The Community Server Shouldn't Be Central; Shouldn't be Massive Multiplayer

[Lightslinger]

They didn't steal anything though. They simply took the game that they owned and chose to no longer operate it. This decision was entirely in their rights to make.

I support a private server initiative more than probably anyone here. I know without a doubt our community will come through and we'll be back home again someday, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. The teams working on these community servers should be very aware that what they're doing should remain underground until the game can be immortal by releasing it into the wild.

[JaguarX]

They didn't steal anything though. They simply took the game that they owned and chose to no longer operate it. This decision was entirely in their rights to make.

I support a private server initiative more than probably anyone here. I know without a doubt our community will come through and we'll be back home again someday, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. The teams working on these community servers should be very aware that what they're doing should remain underground until the game can be immortal by releasing it into the wild.

basically

[Captain Electric]

illegal.

Just a small nitpick--EULAs are written by corporate lawyers, not legislators.

This is for all of you. Please be more careful about tossing the word illegal around. It's a severely loaded word that's capable of causing anxiety, in this case where it's undue. If you're going to use that word, you should be able to quote federal laws alongside it. The reason no one ever does this is because there aren't any federal laws on the matter to quote. When you see people like me say (over and over and over) that all of this exists in a legal gray area, we're not mincing words or obfuscating some actual law somewhere. It exists in a legal gray area because servers and clients and emulators turn into a logical mess of spaghetti in the few cases when they do make it into the courts. This is scary for publishers, because there is a risk that at some point, precedence will be set against their favor at a high level in the courts.

Regardless, the legal process is enormously expensive for the rest of us, and server emulators almost always buckle at the sight of a cease and desist take-down notice. Those are written by corporate lawyers too, by the way, and can say just about anything those lawyers dream up--because they're not restricted by legal or even ethical standards. This is why people sometimes call them legal bullies. That's quite literally what some publishers pay them to be.

Finally, bear in mind that if emulators were literally illegal, publishers would risk nothing by taking all of the emulator creators to court. Companies like EA would not be able to give even limited blessings to fan-based server emulation projects like RunUO and Earth and Beyond Emu, because doing so would mean breaking the law. We would all be living in an alternate reality. Because that's not what happened in our universe.

At this point, armed with new knowledge, you may be asking yourself why you ever used the word illegal in the first place. Well, you probably did it because you heard someone else do it, or because you took the EULA and TOS for a video game as a legal document. Neither will lead to an accurate summary of the legal status of an emulator. Corporations deem EULAs as legally binding contracts, but some of the things publishers have asked players to sign over aren't even allowable in some states and countries; and the nature of a EULA's presentation and "signing" method has also been challenged by some of the same digital rights activists who labor to keep the World Wide Web open and free from government and corporate censorship and regulation--you know, the people who ask you to sign a petition every year or so and who've asked website owners to make their sites go dark for a day.

This issue goes beyond video games, and when you support the idea that software reverse engineering and server emulators are "illegal", you are supporting a whole range of nasty, greedy ideas espoused by the kinds of people who are seeking a wide scope of "ownership" over things that legal philosophers have generally agreed should not be ownable. If you knew what side you were putting yourself on by using the word illegal in this context, you'd probably not be happy with yourself. At all.

TL;DR: If you'd like to groupthink something, groupthink the idea that a non-profit, fan-based server emulation project isn't illegal.

[Captain Electric]

And Jaguar, you already knew better. Shame on you.  :P

[Ironwolf]

I agree, there is a clear difference in violating a EULA and seeking to profit from a IP.

If you were to open a server in another country and charge subscriptions or use the market to sellitems and rake in aprofit - that is completely different from a free to play community server. One is a business and the other is just an option to play freely. The business would and should be cracked down on. The free server (perhaps asking for funds to be given voluntarily to pay costs) is a new can of worms.

If at some point the code becomes available, I would happily list the costs associated to run the server/website and allow for a voluntary contribution to keep it running with a wide open bank account showing all funds recieved and all expended and what the expense was for. This is how you run a game server in my opinion.

