Refraining from creating or selling game cheats and aids, including AI tools that only capture screenshots without touching memory

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.

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.

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

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.