What is the difference between a product and a service?
A product is a tangible item a consumer purchases which they have the reasonable belief is completely under thier control to utilize for the intended purpose.
A service is a non-tangible use of skills and/or resources that adds value or improves function. It can be sold seperately or in conjunction with a product.
Now why am I talking about this? Because the City of Heroes, City of Villians, and Going Rogue Disks that we purchased are a product NOT a service. They exist for the express purpose of allowing us to play the game and the act of playing the game should convey perpetual USAGE of any intellectual property contained on that disk for the purposes of playing said game.
This is true everywhere except for poor saps like us playing on a server based MMO. And its not just CoH players who need to challenge that philosophy.
I contend the server is a seperate service which they have every right to discontinue, just as the legal IP holder has every right to cease or continue further development...but NOT to leave us without a functioning product or the right to "repair" our existing product so that it continues to function as a game.
Are these untested legal water, almost definately, but just hear me out. As far as I'm concerned they can do the right thing and help craft a players bill or rights fo the MMO industry or all players of every single cancelled game should be in a single class action law suit
When you buy a Music CD is that not intellectual property? And do you not have the perpetual right to listen to music for your own private enjoyment irregardless of any other considerations solely based on the fact that you have bought ?. If the music company offered added value in online content, discontinuing that content doesn't make your CD stop working or give them the right to confiscate the entire CD?
What about when a band breaks up...does all thier old music just go away?
Lets move to books, if the author switches publishers, a series ends, a book is reprinted, or the author sadly passes on....you can still read your existing books that you purchased. Right? Because you bought the book, and that is the purpose of a book. An outlet through which to read.
How about ebooks, does your ISP, Amazon or anyone else have the right to just randomly encrypt your existing purchase, or otherwise render it no longer opperative?
Lets try a car...imagine a world where a dealer could tell you that your car could only receive fuel, maintenance, or repairs from them...and then they decided to to stop making your car...and you were still bared from getting a single other tank of gas ever from anyone.
Right now we own that car, and they just told us we are closing the only gas station you are allowed to use November 30th. No judge in thier right mind would ever allow a car company to pull that garbage.
How about a cancelled TV show...are all the DVDs and blue rays you purchased not legally yours to watch in perpetuity? Does someone take them away from the library, tell buyers that now that the show is ended they can't even watch it at home?
So now lets look at games are they different...and the answer is no the exact same rules should apply, and they sure appear to.
Board games don't get shipped back to companies or destroyed when they are no longer being published, they sit in basements and boxes And they get played.
Anyone have an original NES, Sega Genesis, Atari, Intellivision, etc...you still have the right to hook them up and play them right? And what about those game cartridges, thats right you can play them or not as you choose or sell them to a re-seller where someone else can buy and continue to use them.
What about computer games...anyone ever played an old game, had a LAN party, or joined a small private server for a game that is no longer being made. Assuming your original purchase was legal and all players are also using legal games there is not a single law you are even bending. No matter how many years have passed since the game was released, or even whether that publisher has folded under thier own abject stupidity.
Since we as a community bought the various city of disks (for those who bought digital copies?)in no way shape or form are we ever going to infringing on anyone's intellectual property rights by USING the item we have puchased for its intended purpose. So how do we do that when half the code is locked away on a server.
The problem is, irregardless of whether anyone gains the rights to further COH or spin off development (*cough* paragon studios, titan, valve, etc *cough*, as things stand now NCsoft will be leaving us without a viable stand-alone, private server, or LAN enabled version of this game...they don't have to continue supporting or developing for us but they do need to leave us with something that is physically capable of functioning in a near aproximation of what we had.
In other words we purchased a product that came with the service...we are entitled to retain use of that product in a functional capacity.
So as I see it, they can give all VIP and Premiere players a patch or working disk that enables functiong client based gaming while using LAN or the internet to enable teaming. And still being able to sell this revised version of te game on shelves.
Sell a perpetual usage of server module, maintenance tools, and basic dev tools to the community for reasonable one time fees (giving them some extra income) and us a very easy transition.
Or fully cooperate with community efforts to "port" the game over to a stand alone and/or community server and come out of this as heroes.
That is how you sunset a game...and it has nothing to do with the legal rights to further development...of which I am also in full support.
This community needs to fight for that much, up to and including in a court of law, because if the entire MMO industry does not accept something very similar as industry practice, then every single MMO player of any game needs to enter into a class action law suit and aquire a players bill of rights.