I have hosted Halflife TFC servers and Soldier of Fortune 2 servers in the past. It was roughly $70 a month to do so plus a website at about $7 a month, so roughly $80 a month for a topflight server.

[Lightslinger]

Just a small nitpick--EULAs are written by corporate lawyers, not legislators.

This is for all of you. Please be more careful about tossing the word illegal around. It's a severely loaded word that's capable of causing anxiety, in this case where it's undue. If you're going to use that word, you should be able to quote federal laws alongside it. The reason no one ever does this is because there aren't any federal laws on the matter to quote. When you see people like me say (over and over and over) that all of this exists in a legal gray area, we're not mincing words or obfuscating some actual law somewhere. It exists in a legal gray area because servers and clients and emulators turn into a logical mess of spaghetti in the few cases when they do make it into the courts. This is scary for publishers, because there is a risk that at some point, precedence will be set against their favor at a high level in the courts.

Regardless, the legal process is enormously expensive for the rest of us, and server emulators almost always buckle at the sight of a cease and desist take-down notice. Those are written by corporate lawyers too, by the way, and can say just about anything those lawyers dream up--because they're not restricted by legal or even ethical standards. This is why people sometimes call them legal bullies. That's quite literally what some publishers pay them to be.

Finally, bear in mind that if emulators were literally illegal, publishers would risk nothing by taking all of the emulator creators to court. Companies like EA would not be able to give even limited blessings to fan-based server emulation projects like RunUO and Earth and Beyond Emu, because doing so would mean breaking the law. We would all be living in an alternate reality. Because that's not what happened in our universe.

At this point, armed with new knowledge, you may be asking yourself why you ever used the word illegal in the first place. Well, you probably did it because you heard someone else do it, or because you took the EULA and TOS for a video game as a legal document. Neither will lead to an accurate summary of the legal status of an emulator. Corporations deem EULAs as legally binding contracts, but some of the things publishers have asked players to sign over aren't even allowable in some states and countries; and the nature of a EULA's presentation and "signing" method has also been challenged by some of the same digital rights activists who labor to keep the World Wide Web open and free from government and corporate censorship and regulation--you know, the people who ask you to sign a petition every year or so and who've asked website owners to make their sites go dark for a day.

This issue goes beyond video games, and when you support the idea that software reverse engineering and server emulators are "illegal", you are supporting a whole range of nasty, greedy ideas espoused by the kinds of people who are seeking a wide scope of "ownership" over things that legal philosophers have generally agreed should not be ownable. If you knew what side you were putting yourself on by using the word illegal in this context, you'd probably not be happy with yourself. At all.

TL;DR: If you'd like to groupthink something, groupthink the idea that a non-profit, fan-based server emulation project isn't illegal.

I think a private server comes more into the realm of property, copyrights & patents than an EULA. Basically NCsoft owns CoH and the code (murky with Cryptic here) running it. If a private server uses those things without NCsoft's permission, it is not legal. And I don't get the whole "Do you realize how EVIL AND AWFUL you are for saying this?!!" tone of this reply...

Here's how I determined that: If CoH were still running and a private server project started, isn't that illegal? Most paying players would agree and probably support NCsoft's efforts to shut them down. The current state of CoH does not effect the legality of reverse engineering, only the "moral ground" we choose to justify it now.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on grounds of NCsoft owns the CoH IP and code. I very well may be, but I wasn't referring to the EULA in my post specifically.

That said, the server being non-profit helps the case tremendously, at least on moral grounds anyway. And as I'm sure you know, I support the efforts to get CoH back through reverse engineering 100%.

[JaguarX]

And Jaguar, you already knew better. Shame on you.  :P

of course.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes even illegal/legal/gray area is near moot is the court of law. It's somethimes depends on what you can prove and make sound good. That is why sometimes people get arrested for legal stuff and arrested in illegal manner while others get away with something illegal but got flipped to sound legal.


