And the mask comes off.

[Zerohour]

HEY!  Mr. Downes!

How about an update? It's been 14 months since your mask came off - how about some hard information? People are dying over here!

I don't think he's got much to do with it anymore.  As far as I know he is still developing City of Titans, and I would suspect that he doesn't have the time to try and juggle both projects.  Not to mention, CoX coming back would likely have somewhat of an adverse effect on the excitement we all have for his new game.

[MM3squints]

I don't think he's got much to do with it anymore.  As far as I know he is still developing City of Titans, and I would suspect that he doesn't have the time to try and juggle both projects.  Not to mention, CoX coming back would likely have somewhat of an adverse effect on the excitement we all have for his new game.

Not really. The main reason to get IP I suspect is to use the material of the IP for all spiritual success games. This includes CoT, Valiance, etc. Having CoX to play is just a nice extra side dish, but in a general business sense and to make a true successor (not just in spirit) they want to incorporate all the characters/factions/etc in the future games.

[Taceus Jiwede]

HEY!  Mr. Downes!

How about an update? It's been 14 months since your mask came off - how about some hard information? People are dying over here!

There is no nice way to say this.  But no, be patient.  You are in no position to demand anything.

[darkgob]

HEY!  Mr. Downes!

How about an update? It's been 14 months since your mask came off - how about some hard information? People are dying over here!

Nobody is dying, hyperbole is not useful here.  Please read this thread, follow the instructions contained therein, and move on with your life.

Not really. The main reason to get IP I suspect is to use the material of the IP for all spiritual success games. This includes CoT, Valiance, etc. Having CoX to play is just a nice extra side dish, but in a general business sense and to make a true successor (not just in spirit) they want to incorporate all the characters/factions/etc in the future games.

I sure hope they told the folks working on Atlas Park Revival then...

[Felderburg]

Not really. The main reason to get IP I suspect is to use the material of the IP for all spiritual success games. This includes CoT, Valiance, etc. Having CoX to play is just a nice extra side dish, but in a general business sense and to make a true successor (not just in spirit) they want to incorporate all the characters/factions/etc in the future games.

I was under the impression that CoT said they wouldn't use any CoH stuff even if the deal went through?

[MM3squints]

[Felderburg]

That says to me that APR will get a way to make an actual playable game out of the visual assets that they are creating, and that game will be CoH 1.5. It does not say that CoT is actually going to put Statesman et al. in their lore, or do anything other than drop "spiritual" from their epithet.

[MM3squints]

That says to me that APR will get a way to make an actual playable game out of the visual assets that they are creating, and that game will be CoH 1.5. It does not say that CoT is actually going to put Statesman et al. in their lore, or do anything other than drop "spiritual" from their epithet.

Not so much put in Statesman (although that can be an option,) but to make references to CoX (Wherever CoT is located, you can have several mission saying:

"We need to stop "X" from destroying the city with sound waves. I heard something similar happened back in Independence Port in Rhode Island, could they be related?"

That is a very basic and simplified exampled. If you look at some of the CoT established lore, they do have a faction parallel Paragon City Crey Industries (Then again a corporation with shadow motives pretty much standard) and they can tie in Crey Industries. Of course, Nate said if desired, they can incorporate this, but seeing that Nate is fighting to get this, more than likley CoT will have certain aspects of this

[Arcana]

[Arcana]

I cannot see how CoX is an abandoned property when it is in closed negotiation for transfer of ownership

The term "abandoned" as it pertains to the Librarian of Congress DMCA exemption is colloquial: the specific situation being addressed is the case where a game requires technical support from the vendor to function even for otherwise local play.  Such a game is considered "abandoned" in the sense that the game requires something from the vendor to work, and the vendor no longer offers that thing, so the game no longer functions.  Such a game is considered "abandoned" in the context of the DMCA exemption, but its not "abandoned" in the sense of the owner of the game literally surrendering the rights to the game or offering them into the public domain.  In fact, the DMCA exemption explicitly does *NOT* allow someone to violate the copyrights associated with the game: the exemption ONLY eliminates the DMCA protection normally provided that would prevent someone from reverse engineering the technology in the game in order to make it function again.

