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. 

[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]

[Sajaana]

[JaguarX]

[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:


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.   

[emperorsteele]

.... ;_;

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