The U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 810


Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


And 17 USC § 1309 - Infringement-probably should definately be read and understood by anyone trying to take on the private server endeavor but if the EULA/TOS and mosts in forums are TL;DR, then they are in trouble and how many people get into legal trouble without even knowing and how people fold when in fact their actions were in fact legal.

But...

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.



Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Directly from USC U.S.C. : Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS
aka the federal law covering copyrights. Mind you this is for copyrights alone. and I only quoted a few parts of it that is pert. to the subject at hand for copyright.

Ya see, there is federal laws that cover this stuff and it's not the action that is illegal per se, it's about HOW the action is carried out that matters. And if anyone been in court it's not always about what is stated in the law but who knows the law better and can convince the judge they are right. And that starts with knowing what the law is in the first place. I bet many private server operators never read this stuff and just go and when cease and desist letter come they have no idea. But I bet those corporate lawyers, which usually are the cream of the crop in this area know exactly where those lines are but knows that the average joe knows next to nothing so they can say anything that sounds legal and get away with it no questions asked. And if someone do get questionable, they know the ins and out of the system to know they might be able to intimidate their way out merely by smashing them with their wallet. If that dont work, they might settle out of court under the guise, "It will save you money, and time. Here is 25,000 grand to shut up about it." when in fact ya are owed millions and they are only tryign to save themselves time and money. Not to mention the average joe dont know how to spot a good lawyer and many cant afford the good ones while the corporate ones usually have many that been working there for decades in that particular realm. So overall whether or not it's illegal or not is moot overall because it can be viewed either way, hence why it's called a gray area. Just like Cap. and others have said. With gray areas aka when it's not clearly legal nor clearly illegal, it can go either way which is why it's very important as Cap also suggested to keep things quiet. Because more they can use, easier it is for them to pursuade that particular court it is illegal or at least sounds illegal.


But keep it underground small no profits, then there is better chance a court will favor the user and say "no harm done, NCSoft, sorry but I see no illegal activity here. But as I said, cant go in there saying we should have our game back because we hold dear and true to our hearts and we miss it and it caused emotional stress and they "stole" our game then we will look like fools in the court of law. There is a time and place for emotions, like murder cases, violent crimes and the likes, criminal as in person violating the basic rights and or safety of another person but even then have to stick to the laws and the facts. Fact of the matter, NCSoft owns COX. That is the fact. Thus they didnt steal anything. We as comsumers was using said product and paid for the access motnh to month to use said product, regardless of years or emotional attachment, we paid, ncsoft gave access to it until next month or term that paid for.But if there is someone out there that paid for a month and did not get access to product they paid for that month, then that is whole different animal and get a lawyer right now and get to it. But with this private server thing they will have to prove we stole something, which they will come with quotes and facts from the laws that support their claim.

And we cant counter it with, "but...I played this game for years and it was the only game I liked. There are no replacements." Might as well hang it up. We have to fight with the law. But first that require reading the law. Now this post is long, maybe one of the over all longest I posted but the law is multiple times longer than this and if this is too long for reading then that goes back to my other point of the reason why people have no idea what their rights are and no idea what they can do or cant do because many didnt even bother readign stuff they agreed to and have no idea what parts that agree too is actuall enforceable by federal or state law which results in guessing and hearsay. And those corporate lawyers count on that happening. That is why those things are never short because they know good and well probably 99% of people never read it. (i think there was an experiment done with one major website that changed their EULA and TOS to include that "anyone that agree to this also agree to us having claim over any property they own and that they now work for us but must pay us "some sum" of money." So eventually they send an email to their user to "excercide their right to the agreement that the user claimed they read and agreed to by pressing the accept button. Of course their was out rage and many of the consumers reported they felt like donkies for reading it and realized that companies can add anything to those things and people just agree to it. Of course none of it was enforceable and the company had no desire to enforce it but to prove a point why it's important to read thsoe things.). But yeah so, if they know that majority of the people dont even read the EULAs and TOS they know good and well that most people never read the law and basically can tell them their version of the law without even having to state the contrary laws or even quote the law. On the flip side, many people get into trouble by not reading the law and assuminng that because it's gray area it means it's totally legal which is usually not the case.