To offer a loose analogy, if City of Heroes was a single player game that also offered some LAN play between players, then the DMCA exemption would make Icon legal (or more specifically, it would make Icon not in violation of the DMCA in the US).  Paragon Chat, however, would not be covered by the exemption and would technically still be in violation of the DMCA (in the US) because it enabled online play (of sorts).  But Icon would be a legitimate use case of enabling our use of local CoH play because NCSoft "abandoned" the authentication servers that would otherwise be required to make CoH work: Icon would bypass that requirement, exactly the use case that the LoC exemption envisioned.

[Codewalker]

Paragon Chat, however, would not be covered by the exemption and would technically still be in violation of the DMCA (in the US) because it enabled online play (of sorts).

It's true that the new exemption doesn't help Paragon Chat. However, it's merely an exemption to the law itself -- it remains to be seen if PC actually violates the DMCA, since the piece being distributed doesn't contain any copyrighted material. The part that could possibly be invoked is claiming that it's a tool that is prohibited by the anti-circumvention provisions. That depends on successfully arguing that the network protocol is a TPM (Technical Protection Measure), which is tenuous at best, especially if expert witnesses were to testify that the protocol is difficult to implement simply due to obscurity, not a competent attempt to control access.

I'd have to check as there is a lot of literature and my day job isn't copyright law, but there may already be a separate exemption for protocol interoperability.

The exemption doesn't help at all with the possibility of a full game -- the server-only data such as mission content and XP tables is still covered by copyright. Players never had access to it and even if the exemption did apply to multiplayer games, it would not compel NCSoft to release that data. There would be no legal means to obtain it. The best we could hope for would be an exemption to protect people trying to painstakingly recreate it from scratch -- and that would be very strongly opposed by industry lobbyists.

Right now what we have is not useful at all for dead MMOs, though it is a nice middle finger to publishers that shipped single-player titles with online activation requirements. It's a foot in the door that could possibly be widened later, but don't forget that these exemptions have to be renewed regularly, so the EFF may have their hands full just keeping this one alive. The best any of us can do is to keep supporting that cause and pushing for more reforms.

[Arcana]

It's true that the new exemption doesn't help Paragon Chat. However, it's merely an exemption to the law itself -- it remains to be seen if PC actually violates the DMCA, since the piece being distributed doesn't contain any copyrighted material. The part that could possibly be invoked is claiming that it's a tool that is prohibited by the anti-circumvention provisions. That depends on successfully arguing that the network protocol is a TPM (Technical Protection Measure), which is tenuous at best, especially if expert witnesses were to testify that the protocol is difficult to implement simply due to obscurity, not a competent attempt to control access.

I believe the problem isn't the network protocol itself, but the fact that PC eliminates the need to log into an authentication server.  Reverse engineering an auth server would be a DMCA violation, but developing technology that bypasses the need to log into one is also a DMCA violation if I understand the DMCA correctly.  Although we know that City of Heroes (the client) didn't strictly speaking need to log into an auth server so you could argue that isn't a true auth server bypass, I don't think that argument is solid in the face of prior DMCA litigation.

[JoshexProxy]

I believe the problem isn't the network protocol itself, but the fact that PC eliminates the need to log into an authentication server.  Reverse engineering an auth server would be a DMCA violation, but developing technology that bypasses the need to log into one is also a DMCA violation if I understand the DMCA correctly.  Although we know that City of Heroes (the client) didn't strictly speaking need to log into an auth server so you could argue that isn't a true auth server bypass, I don't think that argument is solid in the face of prior DMCA litigation.

in other words "when you're looking through legal technicalities in rather unclear legal grounds where there is extensive corporate interest; if you have to wonder whether or not it's legal to do what you are proposing, then it's not."

[Arcana]

in other words "when you're looking through legal technicalities in rather unclear legal grounds where there is extensive corporate interest; if you have to wonder whether or not it's legal to do what you are proposing, then it's not."

In this case, it isn't a legal technicality:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I believe this has been interpreted by courts as explicitly covering technology that eliminates the need to log into an authentication server to run a game.  This is why the LoC exemption was argued as necessary in the first place.

The grey area isn't a legal technicality, its the question of whether the ability to run the game client in debug mode without auth servers "means" that the auth servers "effectively" control access.  I believe the average judge would frown on attempting to leverage those words to imply that any game that has a developer back door gives all consumers license to exploit that back door to dodge DMCA provisions. 

[Codewalker]

Although we know that City of Heroes (the client) didn't strictly speaking need to log into an auth server so you could argue that isn't a true auth server bypass, I don't think that argument is solid in the face of prior DMCA litigation.

The grey area isn't a legal technicality, its the question of whether the ability to run the game client in debug mode without auth servers "means" that the auth servers "effectively" control access.  I believe the average judge would frown on attempting to leverage those words to imply that any game that has a developer back door gives all consumers license to exploit that back door to dodge DMCA provisions. 

I think a pretty solid argument could be made that it's not just a dodge. I'm not talking about an obscure developer backdoor. It's the default mode of operation for the client. Logging in using the authentication server is optional.

I'm serious, try running Paragon Chat in -localhost mode. Do not log in to XMPP. In another window, run this command:

cityofheroes.exe -project coh

(you can use "-project asdf" you want, it just selects which registry key to load the graphics settings from. "coh" will load the ones you have already set)

It will ask for username and password -- the latter of which is ignored -- and then give you a server list with UNNAMED. Choosing UNNAMED will try to connect to the IP address of your own computer, whichever network card it finds first. If Paragon Chat is running in -localhost mode and windows firewall isn't blocking it, it will succeed.

The only reason PC doesn't use this method by default is that it's not quite as user-friendly, and the firewall can sometimes interfere.

The only way to make the client connect to an authentication server and actually validate the password is specifically ask it to by using the -auth option.

The only possible case to make is that the launcher always stuck -auth in there, but lots of players had been bypassing the launcher for years. I'd wager we could even find documented cases of support advising players to run the game directly with -project coh if the launcher was experiencing issues on their PC.

Obviously you'd want to explain this to a judge in easy to understand non-technical terms to avoid being painted as trying to find a loophole. It's not a play on 'effective' (the legal meaning of which is often misunderstood by people looking for loopholes), it's the fact that the game is very clearly designed for it.

[Arcana]

I think a pretty solid argument could be made that it's not just a dodge. I'm not talking about an obscure developer backdoor. It's the default mode of operation for the client. Logging in using the authentication server is optional.

I'm serious, try running Paragon Chat in -localhost mode. Do not log in to XMPP. In another window, run this command:

cityofheroes.exe -project coh

(you can use "-project asdf" you want, it just selects which registry key to load the graphics settings from. "coh" will load the ones you have already set)

It will ask for username and password -- the latter of which is ignored -- and then give you a server list with UNNAMED. Choosing UNNAMED will try to connect to the IP address of your own computer, whichever network card it finds first. If Paragon Chat is running in -localhost mode and windows firewall isn't blocking it, it will succeed.

The only reason PC doesn't use this method by default is that it's not quite as user-friendly, and the firewall can sometimes interfere.

The only way to make the client connect to an authentication server and actually validate the password is specifically ask it to by using the -auth option.

The only possible case to make is that the launcher always stuck -auth in there, but lots of players had been bypassing the launcher for years. I'd wager we could even find documented cases of support advising players to run the game directly with -project coh if the launcher was experiencing issues on their PC.

Obviously you'd want to explain this to a judge in easy to understand non-technical terms to avoid being painted as trying to find a loophole. It's not a play on 'effective' (the legal meaning of which is often misunderstood by people looking for loopholes), it's the fact that the game is very clearly designed for it.

True, but all of that causes City of Heroes to run locally (for testing purposes).  If *Icon* used that trick, I think the argument would be a strong one.  Paragon Chat uses that trick to connect different clients together, which ordinarily required a real auth server in practice.  From my study of prior cases, when faced with technical arguments on both sides, judges tend to look past them to net effects and not the technical practice.  The net effect of Paragon Chat is that City of Heroes used to require an auth server to connect to the game servers, and from there to other players, and now it doesn't.  That's a net effect of bypassing the requirement to have the auth servers.  To overcome that "net effect" argument would require an extremely compelling argument in my opinion.  If it was my job to do so, I would give it my best shot.  But I'd advise my clients I'm not sure even my best argument would win in this case.

