Only the rarest and smuggest of Goodmans
True & Honest Fan
- Dec 28, 2014
What's extremely interesting is that this would be a perfect case for a lawyer to break out the "our game is a live service" argument, but there's a very straightforward reason that Epic won't do that, and it's the same reason that the "you didn't buy a game, you bought a license to play a game" argument, seen commonly in PC game EULAs, have never stood up in court.
It depends on whether they screwed up and actually distributed copies of the original. Most mods these days literally are just that, though, some kind of method of modifying already existing files you have the right to access. You're not allowed to distribute the actual game files themselves, though, and if you do, that's infringement.
Cheats are a slightly different issue, in that game companies generally don't frown on non-malicious mods (with asshole exceptions) so long as they don't pretend to be official products, and people other than game companies also tend not to like them. That doesn't necessarily change the legality, though.
EULAs themselves, clickthroughs, shrinkwrap licenses and other such things are generally treated as valid contracts, which still doesn't mean that people can contract between themselves to change copyright law. It might be a reasonable EULA term to prohibit cheat mods, though, and treat it as a violation of the contract that nullifies the license to use the product.
It doesn't sound like they did that here. I'm too cheap to get the pdf of this right now since somebody else probably will in a day or so.