That why I'm with Cap on this one in the OP that it's important to keep it low. We dont want to hand the case to them because as I said already with gray areas sometimes it comes down to what sounds better and who presents the better case for their side.

But if people are serious on making this a legal matter, read the law first and understand it before even searchign for lawyer. Remember that non-corporate bound lawyers dont come cheap either and unlike corporate lawyers who probably try to pursue cases they can win because if they have losing streak they might get fired while private hired lawyers soem dont give a rats ass because they will get paid either way and the average joe have no idea what the law is and actually have more comraderie with their fellow lawyers even ones on the other side of the bench than to the person that hired them. And if we approach a lawyer in a goofy way sure some will take the case it's pay day all the while laughing inside knowing that the case is lost with "NCSoft stole my game and I played for years and have emotional attachment to it and that is why I want to sue them."

Not saying that having emotions is wrong, I'm saying that this have to move beyond emotions and into the realm of law starting with knowing the law and coming up with a convincing reason of why should players be allowed to have private server without fear. Precident can be set but there will be no help fro mthe industry that make a killing from the current state and the average judge probably dont get that deep into game if at all and probably dont deal with gamers on a day to day basis and only know the few from the hooligans that come into his court room that did something stupid like hacking, vandalism, trespassing, stealing computers or beating up the pizza guy. Or her good for nothing son/nephew/grandchild/cousin/neighbor that spends all day and night playing that dang fangled WoW instead of being a contributing citizen to society. Because the "good gamers" the majority of gamers are not heard in the justice system. We are law abiding citizens that work for al iving, vote here and there and just happen to play a video game in the spare time a little. And also we mostly go by the game producer's word on the legal aspects and never challenge them and those that challenge them only take up to the web ranting raving crying sobbing, furiously and or create their own game or private servers in a wonton manner instead of focusing which make it non-threat to the establishment.

Corporate lawyers are top grade professional boxers of law. And no matter how angry how mad how upset how feeling of wrong, an average person aint going to usually get get anywhere getting into the ring wildly swinging. You might get a hit in or two as we done but usually ya might get ya block knocked off. We have to learn how to box before stepping in the ring. Just because ya won a few street fights and beat up a few out of shape average citizens that doesnt mean ya professional grade. And just because ya learn to box that is no gurantee of success but at least you stand a chance. They are lawyers, professional. Fine, lets get to the training and understanding exactly what these laws mean and say before building new private servers. And if the people that suggested suing NCSoft is serious about the idea have at it too. Know the stuff. Just because some run of the mill lawyer ya come across say you have case doesnt mean you do. Think about it. Of course you have a case. Everyone have a case but how much of a case? That statement could mean and usually mean "ha ha fat chance but I'll take ya money though." Would you pay them if they straight up said, "well we dont have a case to go by here but you pay me and we can go through the motions anyways and hope we hit lottery without being countersued." I wouldnt. There is a way to get awya with anything and everything from shoplifting to murder but it's about how it's presented and how much you know. That is the reason why two people can do the exact same crime i nthe same court and one can be found not guilty and the other one life in prison without possibility of parole. Or one could get 5 years in prison while the other one merely get probation both first offense. That is why a person can sue McDonalds and win 10 millions of dollars for getting fat while someone utterly lose their case when they got ill found rat poison in their double cheese burger.

I think I heard a quite before somewhere. "It's not what you know. It's what you can prove in court." Which is true and not true because it IS about what you can prove but what you can prove depends on what you know and HOW to prove it. Remember NCsoft IF they make a move, not suggesting they will or wont or wont or will or will and wont, they will bring their A-game and so will we. You know how many people are sitting in jail because they dont know thier appeal rights? A lot. You know how many people walk easy even after saying "yeah I murked her real good." because they knew the process? A lot.