Lets hear from the lawyers....and everyone else ;)
*gets popcorn*
This discussion could get pretty interesting...
Hmm. I like this line of thought. A class action against NCSoft by all of their former players could be pretty interesting to see.
I want to point out the game boxes (regardless of "edition") say: "Additional online fees required" & "Internet connection required" with the latter making it clear to the buyer that you need the internet to play it, because it's an online game and will not function in the absence of an internet connection. It seems like a fair warning that you cannot play this game offline and by buying it you understand it will be more or less useless if the required internet connection is removed from the equation. They're not required to make it function offline. So if NCsoft decides to shut down their servers, which is within their rights, the players are unfortunately out of luck. Perhaps I'm off base with this but I wanted to bring it up.
Quote from: Teege on September 17, 2012, 09:24:21 PM
I want to point out the game boxes (regardless of "edition") say: "Additional online fees required" & "Internet connection required" with the latter making it clear to the buyer that you need the internet to play it, because it's an online game and will not function in the absence of an internet connection. It seems like a fair warning that you cannot play this game offline and by buying it you understand it will be more or less useless if the required internet connection is removed from the equation. They're not required to make it function offline. So if NCsoft decides to shut down their servers, which is within their rights, the players are unfortunately out of luck. Perhaps I'm off base with this but I wanted to bring it up.
Yeah, but it says "internet connection" not "access to NCSoft servers".
It seems like a trivial thing, but didn't someone win a lawsuit a couple years ago because they got burned by hot coffee and the cup said "Contents may be hot" not "Contents may cause burns"?
Quote from: Ampithere on September 17, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Yeah, but it says "internet connection" not "access to NCSoft servers".
I'd think that is extremely trivial. You know it's a game that will not function offline and you purchased it knowing that if something bad happens you'll be sitting on it. You could have opted not to buy it with the knowledge presented to you. Just saying in my opinion, it seems as frivolous as the mentioned Mc. Donald's lawsuit.
Quote from: Teege on September 17, 2012, 09:33:43 PM
I'd think that is extremely trivial. You know it's a game that will not function offline and you purchased it knowing that if something bad happens you'll be sitting on it. You could have opted not to buy it with the knowledge presented to you. Just saying in my opinion, it seems as frivolous as the mentioned Mc. Donald's lawsuit.
Frivolous, yes, but it's little language things like that which can win lawsuits.
Please note, I am not a lawyer. No advice I give is to be accepted as legal advice. Please consult your doctor if inflammation, chronic coughing, or nose bleeds occur as a result of using my advice.
Quote from: Ampithere on September 17, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
Yeah, but it says "internet connection" not "access to NCSoft servers".
It seems like a trivial thing, but didn't someone win a lawsuit a couple years ago because they got burned by hot coffee and the cup said "Contents may be hot" not "Contents may cause burns"?
I like this line of thinking. Trivial or not, the important thing is it's all in the wording. Since it is stated "internet connection required" and not "NCSoft server access required" that leaves somewhat of a loop hole, because it wasn't specific enough. So, as long as we have internet connection, we should be able to play the game as long as we have the access to the internet. It's the "little loop holes" that a lot of people do not think of and sometimes are the ones that could either bite us or save us, depending on your perspective.
(Just my own personal thoughts and opinion and in no way am I an expert in law nor am I a lawyer)
I'd be happy if one of our lawyer friends could chime in (not for advice, but rather opinion). Speaking of opinions... I'd like to think we, as heroes, are better than searching for loopholes in an exploration for mass lawsuits.
Quote from: Teege on September 17, 2012, 09:33:43 PM
I'd think that is extremely trivial. You know it's a game that will not function offline and you purchased it knowing that if something bad happens you'll be sitting on it. You could have opted not to buy it with the knowledge presented to you. Just saying in my opinion, it seems as frivolous as the mentioned Mc. Donald's lawsuit.
Frivilous is not a term I would use for the suit, which found that McDonalds was raising the temperature of their coffee over the 160 degrees allowed by law to over 180 degrees (reportedly 185, at which third degree burns happen in 6 seconds) and that they had been cited multiple times for burns beforehand. The woman who filed the suit suffered severe burns due to the companies negligence.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/107/t/000479.html
Actually, any disk-based product that we purchased will continue to work after Nov. 30. Copies of the game client will be able to be booted, and will be able to attempt to connect to, and retrieve content from, specific servers. The product included in the box will 100% work as intended.
