So what exactly is the legal status of the EULA?

[Pherdnut]

I get that the IP is and probably always be NCSoft's until they die a well-deserved death and get strip-mined for property rights. But since they're no longer offering the service are there any real legal barriers to decompiling and reverse engineering the game client for non-profit purposes?

[Arachnion]

In my opinion, that EULA died the moment they shut off the servers.

I'm not very good with legal matters, though.

[TonyV]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but technically, when NCsoft canceled the contract, I think that you were supposed to remove the software from your computer.

[JaguarX]

I get that the IP is and probably always be NCSoft's until they die a well-deserved death and get strip-mined for property rights. But since they're no longer offering the service are there any real legal barriers to decompiling and reverse engineering the game client for non-profit purposes?

non-profit though, you should havea look at the legal definition of non-profit. Just because you make something and doesnt make any any money from it doesnt mean it's legally non-profit. Out of all things that isnt clear that part is pretty clear in copyright laws.

IP laws, trademark laws and copyright laws are different than EULA. SOme of that stuff is covered in the EULA, and then there are some stuff that is in use only while using the product. But IP, trademark, copyright laws dont die with the EULA.

BUt the EULA can make a difference if boils down. If you have the game and played, especially for years as many claimed than it would be hard to say that you didnt know it didnt apply and or it was and agreed to not copy it or violate the copright trademark and IP laws especially if it was stated in the EULA, which can work against ya.



Did anyone just bother to call NCsoft and simply ask them to use their stuff? It's long shot but as been said with just about everything here, never know if no one tried or tries.

[Pherdnut]

I don't think there's a conversation worth having with NCSoft. I'd rather they remain unaware there's even an interest lest they start spamming C&Ds for everything imaginable just because they don't want to look as stupid as they are for tossing a profit-making fanbase out on its ass and refusing anyone else the option to serve us. Edit: Read some other posts on the lack of viability trying to do anything meaningful with decompiled C. Thx for the info. I actually came up as a JS dev but C and assembly interest me a lot.

[JaguarX]

I don't think there's a conversation worth having with NCSoft. I'd rather they remain unaware there's even an interest lest they start spamming C&Ds for everything imaginable just because they don't want to look as stupid as they are for tossing a profit-making fanbase out on its ass and refusing anyone else the option to serve us. Edit: Read some other posts on the lack of viability trying to do anything meaningful with decompiled C. Thx for the info. I actually came up as a JS dev but C and assembly interest me a lot.

Just saying. yeah maybe better not to ask in that case because then it may make it worse


It would seem bright to at least for these people that are building these things to at least know these laws or at least get a good lawyer to advise them before going through all this trouble building it and end up getting shut down because they violated stuff. WHy even risk it if the laws are written and all it takes is reading them. (Sarcasm) Oh right, most people couldnt even be bothered with reading a relatively short EULA. Ya think they are actually goign to read the laws they need to know instead of always guessing?)
Like if I play an emulator under the guise "Oh yeah it's perfectly legal and NCSoft cant toucvh us." and it end up getting shut down because they violated laws, I aint going to be mad at NCSoft I'm going to be pissed at the emulator runner. And if I get tangled in breaking of said law or if it affect me in any manner in my life, I will not hesisitate to sue the dog shit out of them if they give out false pretenses of them being legally safe when come to find out they have not a bloody clue and was playing Russian Roulette the entire time.

[Joshex]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but technically, when NCsoft canceled the contract, I think that you were supposed to remove the software from your computer.

nah, if that were the case they would have done one more 'mandatory' update after the shut-down which removes all CoH files on your computer.

also technically due to the wording of the document it's a ToS not an EULA

in order be an EULA it would have to subject itself to legalities, as such it wouldn't be able to claim anything outside of the written international and national laws of the region(s) in which it was doing business.

a ToS is a Terms of Service, I've seen some ToS that say wild things (and I don't joke) "by clicking accept you agree to sell your soul to this website" a ToS does not follow legal laws necessarily, it attempts to create it's own laws.

an EULA is much different in composition as it merely states the legal articles that you are required to follow. and to what extent those legal articles effect your experience as a user.

[GuyPerfect]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but technically, when NCsoft canceled the contract, I think that you were supposed to remove the software from your computer.

You should get a copy of it in front of you: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/EULA/September_2011

The document conveniently omits any mention of what happens if NCsoft can't keep the game going. It's all "you agree NCsoft can do this" and "you agree NCsoft can do that", but there's a somewhat humorous lack of foresight for what happens if NCsoft has to change how things transpire.

Having said that...

also technically due to the wording of the document it's a ToS not an EULA

It is terms of service, and it does define the scope of the license. "License" here referring to NCsoft giving us permission to use the software and service. It basically says in section 2 that "you're automatically given permission, but only if you accept the terms in this document!"

