11-002 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE
Refraining from creating or selling game cheats and aids, including AI tools that only capture screenshots without touching memory
不做、不卖游戏外挂和辅助,包括「只读屏幕不碰内存」的 AI 辅助,也不卖给微信这类软件加功能的改版
There is no monetary cost. The trade‑off is giving up potential income from such orders and “small tools.” The difficulty lies in the fact that this money comes quickly and it’s unclear who might eventually pursue legal action.
Selling to just 20 users or earning 5,000 yuan is enough to qualify as “serious circumstances,” leading to a sentence of up to three years. In especially serious cases the penalty ranges from three to seven years. One developer who created aim‑assist and wall‑hack cheats sold them over 80,000 times in three months, netting more than 30,000 yuan; he received a one‑year suspended sentence plus a 5,000‑yuan fine. Another individual obtained the game’s server code, ran a private server, and collected over 20 million yuan in payments; he was sentenced to four years in prison and fined up to 10 million yuan.
A
Move “Refraining from creating or selling game cheats and aids, including AI tools that only capture screenshots without touching memory” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
I can spend longer deciding whether to start than the small action would take.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “Selling to just 20 users or earning 5,000 yuan is enough to qualify as “serious circumstances,” leading to a sentence of up to three years. In especially serious cases the penalty ranges from three to seven years. One developer who created aim‑assist and wall‑hack cheats sold them over 80,000 times in three months, netting more than 30,000 yuan; he received a one‑year suspended sentence plus a 5,000‑yuan fine. Another individual obtained the game’s server code, ran a private server, and collected over 20 million yuan in payments; he was sentenced to four years in prison and fined up to 10 million yuan.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Use the original facts and limits. For an urgent medical, safety, financial, or legal issue, contact a qualified local professional or service.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
2. Refraining from creating or selling game cheats and aids, including AI tools that only capture screenshots without touching memory
Cost: There is no monetary cost. The trade‑off is giving up potential income from such orders and “small tools.” The difficulty lies in the fact that this money comes quickly and it’s unclear who might eventually pursue legal action.
In plain terms: Selling to just 20 users or earning 5,000 yuan is enough to qualify as “serious circumstances,” leading to a sentence of up to three years. In especially serious cases the penalty ranges from three to seven years. One developer who created aim‑assist and wall‑hack cheats sold them over 80,000 times in three months, netting more than 30,000 yuan; he received a one‑year suspended sentence plus a 5,000‑yuan fine. Another individual obtained the game’s server code, ran a private server, and collected over 20 million yuan in payments; he was sentenced to four years in prison and fined up to 10 million yuan.
Benefit: Distributing programs or tools designed to intrude upon or illegally control computer systems can result in imprisonment of up to three years, along with a fine, or a fine alone if the circumstances are deemed “serious.” For especially serious cases the sentence rises to three‑seven years plus a fine. The threshold for “serious circumstances” is reaching 20 users or generating at least 5,000 yuan in illicit profit. Intentionally bypassing or sabotaging technical protection measures may also constitute copyright infringement, punishable by up to three years, or up to ten years in more severe instances. Official examples include Wang and others who sold memory‑modifying cheats; they earned over 30,000 yuan in three months and received a one‑year suspended sentence plus a 5,000‑yuan fine. Another case involved Xiang and others who sold the “TZ” series of cheats, generating over 200,000 yuan; Xiang got three years suspended and a 20,000‑yuan fine. Liu and others obtained server code, altered parameters, and ran a private server that attracted over 20 million yuan in payments; they received sentences ranging from four years down to two years and six months, along with fines from 1 million to 1.3 million yuan nationwide.
Evidence grade: A
Sources: National People's Congress (2020). Criminal Law (Amended in accordance with the Criminal Law Amendment (11), Article 285, Paragraph 3, Article 217, Item 6). <https://jtgl.beijing.gov.cn/jgj/jgxx/flfg/fl/11033925/index.html>; Supreme People's Court of China, Supreme People's Procuratorate of China (2011). Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems (Article 3). <https://ga.sz.gov.cn/ZWGK/ZCFG/ZCJD/content/post_1304363.html> (Reprinted by Shenzhen Public Security Bureau); Supreme People's Procuratorate of China (2026). Shanghai Jing'an: Strictly punish the production and sale of black and gray game plug-ins to protect a clear cyberspace. <https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202608/t20260825_735480.shtml>; Supreme People's Procuratorate of China (2021). Typical cases of procuratorial organs protecting intellectual property rights in 2020 (Case 5). <https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/xwfbh/wsfbt/202104/t20210425_516525.shtml>
Notes: All published cheat‑related rulings involve programs that read or modify game memory and circumvent anti‑cheat systems. No official cases have yet addressed aids that merely capture screenshots or simulate keystrokes. Nevertheless, a recent ticket‑scaling case shows that even tools that do not touch memory but merely send requests can be deemed illegal data‑acquisition tools. Whether an act qualifies as a crime and which charge applies is determined by law‑enforcement agencies based on evidence supplied by game developers, not by the author’s interpretation. The requirement of just 20 users to meet the “serious circumstances” threshold is quite low.