The game box, however, contains more than just that product. It also contains a license to the City of Heroes servers. And that license is subject to specific conditions, as outlined in the EULA you need to accept before connecting to the servers. That licence is what NCSoft are terminating. And the EULA gives them the right to terminate it, probably subject to certain conditions (I haven't read it through thoroughly any time recently).
This product+license-to-a-service system is actually pretty much the standard in almost all software, actually. Hell, they pretty much all don't even give you a product as part of the sale, officially. Chances are pretty good, the game disk is legally considered to have been a copy of the game client provided for free with your licence purchase, in order to better facilitate installation. Everything, from Windows, to apps on an iPhone, to single-player video games, are NOT purchased. Every one, you purchase a licence to use the software, subject to some conditions, and if the person you bought the licence from revokes it, then you aren't legally allowed to use that software any more. This applies to anything with an EULA (End User Licensing Agreement).
I agree that it's an interesting notion. It's probably a bit more complicated than what you are laying (eg. billymailman's post), but I always thought that MMOs exist in a somewhat gray world concerning ownership.
I certainly purchased a product, heck, I purchased a COH and COV and Going Rogue. 3 products. But I also have been paying subscription fees...because my purchased products don't work without those subscription fees. Just like the box says. So there really could be something there.
Of course the same argument could be taken ad absurdum...what if there was only one COH player left in the world who in 2057 would insist on using his product. Surely you could not require anyone to provide a server for that.
Interesting thought though...
The unfortunately-relevant portion of the EULA is 2(c) pasted below. My own opinion and interpretation of how it applies:
I am ethically (by agreeing) and legally (if the EULA is legally binding) required to stop using the client if NCSoft revokes the license.
I don't know what standard procedure must be followed by NCSoft in order for the license to be considered legally revoked, but that doesn't matter.
For me, legality and ethics are not always the same.
I require explicit written or verbal notice that the "license is revoked" from an NCSoft representative that I accept, in order to feel ethically required to stop using the client.
***
License Grant - Any Service, Content or Software supplied by NCsoft is licensed, not sold, by NCsoft. All title and rights not expressly granted in this agreement, including but not limited to any IP right and the display thereof, are retained by NCsoft and/or third-parties under agreement with NCsoft. NCsoft hereby grants You a revocable, non-exclusive, license for personal and non-commercial use of Service, Content and Software that is non-transferable except as permitted under Section 9(c).
***
Of course there's always 16(c), which provides all sorts of ways to discard the EULA entirely...at least on ethical grounds.
Quote from: Scott Jackson on September 17, 2012, 11:23:35 PM
I require explicit written or verbal notice that the "license is revoked" from an NCSoft representative that I accept, in order to feel ethically required to stop using the client.
Unfortunately, you don't have to just stop using the client. On Nov. 30, when the servers go down, that constitutes NC revoking the license.
Don't forget that there are some laws that take precedence over clickwrap licenses entirely. That's why they include so many "if this provision can't be enforced, then this applies instead" clauses. It's because the writers are trying to get you to give up your rights in a one-sided agreement (I won't even call it a contract since in a real contract both parties are supposed to be equitably benefited), so they throw as much BS in there as possible in the hopes that some of it gets past the protective laws.
This is especially true if you bought a boxed copy in a store. However the details are murky right now, and depending on where you live, you may or may not have a legal leg to stand on. If you're in the 9th Circuit jurisdiction, you're fairly screwed, precedent-wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.). If you're in another state then you might be able to claim that it was a sale, and be legally in the clear to bypass any technical measures preventing you from using the product that you purchased. The DMCA has some provisions for bypassing copy-protection in that circumstance -- other forms of reverse engineering may or may not be covered.
There's also the fact that NCSoft did, and currently still does, offer the client free for download -- before you accept any agreements. A court may or may not decide to look upon that as a tacit grant of license to use. For that to work though, you may only be able to use older clients from before they moved the license screen from the launcher (which is not technically required) into the client itself.
Of course you should consult a lawyer first to evaluate your options.
Quote from: billymailman on September 18, 2012, 12:01:07 AM
On Nov. 30, when the servers go down, that constitutes NC revoking the license.
That's one possible definition. It may even be the "legal" one in some jurisdictions. But in case my post wasn't obvious on the point - I am ethically permitted to reject that permissive definition of revocation, as I never agreed to it. NCSoft isn't the only one who can make EULAs. My reverse-EULA says that NCSoft is bound to my definitions, by accepting my money. ;)
Quote from: Scott Jackson on September 18, 2012, 02:55:21 AM
That's one possible definition. It may even be the "legal" one in some jurisdictions. But in case my post wasn't obvious on the point - I am ethically permitted to reject that permissive definition of revocation, as I never agreed to it. NCSoft isn't the only one who can make EULAs. My reverse-EULA says that NCSoft is bound to my definitions, by accepting my money. ;)
Okay. Meaning what? You'll continue to run the launcher? It's not going to be much good.
