Hacker forum and what I learned

Breaches of that would generally be civil rather than criminal matters, though, and the extent to which EULA terms are enforcable are not settled law. Obtaining a judgement of any use versus someone based in another country would be impractical, especially due to the need to show actual damage to Frontier.

A stronger criminal case (under legislation like the UK's Computer Misuse Acts) would be that the modifications to the client app were causing unauthorised modifications to data held on Frontier's servers. Certainly in a literal sense this would probably be illegal. But in practical terms the steps needed to bring a case (probably including extradition and identification of the suspect) versus the actual damage done would likely mean the authorities wouldn't view it in the public interest to proceed.

Either way in practical terms the courts are not an effective or efficient way to deal with the problem.
Thank you Sir. Sense and sensibility are always welcome.
 
After further review, I think the worst that happens is a perma shadow ban.
I think this is the only point Frontier should clarify.

Are banned players still able to influence BGS and name planets?

I found no evidence that a shadow ban exists. Only stories of people forced to solo and a vague citation from a dev about the concept of a shadow ban.
 
I think this is the only point Frontier should clarify.

Are banned players still able to influence BGS and name planets?

I found no evidence that a shadow ban exists. Only stories of people forced to solo and a vague citation from a dev about the concept of a shadow ban.
As I understand it, FD have implied (or directly stated somewhere) that a shadow-ban exists. Under a shadow-ban, those players are essentially in their own universe, playing with themselves, not affecting the BGS for us, etc.

Essentially, they've been shifted 90 degrees out of phase with the rest of the universe. Sort of like the original look and feel of The Phantom Zone* as shown in the older Superman comics; they're like ghosts. They can't interact with us and we don't even know they exist.

*If anyone is old enough to remember that version of the phantom zone from the 1950/1960's version of Superman comics.
 
As I understand it, FD have implied (or directly stated somewhere) that a shadow-ban exists. Under a shadow-ban, those players are essentially in their own universe, playing with themselves, not affecting the BGS for us, etc.

Essentially, they've been shifted 90 degrees out of phase with the rest of the universe. Sort of like the original look and feel of The Phantom Zone as shown in the older Superman comics; they're like ghosts. They can't interact with us and we don't even know they exist.
FDev just vaguely implied. This stuff should be clearly described and pinned as a FAQ, specially with the big spotlight and free publicity the trainer has at this moment. Ghost banned players is just urban legend IMO.
 
Breaches of that would generally be civil rather than criminal matters, though, and the extent to which EULA terms are enforcable are not settled law. Obtaining a judgement of any use versus someone based in another country would be impractical, especially due to the need to show actual damage to Frontier.

A stronger criminal case (under legislation like the UK's Computer Misuse Acts) would be that the modifications to the client app were causing unauthorised modifications to data held on Frontier's servers. Certainly in a literal sense this would probably be illegal. But in practical terms the steps needed to bring a case (probably including extradition and identification of the suspect) versus the actual damage done would likely mean the authorities wouldn't view it in the public interest to proceed.

Either way in practical terms the courts are not an effective or efficient way to deal with the problem.
I am not talking about practicability of enforcement, I am talking about applicability of laws. Computer programs are protected by copyright laws (mostly civil matters, I agree), but unauthorised modification falls under the UK's Computer Misuse Act, German Urheberrechtsgesetz or American Copyright Act, and all those laws define it as a criminal offence. MY intellectual property, MY exclusive right to decide what you may alter.

For many companies it is important to keep cheaters out of their games (PubG, Fortnite, Blizzard, Ubisoft etc. etc.) and it is important for them that their players know that those companies did all the necessary steps to keep cheaters out of their games. We have yet to see how important it is for FD.
 
Have to be honest, I'm amazed at just how light-handed FDev's punishment regime is. Like 'not at all convinced I'm happy to spend any more money with them' amazed.

