Is it legal to publish free offline cheats and at the same time have a Patreon for donations? I am a person who like to do a lot of things for living. I was wondering of releasing offline cheats for free with a Patreon for donations ONLY. Is it illegal to do that or legal? I really need a professional lawyer to help me answer those 2 things. Is it legal to release free offline cheats? (My intent is to make people have fun with them offline only) Patreon is only if people want to really help me out and is not required to download my cheats. It is like donation as I said. I live in Sweden by the way. Thanks if anyone can answer these two questions.
First of all, the definition of hacking and cheating is murky: There is no such thing as a legal definition of cheating. But there is one for hacking. Hacking is usually defined in the law ​as unauthorized access to a computer or files, be it directly (then often coupled with some sort of trespass) or via the internet. Cheat codes generally allow modifying the game on the fly. Those were expected input that then resulted in widely unbalanced effects. For example, Age of Empires had E=mc2 trooper that could be sent via the normal text chat. That resulting unit was entirely expected bahavior and in no way unauthorized access to the computer. Related to them are console commands such as opening the developer menu and then typing TGM in any Bethesda game since Morrowind. These are likewise expected behavior and not unauthorized access. Because these two are generally already expected by the very design of the game, providing a manual on how to use these functions is nothing else but to provide a documentation of the software. Now, it gets more tricky with modifying the game with external means that are not provided by the publisher or maker of the game. For example, one might have agreed to not use external software to modify the game in the End User Licensing Agreement, and so far no court has ruled anywhere that a prohibition to modify the game or of the RAM would be an unconscionable clause and void. Few courts have tested these, but under the theory of tortious interference and with a proper EULA clause, cases like the Fortnight Lawsuit from 2017 (settled in 2021) have been brought. In that case, in a wave of trying to get a particular multiplayer cheat software go away, among others a minor was sued for violating the EULA and advertizing this software, which was claimed to violate copyright law. However, the case settled and was mostly hinging on DMCA issues. Conclusion It's murky, you need to hash out your business idea better. Also, you have really strong competition: sites like dlh.net have accrued literally millions of cheat codes over more than 3 decades. I even remember when DirtyLittleHelper was provided as software on a GameStar CD that then would update the database of cheats for games I never even heard of in the late 1990s and early 2000s - there were already hundreds of thousands of entries there then.
Unless they have permission or pay the required royalty: yes. If they are playing it for personal entertainment or at a private function then they can make a fair use/dealing defence.
A document can be distributed under more than one license. Just because it has been made available under a CC license for free, doesn't mean that IEEE can't negotiate a different license with different terms that allow them to sell the content. (This is similar to the way that a software library can be available for free under a license that permits non-commercial use, but also be made available for a fee for commercial use.) If you want to know whether IEEE is legally selling Aaron Swartz's manuscript, you can contact Morgan &amp; Claypool, the publisher that owns the copyright, and ask them whether this use by IEEE has been authorized by them. For the other documents you mention, contact MIT Press. Etc.
Making a profit does not make the act illegal: it is illegal without there being any profit. The act of copying without permission is what makes the act illegal. Profit might maybe enter into the matter if you are talking about the "fair use" defense, since certain kinds of works can be partially copied for certain purposes. You could quote a few lines from a novel in a review, for instance. The judgment of whether a given act of copying without permission is allowed under fair use is complex and involves a balancing act. Profit becomes relevant in that a non-profit use favors fair use and a for-profit use disfavors it. Wholesale copying of works of art as you describe is illegal (is infringement). However... "illegal" is a pretty broad concept. If you infringe on my intellectual property, you almost certainly will not suffer any consequences unless I sue you. Taking "illegal" to mean "in violation of the law", infringing copyright is illegal because it violates the law, but I have to make a federal case out of your infringement – I have to sue you. As it happens, it can also be a crime to infringe copyright, and in that case, the government and not the copyright holder pursues the matter. If a person knowingly infringes copyright, he might be prosecuted, thus the Megaupload case which in the US is realized in the indictment US v. Dotcom. Moreover, profit motive is a required element for criminal infringement. (Also note that you don't have to actually make a profit for the profit element to be present). You cannot sue a person unless they have harmed you, so if you know that Smith copied Jones' work you can't sue Smith for harming Jones. (This is what they call "standing"). You might sue Smith, but not for infringement itself. If they sold you an illegal infringing copy, then you could sue. Or, their infringement could diminish the value of your legal copy. This website gives a multi-nation overview of criminal copyright infringement laws.
Check your license! By operating the original client, you might have agreed to a license, the EULA. Check that license for what it says about you being allowed to do with the product. In a recent case of Bungie vs. Elite Boss Tech, a US court found in a default judgment that a certain cheat software that would interact with both the game's client and the company's servers among other things did... constitute copyright infringement [as a derivative work] was a breach of contract [formed by the EULA and agreeing to the Terms of Service for the game] was interference with Contractual allegations [of other users that obtained the software] However, not all internet games or experiences are locked down like that. Other companies do offer an open API set or terms under which a client's software may be modified. As a very generous example, LindenLabs does for its SecondLife Virtual World, for which they provide not just the framework, but also the terms under which you are allowed to make a third party Viewer Sometimes, the Terms of service are rather hidden. For example, the Chinese Go platform Fox Weiqi operates in china. To get to the terms of service, you need to download the free client, go to Settings (via the cog), then choose 野狐围棋用户协议, which is Chinese for Wild Fox Go User Agreement. This links to https://edu.foxwq.com/complex/useragreement.html. The user agreement is of course in Chinese, but Google Translate manages to get that to English. It contains the following clause: 7.2 Unless permitted by law or with the written permission of Yehu, you shall not engage in the following acts during the use of this software: ( 1 ) Delete the copyright information on the software and its copies; ( 2 ) Reverse engineer, reverse assemble, reverse compile the software, or try to find the source code of the software in other ways; ( 6 ) Log in or use Yehu Go and its services through third-party software, plug-ins, plug-ins, systems not authorized by Yehu, or make, publish, and disseminate the above tools; ( 7 ) Interfering with the software and its components, modules, and data by itself or authorizing others or third-party software While it takes a court to see if the terms hold water and are actually enforceable because of how the EULA is offered, the face value of those clauses is, that it is forbidden unless you have a specific law that allows such or you obtain written permission. With that kind of possible liability that might cost millions, there might be serious legal problems. Read your license agreement and terms of service and consult a lawyer.
Written down computer code is subject to copyright. If you do not have the permission of the owner to copy it you are breaching their copyright unless your use constitutes fair use/dealing.
In general, a gameplay video would be either a partial copy or a derivative work, and in either case an infringement if created without permission. Such a video might be covered under fair use in US copyright law, particularly if made for the purpose of commentary on a game or instruction in how to play or design a game. In general, a fair use defense is more likely to succeed if only the minimum amount of the work required for the purpose is used, and sound tracks might not be required for such a purpose. Thus a maker of such a video might choose to omit the sound to improve the fair-use case. Moreover, when the sound track contains licensed popular music it would be subject to a separate copyright, and many music publishers are notoriously litigious, so prudence would advise omitting the sound. All that said, fair-use is a case-by-case determination, and if the makers of such videos have not been sued, they (and we) can only guess how a case would turn out. As to why game makers refrain from having such videos taken down (if they in fact do refrain) one can only speculate. Game publishers may consider the videos good advertising. Questions based on the absence of legal proceedings are inherently speculative, unless a copyright holder has announced a policy of not taking action and the reasons for it.
You automatically have copyright protection for what you create. A collection of numeric answers to math equations probably would not qualify (lack of requisite creativity), but certainly anything that counts as a "paper" is protected.