In other words, it's not a legally-binding contract.

Combined with the facts that A) no payment was ever made to use the software and B) clicking the "I Agree" button never saved any record of acknowledgement, it's impossible for NCsoft to even attempt to enforce the license since it's impossible to know that it was ever even granted. And this is aside the whole "is there really such a thing as license enforcement" side of the issue.

But since they're no longer offering the service are there any real legal barriers to decompiling and reverse engineering the game client for non-profit purposes?

As stated above, "violating" the City of Heroes user agreement is not illegal. There is also precedent in the United States--Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.--which concluded that reverse engineering, and even selling the product of that reverse engineering, does not constitute an infringement of copyright.

So by all means, go nuts. Give NCsoft the double deuce. There's nothing they can do about it.

[JaguarX]

As stated above, "violating" the City of Heroes user agreement is not illegal. There is also precedent in the United States--Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.--which concluded that reverse engineering, and even selling the product of that reverse engineering, does not constitute an infringement of copyright.

So by all means, go nuts. Give NCsoft the double deuce. There's nothing they can do about it.

But here were also cases stating the opposite.

I guess it boils down to the court and what the particular judge says.

[GuyPerfect]

But here were also cases stating the opposite.

^{[citation needed]}

[JaguarX]

^{[citation needed]}

I think I made these citations in another thread abotu the same subject not long ago. Give me a few minutes I'll find it.

Funny how you missed them and require reposting of them.

[JaguarX]

[Kyriani]

Someone just get the client working solo... and then give me a copy! I promise I wont say word about where I got it!

[GuyPerfect]

Funny how you missed them and require reposting of them.

If I tried to follow every thread that appeared on the board, I'd still be catching up to stuff that was posted in March. (-:


Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
This was the case in which Nintendo sued Galoob over the Game Genie, claiming the device was an infringement of copyright. This is very similar to Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., in which Quaid circumvented Vault's copy protection through reverse engineering. In both cases, the courts decided in favor of the defendants, establishing that reverse engineering does not constitute infringement of copyright.

It's worth noting that circumventing copy protection, as of 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is now illegal, but that applies to digital rights management specifically. Reverse engineering in and of itself was unaffected by the decision.


MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
In this case, MGM and their posse of media companies took to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, insisting that those networks themselves be held responsible for any infringing acts of its users. The court decided that such networks can be held liable for the actions of its users, but only if the infringing activity is encouraged by the network. This is, to a T, precisely what happened to Megaupload last year. You couldn't ask for a more perfect example of what the MGM-Grokster case was about.

I don't think anyone is arguing that distributing copyrighted works isn't illegal. As it pertains to City of Heroes, the issue involves reverse engineering, not content distribution.


Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
Wikipedia's page on this case misses the mark; click the above link for the actual opinion. "Opening the box" doesn't really have anything to do with the lawsuit.

ACRA made all of its money refurbishing used printer cartridges, while Lexmark historically only made its money selling printers and new cartridges. That changed in 1997, when Lexmark began selling new cartridges under their so-called "Prebate" program, where customers would receive a discount for the cartridge purchase under the condition that they would return the empty cartridge to Lexmark for refurbishing. This was extraordinarily beneficial to Lexmark's business, and the long and short of it is that ACRA didn't want the competition, so they sued Lexmark saying that their actions were in violation of California's competition laws. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating (and I might be paraphrasing this a bit) "ACRA hasn't provided jack beans worth of evidence to support its claims."

I, um... I don't think I'll be returning my used City of Heroes to NCsoft for refurbishing.


Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes
The defendants of this case, who were not big-money-making figureheads or anything, were sued for promoting the use and distribution of DeCSS--software which decrypts DVD videos, an activity prohibited by the DMCA. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff citing the DMCA, which of course raised controversy on the grounds of violating freedom of speech.

In other words, circumventing copy protection under the DMCA is illegal for real. City of Heroes doesn't have any copy protection.


A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
This one was all over the news because it was the first big event surrounding the legal issues behind file sharing. Since Napster's servers were presented in such a way as to provide accommodations for its users to commit copyright infringement (song listings, etc.), the court ruled that Napster itself could be held liable for any acts of infringement committed by its users. This takes a similar tone to what later happened with the MGM-Grokster case, as it boiled down to whether or not the network was encouraging its users to commit copyright infringement.

Reverse engineering City of Heroes still isn't related to distributing City of Heroes game content. To clarify, the precursor to SEGS found themselves with a cease-and-desist order from NCsoft on the grounds of content distribution, but not for reverse engineering the software.