The various 'exploits' of the past (mode switching, running missions when you know the payouts are glitched, even the old engineering exploit) are all open to some degree of debate as to how seriously, or otherwise, they should be treated.

Using a trainer, where a player has to make a conscious decision to download software and break the ToS every time they use it, is not in the same ballpark. It should be a warning the first time because everybody deserves one chance to change. Second offence - permanent account ban. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 credits, just pack up your stuff and sling your hook.

In particular, permaban to solo for a third offence send a very interesting message. See I mainly play in solo so whether it's their intent or not, what FDev are actually saying there is that they're happy to provide people who have been caught cheating three times with the same gameplay experience that I get, plus those players may be competing with me in any BGS activity that I choose to get involved in. Yeah cheers for that, it's good to know where I stand.

I haven't played for about three months but had been thinking about maybe dipping my toe in the water again. Not so much now.
 
I am not talking about practicability of enforcement, I am talking about applicability of laws. Computer programs are protected by copyright laws (mostly civil matters, I agree), but unauthorised modification falls under the UK's Computer Misuse Act, German Urheberrechtsgesetz or American Copyright Act, and all those laws define it as a criminal offence. MY intellectual property, MY exclusive right to decide what you may alter.
That's not a reasonable interpretation of the UK's CMA (I have no familiarity with the laws in other jurisdictions). It is not in any way a copyright enforcement legislation and I can't think of any cases where it's been used as such. Otherwise it would be a civil copyright violation to plagarise using a typewriter, but a criminal offence to do it using a word processor (and sure, there are occasionally oddities like that in the law, but this is not one of them)

Authorisation for access to computer systems - in the terms of the UK's CMA - is granted by the owner of that computer system or their delegates. In the case of a personal desktop computer owned by a private individual, there is absolutely no way that private individual can be charged under the CMA for anything they do to their own computer - though the effects of what they do to other computers may of course be an offence under the CMA [1], and the things they do on their own computer may be illegal under other legislation, or result in a civil breach of contract (e.g. the EULA)

Relevant quote from the definitions section of the CMA:
8)An act done in relation to a computer is unauthorised if the person doing the act (or causing it to be done)—
(a)is not himself a person who has responsibility for the computer and is entitled to determine whether the act may be done; and
(b)does not have consent to the act from any such person.
[1] As I said, there is probably a CMA angle in that modification of the Elite Dangerous executable through a cheat program causes it to modify data on Elite Dangerous servers in a way that is not authorised by Frontier. But that again has nothing to do with copyright/IP enforcement.
 
Temporary? Cheaters are banned on their first offence.
Yes temporary. On the other side, Ubisoft banned people from For Honor. They didn't even own the game. Say hello to heuristics anticheats making Windows BSODs.

I think people should keep realistic expectations as to what Frontier can do now.
 
I am not talking about practicability of enforcement, I am talking about applicability of laws. Computer programs are protected by copyright laws (mostly civil matters, I agree), but unauthorised modification falls under the UK's Computer Misuse Act, German Urheberrechtsgesetz or American Copyright Act, and all those laws define it as a criminal offence. MY intellectual property, MY exclusive right to decide what you may alter.

For many companies it is important to keep cheaters out of their games (PubG, Fortnite, Blizzard, Ubisoft etc. etc.) and it is important for them that their players know that those companies did all the necessary steps to keep cheaters out of their games. We have yet to see how important it is for FD.
Maybe if Frontier made examples of a few of the worst offenders in a court of law, the rest would think twice, maybe three times before cheating.

When the game first started, I used a "character name" from a popular TV space show. I then received a "cease and desist" order from the copyright owners and was forced to change my character name and do a "clear save" in order to comply. Lesson learned, but I was not doing anything with the name that was not reputable.

o7...
 