Knowledge is power and we need to gain that power that is easily but oft over looked because "I dont have time to read all of that." "Its too long." "I just want to play the game I dont care about the legal stuff." "They wouldnt do it if it was illegal." "I dont care about the law." See, that is the mindset that corporations, other entities and those in the know want you to have because it make it easy to do what ever they want to you without you or anyone else getting wise. People sometimes forget that corporate lawyers are still...ready for it?...Ready for the shocker (not THAT shocker, you dirty minds you)?...they are still lawyers.  They are still also human. Only difference is they know the law while the avergae joe just guess the law. Funny thing is, the law is written but I bet 85%-95% of the population never bothered to read the laws that are a concern to them. In most states, on average about 20-100 laws are released each year or changed and I bet most people dont even know about or even seen the changes besides the ones that are announced and even less people challenge those laws to see it the laws are in fact constitutional. You'd be surprised how many unconstitutional laws slips through the cracks. Ever seen those cases where a law constitutionality is challenged and think 'Wow that law been around since 1976 and no one thought to challenge it until now? Wow the tons the of people that got arrested and or in financial ruin because of a law that was found to be illegal to begin with." Sure challenging them may result in total waste of time,well not total waste because sometimes even if it merely got someone to look at it and consider it is progress. The video game industry and MMOs are relatively new thus there is more cloud and uncertainties compared to more established stuff like film and music. If there is a time to challenge the established laws and procedures dealing with MMOs, that time is now. We here did the first step. We gathered and realized that somethign may not be totally right, I dont think overall, most here dont know exactly what but know it might be something. Figure out that something research it, push emotions to the side for moment and morals and etc., and come up with a reason of why the process of either closing down a game in NCSoft manner, private server legality, or what ever the case may be is, research the law with open clear eyes, and come up with compelling reason of why it shouldnt be the way things are and of course have to go beyond NCsoft closing COX because I doubt they will make a law that says "A company is allowed to close down any game and private server to a game they own and operate except any game or private server that COX players play."

Then sometimes it takes proposing a solution and sometimes that dont even require court, that shows it's a benefit to the company too to keep game operating to stated reason that goes beyond "you should keep it open because I and my friends play this game." Or "I been playing for years thus that give me right to life time access." It should be why they should keep it open. They could sell it, and probably should, but legally should they be forced to sell their property anymore than anyone else should be forced to say sell their weedwhacker because they are not currently using it  and garaged it and the neighbor who used it every month for the past 8 years still like it and want to use it. Should the owner of the weedwhacker be forced to sell it? Then think about if so, why? If not, then why? If not a citizen shouldnt be forced to sell their property that they owned then why should NCsoft be forced to sell? Would it be the nice thing to do to sell it to the neighbor since the neighbor been using that weedwhacker for years and the owner is not using it anyways? Of course. But by law should he/she be forced to? Of  course this dont apply to private servers in the thing that the neighbor can build his own weed whacker and the owner of the weedwhacker cant go in and sue for copyright. But the weedwhacker company might be able to sue if they took the label off and sold it as theirs and the analogy dont work well for private servers or copyright. While we on the short end of the stick people been forgetting ownership rights that NCSoft legally have and or have not considered them. And yes NCSoft COX COH Paragon Studios are registered trademarks by the way registered in the US at least and probably other places too, so more than likely NCSoft is well versed in US copyright federal laws and at least state laws that they have headquaters in like Texas and Washington. They probably know more about US copyright laws than their customers that live here. And wouldnt be surprised if they know a few court circuits that are favorable to corporate copyright rights and probably have a few corporate lawyers that focus solely on US copyright laws and other countries some they probably dont even have a live game in, never or dont plan to.



-But I think US Legal basically sums it up decently- A copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. The owner also receives the exclusive right to produce or license derivatives of his or her work. Limited exceptions to this exclusivity exist for types of "fair use", such as book reviews. Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and whether or not the work is registered. The federal agency charged with administering the act is the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.

