Confused on Steam Play and Proton? Be sure to check out our guide.

The saga continues for the GTA III and Vice City code that was reverse engineered and available on GitHub, as it has now been taken down once again from a DMCA request.

For the second time the code repository on GitHub is no more, with it linking to the public DMCA notice that shows Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP acting for Take-Two Interactive Software. It requested a take down of all repositories (including forks) of the code and brings up the recent lawsuit filed against the developers involved in the code.

It's not exactly unexpected of course. They took it down once, counter-claims were filed to bring them back up and now with the lawsuit in progress it was only a matter of time until they vanished once again.

As we've mentioned before the other reason it's no surprise is that there's plenty of credible leaks out there showing that Take-Two are planning to release Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition which would include GTA 3, GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas and so Take-Two are trying to protect the IP here (even though you needed to buy the actual games to work with these reverse engineered source ports).

Take-Two have a history of disliking mods for these and more modern games, issuing multiple take-down requests recently as it seems they want as much control as possible every the whole experience.

We don't expect the code to come back to GitHub given the lawsuit.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Meta
17 Likes
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. We are currently affiliated with GOG and Humble Store. See more here.
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
53 comments
Page: 1/6»
  Go to:

GTA DMCA: Take-Two
scaine 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Mega Supporter
I just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.

I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.

So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...

Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
F.Ultra 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Supporter
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.

I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.

So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...

Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).

Are you sure that the sole premise of these games are to promote said criminal behaviour? I would claim that the sole premise is to allow a gamer to take part of said illegal activities in a pretend matter.
Beamboom 4 Oct
Quoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.
TheSHEEEP 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.
*insert not sure if serious emoji*
TheSHEEEP 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: scaine
It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property.
I don't think so, either.

I do think they are stupid to go about it in that way, but they are fully in their right to do so and anyone creating a reverse-engineering project like that should really know what they are (potentially) getting into.

The guy who created Daggerfall Unity, for example, actually contacted Bethesda beforehand (or at the beginning anyway) to check if they're fine with what he does.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 4 October 2021 at 10:53 am UTC
scaine 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Mega Supporter
Quoting: TheSHEEEP
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.
*insert not sure if serious emoji*

Not really serious, no. But I enjoy the irony of it.
scaine 4 Oct
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Mega Supporter
Quoting: Beamboom
Quoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.

True, in general. But there's a line (really old games, which probably doesn't apply here since T2 are still selling the games in question) and there's positive engagement with your fanbase, which they've positively ignored.

As I say, time will tell. If they release their Trilogy at a higher price, it's simple greed. If they release it at a lower price, it's a stupid move that costs them: in sales, in legal fees and in reputation with their fanbase (whatever that might be worth).

Quoting: F.Ultra
Quoting: scaineI just find it weirdly funny that a title who's sole premise is to promote car theft, prostitution, drug crime, gang warfare and violence to police is now relying on a posh LA lawyer to prevent "loss of sales" due to a fan effort. It's kinda pathetic.

I say "loss of sales" and not "piracy" here too, because this fan effort required the original games to play. GTA 3 is £5.99, as is Vice City. San Andreas is £9.99.

So what's the betting that the "Trilogy" remake will be more than £22...

Because if it's less... well that would be even funnier. Cost of huge lawsuit to shut down fan effort that promotes sales of ancient games, only to create their own version that costs less again. It would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).

Are you sure that the sole premise of these games are to promote said criminal behaviour? I would claim that the sole premise is to allow a gamer to take part of said illegal activities in a pretend matter.

I mean... wow. Yeah, I mean in-game. I wasn't implying that GTA fans like to kill cops in real life? I kinda thought that was obvious, but I suppose I didn't state that explicitly.


Last edited by scaine on 4 October 2021 at 11:49 am UTC
Beamboom 4 Oct
Quoting: scaineIf they release their Trilogy at a higher price, it's simple greed. If they release it at a lower price, it's a stupid move that costs them: in sales, in legal fees and in reputation with their fanbase (whatever that might be worth).

It's not just "simply greed". To defend your properties do come at a cost. To choose not to defend your property because the bottom line isn't green enough - now that's rather what one should call greed. To drop it because it doesn't lead to short term immediate economical gain.
Cyril 4 Oct
Quoting: Beamboom
Quoting: scaineIt would be the kind of brain dead thinking you often see from publishers (re: DRM).
I don't think it's brain dead to defend your own intellectual property. You will have to be on the extreme left politically to think so.

So, you accept DRM and find it a normal/good way (maybe the only way?) to defend their intellectual property?
You accept a system that restrict your freedom of what you buy only because it protect corporations and give them more power?
You will have to be on the extreme right politically to think so.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Patreon, Liberapay or PayPal Donation.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone with no article paywalls. We also don't have tons of adverts, there's also no tracking and we respect your privacy. Just good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register

Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.