Is &quot;cheating&quot; in offline, single-player games illegal? I understand there are laws like the Circumvention of Technological Measure (CTM), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). According to these laws it's considered 'copyright infringement' to modify software one does not have the copyright to, which basically stops people from 'hacking' any games or software, but nobody is trying to hack the Digital rights management (DRM). That DRM stuff relates to making keygens and cracking software I have searched Google and not found any cases anywhere regarding someone being sued for 'cheating' in a Singleplayer (offline) game, but due to the way the copyright laws are worded, there seems to be a grey area surrounding this subject. Here is something I found in my research: Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. - Source: Wikipedia. In her ruling, Smith compared usage of the Game Genie to &quot;skipping portions of a book&quot; or fast-forwarding through a purchased movie; thus the altered game content did not constitute the creation of a derivative work as Nintendo had argued. This court case established the legality of using the device &quot;Game Genie&quot; to modify the way a console game is played. But does this legal argument also extend to modifying (or &quot;hacking&quot;) the game binary of a single-player game itself?
united-states There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. It depends on the game. The difference between modding and cheating is largely a matter of semantics. In some cases, cheaters can use facilities which are deliberately built into the game, without modifying it (e.g. cheat codes, console commands, etc.). However, it is difficult to see how making use of such facilities could possibly violate any law, regulation, or agreement, and so the rest of this answer will focus on modding. I think it would help to walk through two specific examples, to illustrate the broad range of possible answers to this question. Here are the examples I chose: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for PC (&quot;Skyrim&quot; for short) Super Mario Odyssey for the Nintendo Switch (&quot;SMO&quot; for short) Both of these games are single player (although SMO has a minor, optional multiplayer component), and both have been extensively modded by their respective communities. Skyrim Skyrim's Creation Kit EULA expressly authorizes modding, and the wording implies that mods are the intellectual property of the modder (because it states that the modder automatically grants a license to Bethesda). Bethesda even permits modders to sell Skyrim mods for real money, which is practically unheard of in the video game industry (even under the very restrictive terms which Bethesda sets for such paid mods). Bethesda's open authorization of and acceptance towards modding, and the fact that they deliberately provide modding tools in the first place, makes it very difficult to characterize Skyrim mods as anything other than legal. However, if you try to circumvent Steam's DRM, or sell mods for money without going through Bethesda's paid mods program, then you are certainly violating one or both of the EULA linked above and the Steam EULA. Such violation could subject you to civil liability under a variety of legal theories, but in practice, the most likely outcome is that Valve terminates your Steam account (as the Steam Subscriber Agreement says they can) and you lose all the games you previously purchased. But they're not going to waste their time suing you, unless you somehow make a nuisance of yourself. Paid mods, outside of Bethesda's system, might even be criminal copyright infringement, although I would be rather surprised if it were actually prosecuted as such (the DOJ generally has more important things to worry about, and copyright infringement can't be prosecuted at the state level). If you're willing to call civil liability and unlikely-to-be-prosecuted criminal liability &quot;illegal,&quot; then Skyrim modding can be illegal if you violate the terms and conditions. One other thing: The terms linked above also say that mods (&quot;New Materials&quot;) can only be distributed &quot;to other authorized users who have purchased the Product, solely for use with such users’ own authorized copies of such Product and in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all applicable laws.&quot; In other words, you are not supposed to distribute mods to users of pirated copies, which is probably impractical to enforce in any meaningful way (modding sites generally make no effort to verify that individual users have actually purchased the game, although in theory it might be technically possible to do so). In my experience, modders are often quite hostile to users of pirated copies of Skyrim, because such copies are nonstandard and more difficult to support. Bethesda evidently views this in-practice hostility as &quot;good enough.&quot; SMO SMO is a completely different ballgame. Nintendo does not provide modding tools for either the game or the console on which it runs. Furthermore, Nintendo has repeatedly updated the console to prevent people from modding it, and to break or render ineffective existing techniques for such modding. Their stated rationale for this activity is to prevent users from running pirated games on their consoles. Therefore, this brings the whole thing into the scope of the DMCA's infamous anti-circumvention provisions. 