Source links
- 全国人大 (2020). 刑法(根据刑法修正案(十一)修正,第二百八十五条第三款、第二百一十七条第六项). ↗
- 最高人民法院、最高人民检察院 (2011). 关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释(第三条). ↗
- 最高人民检察院 (2026). 上海静安:严惩制售游戏外挂黑灰产共护清朗网络空间. ↗
- 最高人民检察院 (2021). 2020 年度检察机关保护知识产权典型案例(案例五). ↗
- 国家版权局 (2020). 2019 年度上海十大版权典型案件发布(上海市版权局发布,案例八:上海昱宫网络科技有限公司等侵犯著作权案). ↗
- Pinned original chapter on GitHub ↗
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
2. 不做、不卖游戏外挂和辅助,包括「只读屏幕不碰内存」的 AI 辅助,也不卖给微信这类软件加功能的改版
成本: 不花钱。代价是放弃这类接单和「小工具」的收入。难在这笔钱来得快,又看不出谁会来追究
说人话: 外挂卖出 20 人次,或者挣到 5000 元,就够判 3 年以下,特别严重的判 3 到 7 年。有人做透视、自瞄外挂,3 个月卖了 8 万多,判 1 年缓 1 年、罚 5000 元。有人拿服务端程序开私服,收了 2000 多万充值,最重判 4 年,罚金最高 1000 万元。
收益: 提供专门用于侵入、非法控制计算机信息系统的程序、工具,情节严重的判 3 年以下,并处或单处罚金。并处是判刑的同时罚钱,单处是只罚钱。情节特别严重的判 3 到 7 年并处罚金。「情节严重」的门槛是提供工具 20 人次以上,或者违法所得 5000 元以上。违法所得就是靠这件事挣到的钱。故意绕开或者破坏权利人设的技术保护措施,还可能构成侵犯著作权罪,判 3 年以下,严重的判 3 到 10 年。官方案例:王某等人制售外挂,靠读取和修改游戏内存实现透视、自瞄。3 个月卖了 8 万余元,获利 3 万余元。判 1 年缓 1 年、罚 5000 元。缓 1 年就是判了 1 年但先不关,这一年里不再犯事就不用去坐牢。项某等人卖「TZ」系列外挂,销售额 20 余万元,项某判 3 年缓 3 年、罚 2 万元。刘某某等人拿到游戏服务端程序,改参数开私服,收了充值 2000 余万元。判 4 年到 2 年 6 个月,罚 1000 万到 130 万元。不只是游戏。上海一家公司做了刷机包,让手机里的微信多出自动转发、点赞、群发等几十种功能,当「营销手机」卖了 2381 台。2019 年上海徐汇法院按侵犯著作权罪判公司罚金 50 万元,负责人判 1 年 6 个月缓 1 年 6 个月(全国)
证据等级: A
来源: 全国人大 (2020). 刑法(根据刑法修正案(十一)修正,第二百八十五条第三款、第二百一十七条第六项). <https://jtgl.beijing.gov.cn/jgj/jgxx/flfg/fl/11033925/index.html>;最高人民法院、最高人民检察院 (2011). 关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释(第三条). <https://ga.sz.gov.cn/ZWGK/ZCFG/ZCJD/content/post_1304363.html>(深圳市公安局转载);最高人民检察院 (2026). 上海静安:严惩制售游戏外挂黑灰产共护清朗网络空间. <https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202608/t20260825_735480.shtml>;最高人民检察院 (2021). 2020 年度检察机关保护知识产权典型案例(案例五). <https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/xwfbh/wsfbt/202104/t20210425_516525.shtml>;国家版权局 (2020). 2019 年度上海十大版权典型案件发布(上海市版权局发布,案例八:上海昱宫网络科技有限公司等侵犯著作权案). <https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ywxx/202004/t20200430_47269.html>
备注: 已经公布的外挂判例,都是读写游戏内存、绕过反作弊的那种。「只截屏、只模拟按键」的辅助还没见过官方判例。但第 3 条的抢票案说明,不碰内存、只发请求,一样能定非法获取数据罪。最后算不算犯罪、按哪个罪算,由办案机关根据厂商报案时交上去的材料定,不是作者说了算。卖 20 人次就够「情节严重」,这个量很小。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST