Seperating Survival from development - our disks are the key.

[Thirty-Seven]

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?)

[Thirty-Seven]

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.

[Zolgar]

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.

[Soundtrack]

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.

Wow, that seems a bit harsh.

[QuantumHero]

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   
 

[Gothica]

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.

[Thirty-Seven]

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.

[Thirty-Seven]

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.

[CapaDevans]

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.)

[dwturducken]

I can sum up my impression of all the llegal argument threads  with this. 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.)

[Olantern]

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.)

[Hyperstrike]

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.

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.

[Aggelakis]

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.