UMG v. MP3.com - (Alternate source)
Don't you love lawyer language? This case is all about semantics. Basically what MP3.com was doing was allowing users to upload their legally-purchased CDs to MP3.com, as MP3s, which they could then download elsewhere. The court ruled that MP3.com was guilty of copyright infringement on the grounds of the fact that it was making a "functionally equivalent" copy of the user's CDs, converting them to some other format, then redistributing that copy without authorization.

Again, this is content distribution, not reverse engineering.


Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart
This one was quite a convoluted case. Basically what happened was that Applied Information Management, Inc. (AIM) entered an agreement with Brownstone Agency, Inc. (an insurance broker) in which AIM would provide computer hardware, software and support to Brownstone. After several years, Brownstone terminated the agreement. In the middle of it all, AIM hired developer Daniel Icart, trained him in the underlying architecture of their software, and then Icart later went on to work for Brownstone and upgraded Brownstone's AIM software using what he'd learned at AIM. The reason it was an issue is because Brownstone was under the impression that the software was being sold by AIM, while AIM contests that the software was merely licensed. AIM's argument was that Brownstone was guilty of copyright infringement while Icart was guilty of "misappropriation of trade secrets" among other things. The case was dismissed because it couldn't be proven one way or another that either side was correct.

If we can take anything away from this, it's that software purchases versus licenses is something to bear in mind, but in cases where there's no paper trail, enforcement may be difficult if at all possible. For City of Heroes, our licenses have no paper trails, so I would put it into the "don't worry about it" category. Heck, for years it was possible to play the game while bypassing the user agreement altogether.


MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
This one's kind of funny. The gist of it is that Peak Computer, Inc., an IT support company, did unthinkable acts of copyright violation with MAI software: 1) they made copies of the MAI operating system in computer RAM by way of turning on the computers, and 2) they ran MAI diagnostic software despite not being a licensee. The court astonishingly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but then Congress turned around and amended Title 17 (aka the Copyright Act) in order to make a provision in response to this exact case.

So the moral of the story is, it's legal to make copies of software in RAM in order to use that software, since that's exactly how your computer runs software. Way to go, legal system!

[Fulcrum]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but technically, when NCsoft canceled the contract, I think that you were supposed to remove the software from your computer.

I did.  The moment NC$oft shut the servers down, I uninstalled their launcher.   

*whistles and mentions under his breath*
And as far as the 'Eula' goes, it was never really effective when you could replace it with your own 'Eula' during the game's start-up to say whatever it is you wanted it to say.

[JaguarX]

If I tried to follow every thread that appeared on the board, I'd still be catching up to stuff that was posted in March. (-:


Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
This was the case in which Nintendo sued Galoob over the Game Genie, claiming the device was an infringement of copyright. This is very similar to Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., in which Quaid circumvented Vault's copy protection through reverse engineering. In both cases, the courts decided in favor of the defendants, establishing that reverse engineering does not constitute infringement of copyright.

It's worth noting that circumventing copy protection, as of 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is now illegal, but that applies to digital rights management specifically. Reverse engineering in and of itself was unaffected by the decision.


MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
In this case, MGM and their posse of media companies took to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, insisting that those networks themselves be held responsible for any infringing acts of its users. The court decided that such networks can be held liable for the actions of its users, but only if the infringing activity is encouraged by the network. This is, to a T, precisely what happened to Megaupload last year. You couldn't ask for a more perfect example of what the MGM-Grokster case was about.

I don't think anyone is arguing that distributing copyrighted works isn't illegal. As it pertains to City of Heroes, the issue involves reverse engineering, not content distribution.


Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
Wikipedia's page on this case misses the mark; click the above link for the actual opinion. "Opening the box" doesn't really have anything to do with the lawsuit.

ACRA made all of its money refurbishing used printer cartridges, while Lexmark historically only made its money selling printers and new cartridges. That changed in 1997, when Lexmark began selling new cartridges under their so-called "Prebate" program, where customers would receive a discount for the cartridge purchase under the condition that they would return the empty cartridge to Lexmark for refurbishing. This was extraordinarily beneficial to Lexmark's business, and the long and short of it is that ACRA didn't want the competition, so they sued Lexmark saying that their actions were in violation of California's competition laws. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating (and I might be paraphrasing this a bit) "ACRA hasn't provided jack beans worth of evidence to support its claims."

I, um... I don't think I'll be returning my used City of Heroes to NCsoft for refurbishing.


Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes
The defendants of this case, who were not big-money-making figureheads or anything, were sued for promoting the use and distribution of DeCSS--software which decrypts DVD videos, an activity prohibited by the DMCA. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff citing the DMCA, which of course raised controversy on the grounds of violating freedom of speech.

In other words, circumventing copy protection under the DMCA is illegal for real. City of Heroes doesn't have any copy protection.