17 USC 1201 provides that: (a) (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. [...] (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to commit piracy or not. It only matters that: You &quot;avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure,&quot; and The technological measure &quot;effectively controls access to a work&quot; as defined above, and You did it without Nintendo's permission, and Your action doesn't fall under one of the permanent exceptions listed in 17 USC 1201, nor under any of the 3-year exceptions which the Librarian of Congress is authorized to temporarily grant. So by breaking the DRM on the Nintendo Switch, which is a prerequisite for modifying SMO, you necessarily violate 17 USC 1201, unless you fall into one of the exceptions. Of those, the only one which is even colorably relevant is subsection (f): (f) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. (&quot;This title&quot; means Title 17, which is the entire copyright law of the United States.) This is basically saying that you can bypass DRM for the limited purpose of making &quot;an independently created computer program&quot; interoperate with &quot;other programs.&quot; The problem here is that most mods are going to be derivative works of some kind, and just creating a derivative work, even if you never distribute it, is generally copyright infringement under 17 USC 106. And the exception-to-the-exception is that it doesn't apply whenever you infringe any copyright, regardless of whether the DRM was intended to prevent you from committing that specific act of infringement or not. There is some room for debate over whether mods can or should be considered fair use, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, it's a complicated, fact-specific inquiry, which is not compatible with sweeping &quot;modding is legal/illegal&quot; statements. We also don't have much good case law for it. Regardless, the Switch's EULA expressly prohibits modding, and so you would still be liable for a contractual violation anyway.
There is something called the exhaustion doctrine that says that once the holder of a patent sells a patented device, they have relinquished control over that particular instance of the patent implementation. Anyone who legally purchases this hardware has the right to run whatever software they want on it, as long the software is otherwise legal (software designed to defeat DRM would be an example of software that is is not legal).
The game Five Nights at Freddy's and the other elements in the large media franchise of the same name are surely protected by copyright. In addition the name of the fictional restaurant in the game may well be protected as a trademark, and I would be astounded if &quot;Five Nights at Freddy's&quot; was not protected as a trademark. Other names and phrases may well be trademarked also. If the suggested actual restaurant was at all closely based on the images and descriptions from the games or the novels, it would be a derivative work. Unless one had permission from the copyright owner, creating such a restaurant would be an act of wilful copyright infringement. The owner could sue, and quite likely win. In the US the owner could get up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each work that was infringed, which in this case might well mean several of the games and novels, depending on just what images and descriptions were imitated or used. Or the owner could elect to receive damages and profits, meaning all damage provably done to the owner, plus all profits made by the infringer. In addition to either, the owner might well obtain an injunction against further operations of the restaurant. Beyond that, if the imitation used any of the trademarked names, slogans, or other protected trademarks, there could be a suit for trademark infringement. There could be no question that the marks were being used in commerce, and were not instances of nominative use. A restaurant is a very different thing from a video game, a novel, or a film, of course. No doubt it falls into a different trademark category. Normally trademark protection extends only to the category for which the mark is protected. But in the case of a &quot;well-known&quot; or &quot;famous&quot; mark, protection under US law is wider. Also, when the infringement might lead reasonable people to falsely belie that the infringing product or service has been endorsed, approved, or sponsored by the trademark owner, it may be a violation even in a significantly different category. This a successful suit for trademark infringement might well be possible also. Of course, if the new restaurant only vaguely resembled the one in the games and novels, and did not use the phrase &quot;Five Nights at Freddy's&quot; or the name &quot;Freddy Fazbear’s&quot; or any other distinctive names from the media franchise, That might not be copyright or trademark infringement. But that would not seem to achieve the effect suggested by the question. If the creator of the restaurant obtained permission from the copyright and trademark owner(s) then there would be no legal issue. But the owners might well not grant such permission, or might charge a high fee for it. I doubt that the idea is workable. As a side note, many years ago I regularly patronized a restaurant named &quot;Bilbo's Pizza&quot; It was decorated with murals obviously based on descriptions for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The intended reference was clear. They may have gotten permission from the Tolkien estate; I understand that Tolkien was rather free about granting such permissions. Or they may have just counted on word not coming to the copyright holder. But modern media franchise companies are probably much more watchful and much more quick to enforce IP rights.
