Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Apple

Game Maker Says Apple, Google Selling Rip-offs in New Lawsuit (reuters.com) 35

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The maker of the popular game "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" says in a new U.S. lawsuit that a Singapore-based company made rip-off versions of its game, and Apple and Google have refused to stop selling them. From a report: Krafton alleged Monday in a Los Angeles federal court complaint that Garena Online's "Free Fire" games copy several copyrighted aspects of PUBG: Battlegrounds, including its game structure and in-game items, equipment, and locations. Released in 2017, Battlegrounds was one of the first and most successful "battle royale" games, a popular genre that now includes "Fortnite" and "Call of Duty: Warzone." Korea-based Krafton's complaint said Battlegrounds has sold more than 75 million copies. The complaint said Garena, owned by Singapore-based Sea Ltd, began selling Free Fire through Apple and Google's app stores in 2017, and started selling another infringing game called "Free Fire MAX" last year. According to Krafton, Apple and Google have distributed hundreds of millions of copies of the Free Fire games. The complaint says Garena generated more than $100 million in revenue from Free Fire sales in the U.S. in the first three months of 2021. Krafton also named Google's YouTube as a defendant for allegedly hosting videos of Free Fire gameplay, as well as a Chinese film that Krafton says is a live-action dramatization of its game.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Maker Says Apple, Google Selling Rip-offs in New Lawsuit More

Game Maker Says Apple, Google Selling Rip-offs in New Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • You can't copyright game ideas, you copyright assets used and the final result. Unless there was a software patent on the gameplay, what case do they even have other than hoping that Apple and Google cave and remove them?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      PUBG is almost entirely an asset-flip itself. There's nothing original in that game to have a copyright on the game as far as I know.

      Battle Royale games are not original. DOOM had the deathmatch, that's the predecessor to both battle royale and team shooter games.

      I'm not what sure PUBG can claim is original that Fortnite wouldn't "infringe" on, and Fornite is the "better" game, even when Fortnite has ripped off games like AmongUs in the various ways to play.

      I'm thinking that either these games PUBG is claim

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        I'm not saying I agree with PUBG stance, but you seem to be over simplifying their claims. They're claiming details specific to PUBG are being copied, like specific items and locations.

        • [...] specific items and locations.

          I suppose it depends on how you define "specific."

          If a game takes place in the ruins of New York City in PUBG and someone else had the same idea of it taking place in the ruins of New York City, I'm not sure there's a case here. On the other hand, the action in both games takes place in the ruins of Gaguraroth, they might have something...

      • Didn't they pioneer the shrinking boundaries idea? Maybe skydiving into the area, I don't know.

    • While the game idea can't be copy protected, the "in-game items, equipment, and locations" parts could be, depending on how original they are. IE, you could legally protect locations like "Middle Earth" and "Hogwarts", but not Bagdad, or the Amazon. Same ideas go for the items and equipment.
      I've never played PUBG, so can't say how original they are to begin with.
      • If the other company straight out copied the images used for the location, that is a copyright infringement. PUBG's lawsuit against NetEase showed PUBG was suing more for ideas that outright copying.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Gabest ( 852807 )

        The judge will carefully compare images, but won't allow zooming.

    • Re:Is there even a case here? (Score:4, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday January 13, 2022 @02:00PM (#62170383)

      PUBG is claiming copyright on "in-game items, equipment, and locations" according to the summary" which is fine for Game structure" would be a stretch for me. I have not seen these Free Fire games to know if they are straight up copying assets. PUBG's previous lawsuit against NetEase however showed that PUBG's idea of "copying" was very liberal. This analysis of the complaint [youtube.com] detailed PUBG's somewhat ridiculous claims that guns used in NetEase's Rules of Survival were "copies" even though both games used different CG models for the same gun. The claims boiled down to "these guns look similar" even though there are only so many ways you can model a Tommy gun, an AK-47 etc which are real world guns. The guns were not exact copies but similar representatives of the same gun. Now if someone modeled a BFG from Doom or Halo's Needler, that is a different story as those guns are unique to those games.

      Second what is Google and Apple supposed to do again? Generally stores (real and digital) do not remove things unless the copying is just blatant.

    • Also, there is the question of what are Singapore's copyright laws wrt/ game ideas, level design, and the like? It is entirely possible that this was in no way at all a copyright ripoff. If a developer in Singapore, subject to Singapore's laws and not Korea's or the US's; built a game that is compliant with all of Singapore's laws... copyright or otherwise... they should not be sanctioned, or have their game removed, or suffer in any way. And the PUBG people should be told to go pound sand for trying to

      • Even if it is compliant with Singapores laws that doesn't give them a blanket right to sell it everywhere. They are selling the game in the US so what will matter is what the US copyright laws and courts say, if they were only selling in Singapore then Singapore's laws would be all that matters.
  • I feel like we already went through this with Figher's History back in the 90's.

    Admittedly I haven't looked at the clone game, but I suspect there's probably little to no case here
  • "Developer known for using stolen/re-used assets has thoughts about copyright" Hilarious.

  • As far as I can see they have produced a similar game, they have not copied the code, images, etc, they have not used the same name (ie not passing off as PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds). If PlayerUnknown were to win this then Google could attack Mozilla for implementing the same features - or Mozilla sue Google. Competition is a fact of life and is to be encouraged.

    • Indeed, humanity can only be improved by having their choice of identical games. Onward and upward!

  • Ideas were overtly copied ... but I do not see a copyright violation. Krafton is trying to claim that the sum of the similarities rises to a level of there being a case of copyright infringement. That is not how copyright works. https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]

    • Actually, that's exactly how copyright works. Works that are found to be substantially similar to the original can be found to infringe copyright. The issue in question is how similar a copyrighted work needs to be, for it to be covered. However, for video games, as well many other fields, such as books, and even board games, the number of elements that can be copyrighted are surprisingly limited. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that:

      “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of autho

      • Mechanics of PUBG itself aren't 100% original either. It was made by an experienced modder and is descended from deathmatch modes found in very many FPS games.

    • That is not how copyright works.
      Depending on the country: that is exactly how copyright works.

    • "Would it surprise you to know that every word in 'A tale of two cities' had already been published in another book years before? Have you read the Dictionary?"

  • Seriously, you "new breed" of game designers are just pathetic.

    Rich.

    But pathetic.

  • I haven’t gamed for 20 years except for when my son showed me pubg. I liked the realism so played for a few weeks. I tired of it because you would spend 10 minutes collecting stuff then suddenly die without even seeing who did it. Most likely my crap skills, but I suspect there were lots of cheats.

    • If you like the realism, you might like Escape from Tarkov. I recommend watching a few youtube tutorials if you find it too hard, it will give you some strategies. But you might not need them.

  • So PlayerUnknown is suing Apple and Google for distributing a product neither Apple or Google own, developed or authored.

    That means Henry Ford could had sued makers of pavement for allowing GM vehicles to drive on roads?

    Or ABC could sue AT&T for allowing Netflix to transmit a TV program over the Internet?

    Wait, I get it: Boeing can sue God for allowing birds to fly on public air space.

    It makes all sense now to me. /s

    • Apple profited off it.

    • Well actually they are suing them from refusing to stop selling it and stop making a profit off it, despite being told of copyright infringement. No idea how valid their copyright infringement claims are but the lawsuit is certainly justified if the copyright claims are valid.

  • If you can clone a computer (chip, instruction set, etc.), why can't you clone a computer program?

    It shouldn't be an issue unless you're using someone's actual code.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close