A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
This one was all over the news because it was the first big event surrounding the legal issues behind file sharing. Since Napster's servers were presented in such a way as to provide accommodations for its users to commit copyright infringement (song listings, etc.), the court ruled that Napster itself could be held liable for any acts of infringement committed by its users. This takes a similar tone to what later happened with the MGM-Grokster case, as it boiled down to whether or not the network was encouraging its users to commit copyright infringement.

Reverse engineering City of Heroes still isn't related to distributing City of Heroes game content. To clarify, the precursor to SEGS found themselves with a cease-and-desist order from NCsoft on the grounds of content distribution, but not for reverse engineering the software.


UMG v. MP3.com - (Alternate source)
Don't you love lawyer language? This case is all about semantics. Basically what MP3.com was doing was allowing users to upload their legally-purchased CDs to MP3.com, as MP3s, which they could then download elsewhere. The court ruled that MP3.com was guilty of copyright infringement on the grounds of the fact that it was making a "functionally equivalent" copy of the user's CDs, converting them to some other format, then redistributing that copy without authorization.

Again, this is content distribution, not reverse engineering.


Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart
This one was quite a convoluted case. Basically what happened was that Applied Information Management, Inc. (AIM) entered an agreement with Brownstone Agency, Inc. (an insurance broker) in which AIM would provide computer hardware, software and support to Brownstone. After several years, Brownstone terminated the agreement. In the middle of it all, AIM hired developer Daniel Icart, trained him in the underlying architecture of their software, and then Icart later went on to work for Brownstone and upgraded Brownstone's AIM software using what he'd learned at AIM. The reason it was an issue is because Brownstone was under the impression that the software was being sold by AIM, while AIM contests that the software was merely licensed. AIM's argument was that Brownstone was guilty of copyright infringement while Icart was guilty of "misappropriation of trade secrets" among other things. The case was dismissed because it couldn't be proven one way or another that either side was correct.

If we can take anything away from this, it's that software purchases versus licenses is something to bear in mind, but in cases where there's no paper trail, enforcement may be difficult if at all possible. For City of Heroes, our licenses have no paper trails, so I would put it into the "don't worry about it" category. Heck, for years it was possible to play the game while bypassing the user agreement altogether.


MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
This one's kind of funny. The gist of it is that Peak Computer, Inc., an IT support company, did unthinkable acts of copyright violation with MAI software: 1) they made copies of the MAI operating system in computer RAM by way of turning on the computers, and 2) they ran MAI diagnostic software despite not being a licensee. The court astonishingly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but then Congress turned around and amended Title 17 (aka the Copyright Act) in order to make a provision in response to this exact case.

So the moral of the story is, it's legal to make copies of software in RAM in order to use that software, since that's exactly how your computer runs software. Way to go, legal system!

So basically, is there any cases at all that deal directly with MMO games and private servers? Because really even the case you posrted had nothing to do with games or even in the same league or issue at hand here with private servers and if someone listen to you and just go at it without thining they could find themselves in legal trouble.

Even if someone makes ap rivate server for their own use, fro mwhat I gather that is ok but as long as the ydont distribute. Meaning then unless the person is making ap rivate server for themselves to play, basically makign a solo game for themselves only, meanign they cant distribute or use that software to allow others to play it, aka public use.Which is what many people talking about private servers are talking about doing. And even you said so yourself, C&D on content distribution not the fact they would have made it for themselves, which is what it seems, distribute, is what is said that many that are plan on reverse engineering private server or what ever term they want to assign to convince themselves they are perfectly within the law, is plan on doing.

But like I said, if it's all perfectly with no question legal, then why the secrecty why the fright that NCSoft might find out, why hiding? From what I gather, because they dont know themselves and pick cases that nearly irrelevant and ignore cases to the contrary to convince themselves it is right. I guess at this point all we can do is wait and see. Start up a private server distribute it as planned and see what happens. Then maybe we'll finally have a case that deals with it directly. And if the other C&D of the the other games were improper the private servers of the other games that is, then there is a law against that and someone should be suing NCSoft right now as we speak since they cannot shut down nor issue C&D for something perfectly legal.  Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

[Golden Girl]

I don't think there's a conversation worth having with NCSoft.

Unless it's to whisper "no".

[houtex]

Unless it's to whisper "no".

Nice.  Go Rorschach!

[GuyPerfect]

So basically, is there any cases at all that deal directly with MMO games and private servers? Because really even the case you posrted had nothing to do with games or even in the same league or issue at hand here with private servers and if someone listen to you and just go at it without thining they could find themselves in legal trouble.

There doesn't have to be a prior incident of any specific thing just to figure out if any criminal activity has occurred. Has there ever been a case involving a private MMO server? I bet there has, but none come to mind. But even if there hasn't, we wouldn't have to consult it to determine what is and is not legal behavior. That's what laws are for, at least in theory.