[Sajaana]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the copywright law you mention, JaguarX:

§ 117 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the
owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the
computer program should cease to be rightful.

I placed the important part in bold.  One could say that the production of a mapserver is an "essential step in the utilization" of our computer program "in conjunction with" our personal computers.  Nobody here is talking about using it in another manner, such as money making.

[JaguarX]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the copywright law you mention, JaguarX:

§ 117 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the
owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the
computer program should cease to be rightful.

I placed the important part in bold.  One could say that the production of a mapserver is an "essential step in the utilization" of our computer program "in conjunction with" our personal computers.  Nobody here is talking about using it in another manner, such as money making.

Yup.

Remember sometimes it's not the action that is illegal it's HOW that action is done and used for.

[dwturducken]

The relevant legal point here, though, is: essential to whom?

[Ironwolf]

It would extremely simple to get a student or 2 on a project and a server could be created and ran based on Educational Use only. You could use it to show how an MMO is structured and the unique points of this game versus other MMO's.

You can indeed reverse engineer a server for Educational purposes.

[JaguarX]

It would extremely simple to get a student or 2 on a project and a server could be created and ran based on Educational Use only. You could use it to show how an MMO is structured and the unique points of this game versus other MMO's.

You can indeed reverse engineer a server for Educational purposes.

There you go.

[Sajaana]

The relevant legal point here, though, is: essential to whom?

Don't take this as official legal advice, but it refers to purposes "essential to the owner of the copy," or the end-user (us).

Copyright protection extends to the exclusive right to distribute a work.  But once a copy of a copyrighted work is lawfully sold or distributed, the copyright holder's interest in the copy is exhausted.

To use an example, Mercedes Lackey has a copyright over her books, which allows her in conjunction with a publisher to copy and distribute her books.  But this right of copy and distribution doesn't give her the right to come to your home and burn your Valdemar books post-sale.  This is what is called the "exhaustion rule," or the "right of first sale": her interest in the media object (the book) ends with the sale.  The person who legally acquires a media object has the right to use or dispose of the media object as the person (not the copyright holder) sees fit.

There are restrictions, of course.  The right of first sale does not give us the right to copy our files and sell them.

But as a Federal software case Vault v. Quaid (1988) states, "Section 117(1) contains no language to suggest that the copy it permits must be employed for a use intended by the copyright owner, and, absent clear congressional guidance to the contrary, we refuse to read such limiting language into this exception."

What this seems to suggest is that a copyright holder can distribute copies of its software, but it cannot dictate how the user must use the copy.

[JaguarX]

Don't take this as official legal advice, but it refers to purposes "essential to the owner of the copy," or the end-user (us).

Copyright protection extends to the exclusive right to distribute a work.  But once a copy of a copyrighted work is lawfully sold or distributed, the copyright holder's interest in the copy is exhausted.

To use an example, Mercedes Lackey has a copyright over her books, which allows her in conjunction with a publisher to copy and distribute her books.  But this right of copy and distribution doesn't give her the right to come to your home and burn your Valdemar books post-sale.  This is what is called the "exhaustion rule," or the "right of first sale": her interest in the media object (the book) ends with the sale.  The person who legally acquires a media object has the right to use or dispose of the media object as the person (not the copyright holder) sees fit.

There are restrictions, of course.  The right of first sale does not give us the right to copy our files and sell them.

But as a Federal software case Vault v. Quaid (1988) states, "Section 117(1) contains no language to suggest that the copy it permits must be employed for a use intended by the copyright owner, and, absent clear congressional guidance to the contrary, we refuse to read such limiting language into this exception."

What this seems to suggest is that a copyright holder can distribute copies of its software, but it cannot dictate how the user must use the copy.

alot have changed in the realm of software, electronic copyright stuff since 1988. For example, as many still believe and even I didnt even think about it until now when you mentioned that case is that about financial gain. Well it WAS a loophole but got closed in 1997 if I'm not mistaken by the NET Act or something.