Ideas are not protected by copyright, only arrangements of words are protected. If you &quot;rephrase&quot; by only a minor change of wording, leaving much of the wording intact, that is still a copyright infringement unless an exception such as fair use or fair dealing applies (and that seems a bit doubtful in this case). If you &quot;rephrase&quot; so that the wording is quite different, even though the idea is the same, there is probably no infringement. Copying elements of computer code or other IT commands that are essential to making an example work is not infringement. Where there is only one or a very small number of ways to naturally express a fact, copying such expression is not infringement, as facts are not protected by copyright. Adding examples but keeping significant wording unchanged is still likely to be infringement.
This topic came up as a sub-point to another question a few weeks ago, I ended up doing a fair bit of research with not much in terms of concrete results. I'll start with the USA since they're basically the only major copyright jurisdiction for which I could find a straightforward answer, then discuss internationally. USA In the USA, Bob would generally not hold copyright in modifications thus there is no copyright for Alice to violate, assuming no copyright exceptions like fair use apply. This is due to 17 U.S.C 103(a) (see also Anderson v. Stallone): The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. While I couldn't find any commentary on this point, the wording does seem to imply that portions of a derivative with additions far enough removed from the original work might qualify for copyright protection. International copyright law The main provisions governing derivative works in international copyright law come from Berne Convention Article 2(3): Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. and Article 12 (with a similar provision specifically for translation in Article 8): Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works. There's the argument that since unauthorized derivatives aren't explicitly excluded from protection that they should be protected, however, there's also the argument that granting unauthorized derivatives their own copyright is in itself prejudicial to the original copyright holder. Note I don't think it's debated that non-infringing derivatives gain their own copyright, including unauthorized derivatives that nevertheless fall into a copyright exception such as fair use. Dr. Daniel Gervais points out in The Derivative Right, or Why Copyright Law Protects Foxes Better than Hedgehogs section III.B that there's a bit of history here. The original Berne Convention 1886 text stated that &quot;Lawful translations shall be protected as original works.&quot; However, the word &quot;lawful&quot; was struck out in the 1908 Berlin Convention coming up with wording similar to today's Article 2(3). Gervais's article cites Étude sur la Convention de Berlin de 1908 pour la Protection des Œuvres Littéraires et artistiques by André Petit implying disagreement between the countries about whether or not to protect unlawful derivatives, thus leaving it unsaid. Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate any copies of this source. Additionally, thanks to a fortunate snippet Google Books displayed, I know that La conférence de Berlin (14 octobre-13 novembre 1908) by Georges-François-Joseph Martin also discusses this exact point on page 187, quoting someone who thought unlawful derivatives would be protected now, though I couldn't get enough context to really determine anything. While I could find available copies of this book, for now it's a little on the expensive side for me. Overview of various jurisdictions In the EU, the derivative right is not harmonized and so the question is punted to the Member States. There is no implementation of either Berne Convention Article 2(3) or Article 12 in the Information Society (Copyright) Directive, Article 12 being specifically acknowledged by the Court of Justice in the Allposters case. In the UK, infringing derivatives are probably protected, see Redwood Music Ltd. v. Chappell &amp; Co. Ltd., [1982] R.P.C. 109 (Q.B. Div.) at 120. I can't find the judgement text outside a paywall, but an article by William J. Braithwaite (PDF) quotes the relevant part on page 209 (the square brackets are his): [T]he idea that [the owner of the underlying copyright] should be entitled to reap the benefit of another's original work, by exploiting it, however extensive such work might be, however innocently it might have been made, offends against justice and common sense. Additionally, the justice noted the argument that unlawful derivatives are not explicitly excluded from copyright protection and that parliament has declined to make this explicit. If I understand the English court system correctly, this decision was two appeals away from the Supreme Court (House of Lords back then), but there doesn't appear to have been any appeal. For what it's worth though, the justice who issued the decision ultimately became Senior Law Lord. In Italy, the Supreme Court has determined that derivative works can be simultaneously infringing and protected.