The case I referenced, as well as the one you referenced with Nintendo and Galoob, both refer to reverse engineering, and in both cases it was decided that reverse engineering is legal, even in a commercial context.

Even if someone makes ap rivate server for their own use, fro mwhat I gather that is ok but as long as the ydont distribute.

To an extent, this is correct. The software itself would be perfectly legal to distribute; it's NCsoft's copyrighted content that could not be distributed. This includes story content for sure, as well as signature characters, but I haven't given an in-depth analysis of exactly what could and could not be distributed with custom server software.

But like I said, if it's all perfectly with no question legal, then why the secrecty why the fright that NCSoft might find out, why hiding?

The C&D that NCsoft sent to SEGS (or whatever SEGS was called at the time) was 100% bogus. SEGS was not distributing NCsoft's copyrighted content, but NCsoft said frightening things to the ISP anyway about content this and distribution that. This happens all the time, where a company with enough money to follow through with a lawsuit goes after the little guy just to shut him up. I know I wouldn't have the resources to defend such a project if a company sent me a C&D, even if what I was doing was perfectly legal.

NCsoft has already demonstrated a willingness to behave this way, and we've already shown them that they can get away with it. That's why no server development has surfaced to the public.

[Pherdnut]

Wow. Nice detail. Thanks guys.

I've decided however that there's a simpler iron-clad legal defense:

http://cityofheroes.com/en/sunset.php

They told us to "fly free."

Certainly they realize we can't fly in RL, so they could only be talking about in their client. In order to do that, we'd have to hack it. And they directed this communication to the community at large, so technically they were saying "fly free as a community." So if we hack the client and write a new server we're just following instructions really.

 

[Codewalker]

They told us to "fly free."

I'm sure NCSoft would just say that text was written by ex-employees of closed subsidiary of theirs who didn't have the authority to represent the company as a whole.

[Pherdnut]

You can't just pay to maintain a billboard that stays up on the internet that kinda sorta says "Hack our client and write your own server to distribute at will for no cost so you can fly again" and then dodge responsibility for it. I'm pretty sure I'm standing on semi-solid or perhaps not-entirely-squishy mud-like legal footing here.

Or everybody can just keep going until the first C&Ds start flying. On that topic, were they using webkit for all the UI? Where the heck is all the JavaScript at? I've been running through PIGGs with a hex-editor all day and can't seem to find any. Do they obfuscate it somehow?

[JaguarX]

The C&D that NCsoft sent to SEGS (or whatever SEGS was called at the time) was 100% bogus. SEGS was not distributing NCsoft's copyrighted content, but NCsoft said frightening things to the ISP anyway about content this and distribution that. This happens all the time, where a company with enough money to follow through with a lawsuit goes after the little guy just to shut him up. I know I wouldn't have the resources to defend such a project if a company sent me a C&D, even if what I was doing was perfectly legal.

NCsoft has already demonstrated a willingness to behave this way, and we've already shown them that they can get away with it. That's why no server development has surfaced to the public.

Ah i see.

I thought there was alow against that type of bogus C&D stuff as I found and posted last.

If we can use the law and quotes and cases to say that private servers are perfecty legal and a C&D should be bogus, why not use it for real, and say that NCSOFT C&D is bogus? It's all fine and dandy to post this case and that case on a forum to "prove" that having a private server and using copyrighted material is perfectly legal but i nthe end it means nothing if when it comes down to it, through all the tough talk about ncsoft cant do this and that and private severs are allowed and they cant shut it down, to put it to use and either go after NCSOFT for bogus C&D and continue to build and use the copyrighted and IP material for the private server. Aka talk is one thing, and it looks brave and righteous on a forum, standing up against the "evil" corporation, but the actions are saying people are scared shitless of ncsoft and have no idea if it's completely illegal or not.

[Pherdnut]

You can't really go after somebody for a bogus C&D that I'm aware of. Nor a bogus stipulation in a contract. Or maybe you could, but then they'd just have their other lawyers say that their previous lawyers are stupid.

[GuyPerfect]

I thought there was alow against that type of bogus C&D stuff as I found and posted last.

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
In 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted a video on YouTube of her children dancing to "Lets Go Crazy" by Prince, for which YouTube was issued a takedown order by Universal Music Corporation, who owned the copyright to that song. Lenz got YouTube to put it back up, then sued Universal for misrepresentation of the DMCA, which requires the copyright holder to consider whether a potentially-infringing work is protected by fair use. Prince and Universal then set out to remove all Prince from the internet, but Lenz got in the way again. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, maintaining that the holder of a copyright is obligated to investigate fair use before issuing any takedowns/C&Ds/etc. according to the DMCA.

This makes it sound like it's illegal to send out a bogus C&D, and under ordinary circumstances I think that would be the case. However, in order to qualify for misrepresentation, a false statement of fact has to be directed at the people you're going after. And NCsoft's lawyers knew this. What they did was send a nastygram not to SEGS, but to the ISP that was hosting the website, saying such things as "your network may be involved in distribution of our copyrighted content" and "distributing copyrighted content is a serious crime," etc. The notice was aimed at scaring the ISP into action, who in turn took the message to the SEGS guys.

I can't say whether or not NCsoft specifically broke the law, but I can say that a company doesn't pay the high price of a legal team just to have them break the law. I think it's more likely that NCsoft was just being slimy, and I don't have any reason to believe they're less inclined now to do the same given the opportunity.

[JaguarX]

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
In 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted a video on YouTube of her children dancing to "Lets Go Crazy" by Prince, for which YouTube was issued a takedown order by Universal Music Corporation, who owned the copyright to that song. Lenz got YouTube to put it back up, then sued Universal for misrepresentation of the DMCA, which requires the copyright holder to consider whether a potentially-infringing work is protected by fair use. Prince and Universal then set out to remove all Prince from the internet, but Lenz got in the way again. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, maintaining that the holder of a copyright is obligated to investigate fair use before issuing any takedowns/C&Ds/etc. according to the DMCA.

This makes it sound like it's illegal to send out a bogus C&D, and under ordinary circumstances I think that would be the case. However, in order to qualify for misrepresentation, a false statement of fact has to be directed at the people you're going after. And NCsoft's lawyers knew this. What they did was send a nastygram not to SEGS, but to the ISP that was hosting the website, saying such things as "your network may be involved in distribution of our copyrighted content" and "distributing copyrighted content is a serious crime," etc. The notice was aimed at scaring the ISP into action, who in turn took the message to the SEGS guys.

I can't say whether or not NCsoft specifically broke the law, but I can say that a company doesn't pay the high price of a legal team just to have them break the law. I think it's more likely that NCsoft was just being slimy, and I don't have any reason to believe they're less inclined now to do the same given the opportunity.

Yeah.

But even in the case above, they didnt send the stuff to the person directly, who sued them but to Youtube.

In NCSoft case sound like they usually send the C&D to the ISP instead of again directly to the person. From what I gather, is usually standard procedure for most companies for some reason. I guess it's scarier when ya get message from the likes of the ISP or Youtube or Facebook in some cases I heard, that is saying, "hey bub, we have a problem. This company over here is trying to sue you if you dont knock it off. I dont want anything to do with it so it would behoove you to just take quit so we dont have problems."  And most people just quit without question.


ANd yeah given their past work, with closing down or rather sending C&D to private servers of their past closed games, they probably will do the same to ones they find of the COX nature.


Which still leaves the fact, that if it's legal, why just roll over? I mean people wasnt willing to "roll over" when the game closed? Why roll over when it's a "perfectly legal action" to run a private server of a game? See Lenz questioned it, and won. If she just would have rolled over like so many, then sure I'm sure Universal, which is far bigger than NCSoft, would have kept doing what they did to Lenz. And when I mean question I dont mean just write posts about it, I mean doing something. I mean if private servers as been said many times, is not illegal is not copyright infringement, is not trademark infringement or the likes, then what is the worry? If they send C&D and it is actually fair use, then sue them and keep it moving. There seem to be a lot of worry and fret and secrect talk about something that is one hand said to be perfectly legal and ncsoft cant do anything, but the actions is like they are committing an actual crime. It dont match up. If it's legal, then there is nothing at all to worry about. Either people really dont believe it's perfectly legal and fronting, or it is indeed legal and they are just acting scary for no reason at all.

Which boils down to one simple question.

Is it legal or not?
Yea or nay.


Speaking of which, isnt SEGS at it again anyways?

[Codewalker]

Don't confuse "being scared and worried" with "not bothering because it's not worth the trouble".

At this point in time, what benefit is there to having incomplete things that aren't useful to anyone in the public spotlight?

[Codewalker]

Or everybody can just keep going until the first C&Ds start flying. On that topic, were they using webkit for all the UI? Where the heck is all the JavaScript at? I've been running through PIGGs with a hex-editor all day and can't seem to find any. Do they obfuscate it somehow?

No, webkit's only used to display the paragon store, which was delivered from an external webserver.

There is no Javascript in City of Heroes.

[JaguarX]

Don't confuse "being scared and worried" with "not bothering because it's not worth the trouble".

At this point in time, what benefit is there to having incomplete things that aren't useful to anyone in the public spotlight?

Ah yes see. They are two different things but when the question arises the answers are not because it's not worth it but more along the lines of "well because we dont ncsoft to know." "we dont want C&Ds" "Well we need to keep it underground and quiet for legal reasons." That's being scared and worried. Especially if, as said many times, some by the same people that gave reasons stated prior to why it's not out in the open, it's completely perfectly legal.