I'm sorry, I'm just honestly confused what you're suggesting here. The game client alone is kinda useless.
I havent understood most of this thread, but I like what i've been getting as the general notion. So, where does this leave us? At a point where we need a lawyer to validate these theories?
Now it seems to me, being no one even remotely educated in law (but tending to have that super power Deadpool is famous for: common sense)..
The point of this thread is not that NCSoft has to keep the servers running, but that they cannot prevent us from utilizing the software which we have purchased.
This is a very murky area to try and delve in to.. we can use the game client to our hearts content- that is what we purchased. If we try to utilize that game client and our own 3rd party software and servers to be able to continue to play the game, we would then be violating some form of intellectual property laws. The graphics, the names, the places, the power sets, etc. are all copyrighted (even if said copyright wasn't registered). The code used is proprietary, the engine is proprietary..
That's what the service we pay for monthly covers. That's what the EULA covers.
Whether or not EULAs are binding contracts? Don't even want to get in to that..
That said, the idea (I hope it was a joke) of a 'reverse EULA' only works if the company has been given the opportunity to read it, and was required to verify that they have read it before they take your money. If you paid them via PayPal with a message saying "by accepting this money, you are agreeing that you have read and will abide by (link to your TOS)" .. that might actually work. >.>
My point was, that the EULA doesn't define the process by which a license to use the client is revoked. I never agreed to an NCSoft definition of what makes revocation official. Therefore, we each decide what that means ethically.
The launcher would be useless; the client is not entirely. It is needed to play back demorecord files while offline, for example.
So I don't have an ethical problem using it for such a purpose, until I personally receive *proper* notification that the license is revoked. I'm not telling anyone else what to do legally or ethically here.
Does anyone seriously think that a multinational, multimillion dollar company doesn't have a legal team capable of having already handled this highly speculative and likely futile train of thought? To seriously think that playing semantics can save our game seems like a reckless flight of fancy to me.
There is a line between hope and... well... let me put this bluntly: lunacy.
Mayhap your time would be better spent with more logical... realism-based methods? Kudos to you for coming up with such an "innovative" idea and if this turns out to mean anything and I am wrong... awesome, but I doubt I will be.
(Muses: Do you suppose this is the denial or bargaining stage of grief?)
To discuss th OP more directly:
None of the examples used in the OP (music, books, cars) match our situation because of one crucial difference: we bought this product with full knowledge that its functionality hinged on continued service provision from NCSoft (i.e. the servers). Your entire argument is predicated on a false comparison... on a situation that doesn't exist. Take your car example: if someone bought a car that runs on purified flebotinum... and the only place you could get it was from your dealership (Flebo Motors), first, you'd be an idiot, but second you would be entering that situation on your own free will. Just like here with CoH.
Yes, it sucks that NCSoft turned off the tap of our "flebotinum" but we knew that going in to it. They have that right, its in the EULA that I am sure you read in full before you logged in the first time, right?
Also, let me point out that "irregardless" isn't a word... and the fact that you use it in a discussion predicated on a semantic argument with legal ramifications really diminishes your point, IMO.
Quote from: Scott Jackson on September 18, 2012, 08:13:17 AM
My point was, that the EULA doesn't define the process by which a license to use the client is revoked. I never agreed to an NCSoft definition of what makes revocation official. Therefore, we each decide what that means ethically.
The launcher would be useless; the client is not entirely. It is needed to play back demorecord files while offline, for example.
So I don't have an ethical problem using it for such a purpose, until I personally receive *proper* notification that the license is revoked. I'm not telling anyone else what to do legally or ethically here.
Technically speaking, they're not revoking your right to use the client at all. They're only terminating the service they provide which is tied to the client.
The EULA of the client software still stand though..
If you want to keep the client on your computer to play back recorded demos you did? That's fine and dandy.
If you want to reverse engineer the client and create your own server for you and 3 of your friends to play on? That's technically a violation of the EULA (probably), but really couldn't/wouldn't be enforced because it's hard to catch someone keeping a 'personal' server.
If you want to get a team of people together and reverse engineer the client and make a server to let all of Titan Network play on? That's almost definitely a violation of the EULA, but they might let it go in so long as no money was made through providing that service.
If you want to reverse engineer the client to produce a server you charge people $10/month to play on? You're gonna get slapped with a cease and desist order, plus probably sue you for the income from running said server.
Quote from: Thirty7 on September 18, 2012, 09:19:53 AMAlso, let me point out that "irregardless" isn't a word... and the fact that you use it in a discussion predicated on a semantic argument with legal ramifications really diminishes your point, IMO.
Wow, that seems a bit harsh.
Since you asked for me directly Thirty 7, Original Poster climbing back out of the woodwork for a moment. :)
And I would also like to express appreciation for eveyone reading and commenting on this thread...because most of you do seem to understand at least some of what I am saying, however a few potential implications are still being missed.
First Thirty 7: The word Irregardless - I did not, at any point in crafting the original post, utilize a dictonary or theasaurus. I do admit deliberately using the "more educated" section of my innate vocabulary. I guess it happens to include the "non-standard" word "irregardless", which according to the web search I just conducted is controversal. Apparently it has existed since at least 1927, is sometimes used by even educated speakers for emphasis, is in some dictonaries, but is usually listed as non-standard. So mea culpa, if it really matters that much. Although my actual argument is based on more then mear semantics.
Everyone - Could we pursue this ona purely semantic level, sure. But this concept is based on more then just pure semantics.
To take the example of the car, I wish I could remember the exact real world case but there is a reason that after-market and generic supplies exist for so many things...I vaguely recall a judge ruling that some company had "vacated" the market place thereby openning the door for someone else to fill the gap and make the consumable a product needed to continue functioning. I didn't want to place that in the original post, because I honestly can't retrieve enough of the details...I think it was in the early 90s.
Yes we require the internet to play, but it does not require an NCsoft server. And no we wouldn't be able to charge a membership for use of server software (possibly a small fee for purchase and maintenance of physical hardware could be justified) unless negotiated with the IP holder. But this isn't about profit it is about our right to have a functioning product.
I am saying that we purchased the right to a client that functions and that includes any software componants that were stored for convienance on the ncsoft server.
Our monthly fees supported further development of the software, hardware, and a staff. Well now that they are discontinuing said service, they need to leave us a functioning product. We do not have the right to make money from it or create any kind of derivative work but we do have the right to restore what we had to opperation. They can supply us with that information or we can create a "generic" version since they have vacated the field and left us with no other recourse.
I know this is untested legal waters...but we did buy a product and I am saying the very concept of them being able to hamstring us like this is what needs to be declared illegal.
Airline passengers now have a bill of rights in a situation where traditionally and legally nothing previously existed. First the industry was asked to craft one themselves then one was forced upon them by law.
All MMO players need a basic bill of rights so that we are placed on equal footing with every other type of consumer out there....otherwise I am not just boycotting NCsoft I am boycotting MMOs and so should you.
We bought a product, and no other product, even those that involve intellectual property, work in a way that is so inherantly abusive to the consumer...and Disclaimers and EULA themselves have often been shown as less then useful when actually challenged.
Did we buy disks or rent them? They can't have it both ways. The monthly fees allowed online access and updates...give me at least an offline game or I was "renting" all three of my disks and so was my husband....so pony up ncsoft you can keep all monthly fees for actual services rendered but thats $300 for our household...I need my "security deposit" within thirty days of eviction to go "rent" the next game. Oh and those little add-ons and extra money I spent on aquiring extra paragon points, or buying things like the magic pack, and the pocket d vip pas....that is owned back as well. Would you like to return that money to all players as well as remaining paid subscription money.
This isn't semantics...to me this is a "point of honor".
And now I really need to go to work
It's been a while since I took copyright law, and it wasn't a particularly good class, so be warned.
The EULA very clearly phrases this as a service that is licensed and that NCSoft retains title to pretty much everything. Your analogy to CD's and books is, unfortunately, not quite accurate. You're buying the music CD itself, i.e. the physical medium, but you're only buying a license to the content--the actual music--which remains the property of the musician or the company or whoever. If you copied and resold that content, or even gave it away, you'd be violating the license terms and would be liable. Likewise, you're only buying the physical CDs of CoH, and not rights to the IP contained on them. Likewise, if you tried to use this IP in a way that the EULA says you cant--like playing it when NCSoft doesn't want you to--then the law and the IP rights are on their side.
By now, this issue has been litigated extensively--I just browsed through Lexis to get an idea how much (and I had to stop after about ten minutes). Bill Gates was one of the first agitators on this point way back in the '70s, when he wrote a letter to hobbyists who shared around copies of his software accusing them in so many words of stealing his IP rights. (If you're interested, a jpg of the letter is here at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg ). Since then we've had several pieces of major copyright legislation, and lots of case law, in the US, a great deal of it dealing specifically with the newish world of digital IP.
Now these things do develop. I'm not saying it's impossible. There have been several revolutionary moments in Anglo-American law when a court somewhere suddenly changed its basic understanding of a word, phrase, or concept. So the OP isn't off-base. But I don't think that that is of practical help here, certainly not in the short run, and here's why.
First, as OP notes, it would involve litigation. And litigation is slow and expensive. Even if we filed suit today it wouldn't have any bearing on the Nov. 30 deadline, which is, I think, our first concern. And it probably wouldn't even provide NCSoft incentive to change its stance in the longer run. If I were NCSoft and I got sued over this, my attorneys would tell me (truthfully) that precedent is on their side. I doubt if even the cost of defending the suit would make them want to settle, since they obviously think the millions they are freeing up by killing CoH will bring them even more millions if used differently. It would have to be truly major litigation to offset the kind of money they anticipate realizing by killing CoH.
Second, there are often incremental changes leading up to the big legal revolution. Again, I'm no specialist, but I'm not aware of any such changes going on. Were we to file a lawsuit, that suit itself might eventually be an increment. But that won't save CoH.
Sorry to be a downer. I'm in favor of making all reasonable efforts to save CoH, and maybe a few unreasonable ones, but I don't think this idea has a realistic chance.
Respectfully submitted.
Whether I like it or not, the mere existance of DRM has made arguments of ownership murky. From my decidedly un-lawyery position, the item you bought (the game discs) were precisely what you paid for: a disc with install data for a game that only works as long as the Company says so (refer to EULA for this disclosure... that you agreed to). What you further paid for was access to digital merchandise (which you recieved) and which is also dependent on the Comapny allowing access to their servers. Finally, your subscription was paid to allow you to rent access to the game servers ;and that too was delivered). Finally, when the game went F2P, your subscription garnered special in-game perks.
So, I really can't tell what you paid for that you didn't get. Don't get me wrong, I don't like this situation either... but I really don't see a logical claim here.
If what you want to do is begin a crusade for MMO gamers' rights, I think that is a great idea, but that will take a long time... and steal much needed steam from the campaign to save this game... here and now. So, either dial back your immense scope, or IMO, start your own website.
Quote from: Soundtrack on September 18, 2012, 01:54:03 PM
Wow, that seems a bit harsh.
A bit, yeah. But as I saw this entire argument (at the time) as merely a game of words, use of language suddenly became important... more so than the ordinary amount of esteem it holds for me.
Hence the comment I made... which was mostly an afterthought.
Not everyone has game disks. I've never seen any in the shops here.
(Oddly not having disks is a regret if it does close.)
I can sum up my impression of all the llegal argument threads with this (http://xkcd.com/546/). Barring a special contract directly negotiated with the publisher or studio, any lawsuit would be thrown out as frivolous. That's the common sense of it.
(Though I do download music from less pay-intensive sources if it was paid for at least once and lost due to a hardware failure outside of my influence.)
Gothica hit all the points I wanted to make. I don't think this is a productive line of argument.
Speaking as a professor, though, I am impressed with the parsing of meaning going on in this thread. I just don't think any court would agree with the OP, for the reasons Gothica discussed.
(Gothica, I am sorry your copyright class was bad ... my IP class was one of my better ones because I wisely choose to take it from a visiting practitioner, not a full-time professor.)
Quote from: Zolgar on September 18, 2012, 04:03:48 AMThis is a very murky area to try and delve in to.. we can use the game client to our hearts content- that is what we purchased.
IANAL, but there's already standing case law for this.
With the various "boxed" editions.
You did NOT "purchase" the software.
You purchased a box with stuff in there. Including an install CD. It conveyed no rights to the software itself.
It conveyed the right to install their launcher on your machine.
It conveyed the right to access their service for so long as it was in production.
Contingent on these rights was, originally, the understanding that you would continue to pay a monthly subscription.
Later, with Freedom, the subscription became an optional thing that included additional "perks".
You can take this to whatever court you like. Unless you're bribing someone bigtime, they're not going to reverse the existing case law.
You didn't buy the game. You bought the right to rent the game (first with subscription fees required, then with subscription fees optional) while they have it active. You have no grounds to stand this style of lawsuit on.