That's not a reasonable interpretation of the UK's CMA (I have no familiarity with the laws in other jurisdictions). It is not in any way a copyright enforcement legislation and I can't think of any cases where it's been used as such. Otherwise it would be a civil copyright violation to plagarise using a typewriter, but a criminal offence to do it using a word processor (and sure, there are occasionally oddities like that in the law, but this is not one of them)

Authorisation for access to computer systems - in the terms of the UK's CMA - is granted by the owner of that computer system or their delegates. In the case of a personal desktop computer owned by a private individual, there is absolutely no way that private individual can be charged under the CMA for anything they do to their own computer - though the effects of what they do to other computers may of course be an offence under the CMA [1], and the things they do on their own computer may be illegal under other legislation, or result in a civil breach of contract (e.g. the EULA)

Relevant quote from the definitions section of the CMA:


[1] As I said, there is probably a CMA angle in that modification of the Elite Dangerous executable through a cheat program causes it to modify data on Elite Dangerous servers in a way that is not authorised by Frontier. But that again has nothing to do with copyright/IP enforcement.
If a person caused a computer to record that information came from A when it in fact came from B, that manifestly affected the reliability of that information for the purposes of s.3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. (Zezev and Yarimaka v Governor of HM Prison Brixton).

Further:
The leading case is R v Maxwell-King [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 28. The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of inciting the commission of an offence contrary to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s 3, of inciting a third party to supply a multi-mode board which caused an unauthorised modification of a computer. He and his wife were directors and sole shareholders in a company which manufactured devices which would allow the subscribers to cable television services to access all the channels provided by the cable company regardless of the number of channels or programmes for which the subscriber had paid.

Diferent countries, different laws, same result.
 
Maybe if Frontier made examples of a few of the worst offenders in a court of law, the rest would think twice, maybe three times before cheating.

When the game first started, I used a "character name" from a popular TV space show. I then received a "cease and desist" order from the copyright owners and was forced to change my character name and do a "clear save" in order to comply. Lesson learned, but I was not doing anything with the name that was not reputable.

o7...
You work in security, how many companies actually report cybercrime to the authorities? That's bad for business... ;)
 
You work in security, how many companies actually report cybercrime to the authorities? That's bad for business... ;)
As I recall, someone pointed out that this would be civil litigation, not criminal reporting of a crime. Bad for business, companies do it all the time to protect Intellectual their property. Microsoft has no problem doing it, as well as many other companies who feel their property has been used in violation of copyright law. I don't think it's bad for business in any respect. It's protecting a product you value from being used in ways you did not anticipate or approve of.
 
As I recall, someone pointed out that this would be civil litigation, not criminal reporting of a crime. Bad for business, companies do it all the time to protect Intellectual their property. Microsoft has no problem doing it, as well as many other companies who feel their property has been used in violation of copyright law. I don't think it's bad for business in any respect. It's protecting a product you value from being used in ways you did not anticipate or approve of.
Admitting that your product isn't secure and that it has weaknesses that can be used for cheats can potentially hurt your business, especially if you're still trying to sign that big, fat, juicy contract that'll bring the next project. Since FD plans to release at least 3 new franchises each year, it could be potentially damaging.
ED isn't their main source of income, generated only £22m of £81m total revenue in FY 2018 and I'm not sure if they're willing to fight for it so much that they'll take it to the court.
 
Admitting that your product isn't secure and that it has weaknesses that can be used for cheats can potentially hurt your business, especially if you're still trying to sign that big, fat, juicy contract that'll bring the next project. Since FD plans to release at least 3 new franchises each year, it could be potentially damaging.
ED isn't their main source of income, generated only £22m of £81m total revenue in FY 2018 and I'm not sure if they're willing to fight for it so much that they'll take it to the court.
And that's why, when dealing with companies that prioritise PR over product quality, you make sure to go public about any vulnerabilities that you discover if they refuse to fix them. If they won't admit any issues, then you admit the issues for them. They are then forced with either denying any problem (and the associated escalation of exploiting of said problem) or they simply admit there's a problem and get it resolved.
 
Top Bottom