Besides, none of the projects are completed yet, but there is public spotlight of them. Hell, I think there were even a couple of articles, but they are not useful yet nor complete. I assumed it was to get the word out there. Why ot for private servers since it's believed, or rather, probably not believed but stated, it's perfectly legal? Especially with a bunch of people wantign and itching to play COX again. Wouldnt it serve the same purpose as the word and those articles about TPP and H&V and the weekly updates would serve? None are complete either but it's been publicized. Another reason I dont believe they even believe in what they say and believe it's perfectly absolutely legal. I think they know good and well it might not be and it's a very gray area but just afraid for some reason to admit it. But their actions speak a lot louder than their posts.

If the replies were "there would be nothing to gain in doing that" That might be because it's just not the tiem to do so.

[Codewalker]

Shrug. A guess? You've been seeing people who aren't involved one way or another engaging in rampant speculation.

Edit: Also, Lawyers are expensive. Even if it's perfectly legal, slimy lawyers can cause enough to seriously drain someone's finances if they want to. Are you volunteering to bankroll legal counsel for anyone involved in such a project?

[GuyPerfect]

I mean if private servers as been said many times, is not illegal is not copyright infringement, is not trademark infringement or the likes, then what is the worry? If they send C&D and it is actually fair use, then sue them and keep it moving.

Have you ever seen what kind of money attorneys make? You don't "just sue them" if they come knocking at your door. That's time and money I know *I* don't have. I imagine the same applies for anyone working on a CoH-compatible server.

Does that make them scared and worried?

[JaguarX]

Shrug. A guess? You've been seeing people who aren't involved one way or another engaging in rampant speculation.

maybe. And maybe why the question of if it's legal or not, cant be answered properly.

[JaguarX]

Have you ever seen what kind of money attorneys make? You don't "just sue them" if they come knocking at your door. That's time and money I know *I* don't have. I imagine the same applies for anyone working on a CoH-compatible server.

Does that make them scared and worried?

Yup there shouldnt be a worry if it's legal. If it's legal, how can NCSoft sue? If ncsoft cant sue, just about anyone can send out a C&D, and a C&D is not a summons, then what is there to worry about?

[Codewalker]

You can sue anybody for anything. The actual legality of the suit isn't decided until both parties go to court and spend a mountain of cash on legal fees and lawyers.

If you sue somebody wrongly there's a chance the court might order you to pay the defendant's legal fees. Maybe. A lot of corporate lawyers know how to weasel out of that even (see also: RIAA).

[GuyPerfect]

And maybe why the question of if it's legal or not, cant be answered properly.

It's been answered repeatedly in this thread.

I get a strong impression that you're looking for a way to rationalize in your head why no private servers have sprung up since City of Heroes's shutdown, and the explanation you've settled on is that anyone capable of making one must be afraid of legal repercussions. I like to think I've covered the situation fairly well, demonstrating our rights as a community and NCsoft's rights and behaviors. The conclusion I've settled on isn't that anyone's afraid, but rather people know better than to draw attention to their work.

And, um... I have some reason to believe that's exactly what's going on. Make of that what you will; I won't try to change your mind.

[Pherdnut]

If it's legal, how can NCSoft sue?

Have you HEARD of the Church of Scientology?

As for this other thing you said:

' "Well we need to keep it underground and quiet for legal reasons." That's being scared and worried. '

It's tactical. If they were to be dinks about it (see The Church of Scientology, it's always better to to have 10k+ people ready throw 10 bucks or more at a defense fund.

[Victoria Victrix]

All right, let me give you an example of why people are rightly being "scared and worried."

My ATM cards were recently stolen out of the mail, and my rainy day fund drained of about $56k.

Of course the credit union (which did not bother to call me when an account I never used for withdrawals or purchases suddenly began hemorrhaging money at casinos, convenience stores, ATMs and stores in 2 states) began to look for a way to deny my claim for restitution. 

So I hired a lawyer to go with me to the first interview, thus proving I was going to sue (without actually saying so) and drag their incompetence into the press at a time when they were heavily advertising for more customers. 

One lawyer, some research on his part, and two hours of his face-time at the interview cost me $1500.

Just imagine how much getting involved in a slap-fest with NCSoft would cost.

So unless you are planning on bankrolling said slap-fest.....

[Codewalker]

If it's legal, how can NCSoft sue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Also, it's called being pragmatic. If the chance of trouble can be avoided entirely by a few simple countermeasures that have very little cost (in time or otherwise) to implement, then why not?

[JaguarX]

You can sue anybody for anything. The actual legality of the suit isn't decided until both parties go to court and spend a mountain of cash on legal fees and lawyers.

