everyone who is guilty of infringing." How does that work? How does the judge make a list of all parties who are infringing? How does the judge know somebody is guilty before they are taken to court?
Two: You think corporations should be obligated to sue every single person they think might be infringing copyright? Yeah, great idea; that won't result in even more constant and frivolous copyright litigation.
There are already enough corporations that think they have an affirmative obligation to sue everyone who might remotely be infringing their trademarks. You want to do the same for copyright? Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if I was a judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]