And many cases lately post 1997 have not been friendly to people that share copyrighted materials, like MP3.com vs UMG where distribution of copyrighted material without copyright holder permission is infringement even if the buyer owns a copy of said media..Think that was in 2000 iirc. Then there is the big one...

The case of the EULA. End User License Agreements on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the license agreement by opening the box. But luckily I dont think the EULA have been put on the box but if merey opening a box is acceptance I would think it's greatly possible that actually clicking accept is also binding. From Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. 2005 9th circuit.

Bu there is light though, Rights holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice. If the notice is issued in bad faith, the rights holder could be held liable for misrepresentation. 2008. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.


Of course those cases are the bigger ones. There probably are thousands if not millions of other cases that are all over the place and back and forth and different results in different areas and times.


But one thing I think we all can take from this is private server or anything of the likes, just be careful. Dont do something stupid that cause another shutdown again. There is enough fear about private servers out there and dont need anymore with word of another one getting shut down or a dude that ran one got sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck, and godspeed to who ever is putting in the work in.


You know how many black market items that may be illegal legal gray that varies from the mundane fruits and vegtables to government secrets happen everyday? Millions. How do they do it? By not drawing attention to themselves. The ones that get caught are the ones that get lazy sloppy boastful and or not having a clue of what they are doing or getting into. Remember I see it everyday. I live on the border of our famous southern neighbors in a city that is valued to be a multi-billion, not millions, BILLIONS a year, trade route for illegal drugs to come into this country. And that is not including the worth of guns, cars, and various other illegal items that come across. Quiet.  Thus far it seems pretty mum about it and that is good thing but if one is here and just happen to come across here, good job. If anyone ask me about it, "I seen nothing."

[Sajaana]

Good points, JaguarX.

But I doubt the EULA is even applicable anymore now that the service it was connected to no longer exists.  What is undoubtedly applicable is copyright.

[JaguarX]

Good points, JaguarX.

But I doubt the EULA is even applicable anymore now that the service it was connected to no longer exists.  What is undoubtedly applicable is copyright.

Yup.


But game makers are getting brighter each day to make it hard. They are adding itrusive features each time some that already require internet connection in order to force regitration of the game and encryption code wit hreal life info and credit card that match the internet procider information even if the card will not be charged. And some are not even doing the box anymore meaning users cant even use the defense of "I purchased this game and I have a a right to use my pruchase." and more like you pay a sub each month that is for the monthly time that the game is up and the download is free. And even with F2P, nullify the "They hsould keep the game running because I put great investment into it!" which either way you pay a month you play. tit for tat. But F2P, players dont have much leg to stand on besides the stuff they but in the EULA is says the game can be shut down any time any moment so like all the gambling in COX gameplay, it is a gamble to buy stuff especially in small game. Then meaning if there is no purchase to be made outside the monthly rent, and the agreement that the game may be gone any day any moment in the EULA, then the defense that a private server should exist for most newer games that may be gone in future because the player purchased a box set and should have the right to use their purchase is being quickly nullified by download only and F2P. Man, I wonder if that is just coincidence or did they plan that all the while making it look like it was a Convienence for the player only.


But speaking of which do H&V, TPP, or Valiance have a EULA drafted up yet?

[Codewalker]

With the old COHUpdater, it was the updater that displayed the EULA / TOS and not the client itself, so if you didn't use the updater to run the game you could play without ever clicking "I agree".

Then they forced the use of the NCSoft Launcher instead, and moved the EULA to the client proper - right after you logged on.

On that day, I modded my client so that instead of the NCSoft EULA, it prompted me with this:
https://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/ft5512/misc/agreement_zps06e134f3.png

I gladly accepted that agreement, and will continue to honor it.

[dwturducken]

^^^ This is a double serving of fried gold! :)

[JanessaVR]

Codewalker, that is officially too awesome for words.   ;D

[emperorsteele]

.... ;_;

I actually tried hitting "I accept" in that screenshot. I miss me some CoH =(