If we could find even one case where developers ran test servers internally without the auth servers at all to interconnect different devs in a test case, and I know its possible this might have happened, then this argument gains considerable strength.  We'd still have to overcome the fact that NCSoft could argue that such a mode of operation was explicitly forbidden to the customers (but I see nothing about it in the EULA) or that it required "special" technical knowledge to perform which they could reasonably presume the average customer did not possess.  But the counter argument could be that if the feature was explicitly intended to be used, its not unreasonable for players to use it when the game was orphaned.

We'd still not be home free, because NCSoft still owns the copyright to the game client and technically speaking its still illegal to distribute it.  NCSoft could step past the DMCA and argue that Paragon Chat is a tool that contributes to copyright infringement.  But that's a separate can of worms, with completely different legal rules.

[Codewalker]

We'd still not be home free, because NCSoft still owns the copyright to the game client and technically speaking its still illegal to distribute it.  NCSoft could step past the DMCA and argue that Paragon Chat is a tool that contributes to copyright infringement.  But that's a separate can of worms, with completely different legal rules.

Yes, and as I'm sure you know, that's the primary reason that the official method for installing Paragon Chat requires you to have a legally obtained (at least as best as I can determine since there's no real indicator) copy of City of Heroes. There's some weight to that from SWGEmu, but that's not actual legal precedent since it could be viewed as the company just being gracious and not pursuing the matter.

That's also why I tell the moderators to not sticky the discussion of various downloader programs or recommend their use in an official capacity, but I'm not sure how well the second part is followed and stuff like that tends to end up on the wiki one way or another (usually added by well-meaning non-Titan contributors). So it might be better in the long run to divorce Paragon Chat from the community site and maintain it independently.

I suppose I could go a step further and require you to insert the physical CD for verification when you install it, though I'm not sure if that would really be worth the tradeoff.

But IMO by far the best approach is to simply be as non-threatening as possible, by making it clear what the intentions and limitations of the project are and what steps are being taken to avoid infringing. In short, to be "not worth the trouble".

[Arcana]

But IMO by far the best approach is to simply be as non-threatening as possible, by making it clear what the intentions and limitations of the project are and what steps are being taken to avoid infringing. In short, to be "not worth the trouble".

Aka: the Star Trek exemption.

[Mageman]

Let me start off by saying I'm in no way an expert on the legal ramifications of the DCMA, I am just stating my opinions on what I've read.

I would hope that at least, we get some way of playing CoX in single player mode. I think that if this happened, it would fit into the "abandoned software" category. However, there is a lot of content in game that would have to be modified or that content would be worthless (TF/SF, Wentworths/Black Market, etc.). Also, SG/VGs also having to be modified so you could get multiple characters into them (maybe just a local editor so you could place different characters into the SG/VG). So it's a big can of worms modifying the software so you could play it all on one computer.

Now LAN mode is sort of a grey area from what I read. Yes, you are bypassing the authentication servers, but you are making it multi-player again.

Now, if you change it so you create your own servers, with everything functional, that would be in direct violation of the "DCMA".

Finally, if you say "Pay me, and I will do this for you", again you are in violation even if you just make it just single player.

With all that being said, I would be willing to "donate" money (they can't charge for their work, they'd have to release it "free" with a donate button) to someone who made single player mode work, even with a lot of functionality gone.

[Codewalker]

Single-player mode would be a clear DMCA violation. Not even DMCA, just copyright law in general. It would require duplicating and distributing content that the players never had locally -- mission scripts, any number of serverside xp or reward tables, NPC dialog, and so forth.

The single-player copyright exemption is very narrow and only applies to the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. It doesn't allow wholesale copying of something just because it's out of print.

The only possible form of single-player mode that might (and I stress might) be possible under the current legal system would be a clean start. No content whatsoever from the original game. We're not talking modifying the content to make it work without a team, we're talking writing completely new missions, task forces, signature characters -- a "total conversion" to use modder terminology.