Recall the basic principle of copyright law, as detailed in 17 USC 106: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies; prepare derivative works; or distribute copies by sale, rental, lease, or lending. Other people can legally do these things only if they are given permission by the copyright holder, typically via a license. (Remember, the literal meaning of the word license is permission.) Often, the copyright holder will require a prospective licensee to accept various terms and conditions before the license will be granted. If there is &quot;no EULA&quot;, or if there is one but the purchaser has not agreed to its terms, then the purchaser has not been granted any such license, hence does not have permission to do any of the things listed above. If they do so anyway, it is illegal copyright infringement and they will be liable for damages. To use a firewall analogy, copyright law is &quot;default deny&quot;. So let's take your questions one by one: Do they own the software? US law has no concept of literally owning software. The closest thing is owning the copyright, which the purchaser certainly does not. It still belongs to the vendor that wrote the software (or whoever they may have later transferred it to). Can they legally alter the code of the program they purchased? No, that would be preparing a derivative work. The copyright holder has not granted them a license to do that. (There are some exceptions for purposes such as reverse engineering and interoperability, see 17 USC 1201(f)). Can they legally redistribute it No; again, that is the exclusive right of the copyright holder, and the purchaser has not received their permission. or transfer ownership? Maybe, if the first sale doctrine applies. Its application to software is complicated. The user has a better case for being able to sell the software if it exists as some tangible object which is transferred (physical media, pre-installed on hardware, etc). Can they legally modify the code of the program for others who have also purchased the same package? No, that would be preparing a derivative work. Can they take that software and install it on a secondary machine? No, that would be making a copy.
First off, the work is almost certainly not in the public domain in the US. Works are generally copyrighted upon creation or publication, but in this case the work was probably explicitly copyrighted. The fact that a work is out of print generally has no bearing on its copyright status. US copyright law changed several times in the last century. The 1985 copyright year means the board game was probably published then, and it's since it's a Disney copyright it's a corporate work, which would give it a copyright term of 95 years, meaning that it should be covered under copyright until 2080. See this factsheet on copyright from the US Copyright office. Works Created on or after January 1, 1978 For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter International laws will vary, but many countries adhere to the Berne Convention, which means that international laws will probably be at least similar. Either way, the work isn't very old from an intellectual property perspective. Fair use is an exception to copyright law that allows portions of copyrighted works to be used without permission or compensation in certain circumstances; academic or scholarly use is one of them. Generally, your use of the work has to be the minimum necessary amount to serve your purposes, and cannot harm the commercial value of the work. (The fact that the work is out of print may help with the latter.) The problem with fair use is that it's always determined on a case by case basis. The only way to know for sure if a particular use is fair use is to wait for the copyright holder to sue you and then make a fair use defense in court. I was going to suggest that you discuss this with the editor of your journal, but re-reading your question it looks like you're planning to publish to a personal blog rather than an academic journal. In the end, it's up to you (or your attorney, if you choose to hire one) to analyze the relevant legal concepts and rules and decide if and how much of the work to use.
Forget about copyright or EULAs. In the UK this would be illegal under the Computer Misuse Act (1998) and you could be jailed for up to a year - specifically Unauthorised access to computer material. (1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured; (b)the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and (c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case. This law has been applied even to simply altering parameters in a GET request to a website, so it is incredibly broad. Other jurisdictions have similar wording, so be aware!