If you sue somebody wrongly there's a chance the court might order you to pay the defendant's legal fees. Maybe. A lot of corporate lawyers know how to weasel out of that even (see also: RIAA).

Of course. I made that point in the past, but again was out voted as that is idiotic and NCSoft cant do anything because a private server is perfectly legal.

But as many also said, would NCSOft even bother if they know they have no chance? I say yes, but again, popular vote was they wouldnt. Popular vote again was that private servers are legal and ncsoft cant do anything. Popular vote once again, is that they probably wont even send a C&D for COX private servers. So going by popular vote, since I was minority when bringing up those points in the past, then there should be no worry at all. No point in the secrecy since the actions is perfectly legal, NCSoft would be crazy to even try to sue and it would be great waste of money for them to do so. Yet, with those words spoken, the actions are along the lines of what I think. They dont know not sure about the legalities, ncsoft can send a C&D and through all the tough talk about ncsoft not being able to do anything, they fear they still a great possibility they will get crushed.


Meaning that the legalities of a private server cannot and probably should not be answered as if it's a definate "yes, it's totally legal and nothing NCSoft can do about it." when it's probably not and more gray than not. Which is my main point.

[JaguarX]

It's been answered repeatedly in this thread.

I get a strong impression that you're looking for a way to rationalize in your head why no private servers have sprung up since City of Heroes's shutdown, and the explanation you've settled on is that anyone capable of making one must be afraid of legal repercussions. I like to think I've covered the situation fairly well, demonstrating our rights as a community and NCsoft's rights and behaviors. The conclusion I've settled on isn't that anyone's afraid, but rather people know better than to draw attention to their work.

And, um... I have some reason to believe that's exactly what's going on. Make of that what you will; I won't try to change your mind.

What answered in the way that it's perfectly legal without a doubt?

And afraid of legal reprecussions, in my head? Apparently not just in my head given the answers of VV and Codewalker.

[Codewalker]

Meaning that the legalities of a private server cannot and probably should not be answered as if it's a definate "yes, it's totally legal and nothing NCSoft can do about it." when it's probably not and more gray than not. Which is my main point.

I for one have said repeatedly (paraphrasing): Reverse Engineering is definitely legal. Hosting a server in which you deliver content (missions, stories, etc) that is covered by NCSoft Copyright is infringement. Whether they are legal or not doesn't change the fact that NCSoft might decide to threaten or even sue you for either one.

[JaguarX]

I for one have said repeatedly (paraphrasing): Reverse Engineering is definitely legal. Hosting a server in which you deliver content (missions, stories, etc) that is covered by NCSoft Copyright is infringement. Whether they are legal or not doesn't change the fact that NCSoft might decide to threaten or even sue you for either one.

exactly

[JaguarX]

Have you HEARD of the Church of Scientology?

Actually I cant say I heard of them.

I'm not religious and dont follow religions.

[TonyV]

I've gotta say, I'm not particularly worried about this.  The practical situation is that I don't think that NCsoft cares one bit about any extracurricular activity going on around the game.  I'm pretty sure that if they've given this any thought at all (and I'm pretty sure they haven't), they realize that without selling the IP to another company, they have thoroughly poisoned the goodwill of any market for anything having to do with City of Heroes while it's in their possession.  I'm sure they still list it as an asset on company documents and whatnot, but it's not like anything we do can devalue that property.  They devalued it themselves to practically $0 on August 31, 2012.

If NCsoft wanted to pursue anything, the worst they'd do is send a C&D letter.  And I kinda doubt they'd do that, because as soon as they did, I would be yelling from the mountaintops, and the gaming and tech press tends to cover that kind of thing pretty thoroughly.  If they just went totally off their rockers and decide to mount a full-out lawsuit against anyone here--which would be about five miles past unprecedented --they would have to prove some sort of damages suffered because of our actions.  Given that they deliberately chose to shut down the game and everything we've done has been in reaction to that decision, they'd really have bupkiss to go after us on.  Worse, if by some weird chance they lost, it would set a legal precedent that is extremely unfavorable to the gaming industry as a whole.  In other words, they have everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.

So I'm really, really, really not worried about this.  The discussion in this thread is filed squarely in my bin of philosophical mental exercises of no practical significance whatsoever.

Also, regarding the legal cases cited above, the thing is, these precise circumstances have never been tested legally.  If you dig long enough and hard enough, you can find plenty cases to support either side of the "is this legal?" argument.  And that's precisely what the lawyers would do if it came to that.  They'd each go off and find cases that support their arguments, air those arguments and cases out in court, and a judge and/or jury would suss out which most closely align to this situation.  And then the other side would appeal it, and then the other other side would appeal it, and ten or fifteen years down the road, someone would win and people playing games in 2025 would now have new rules to play by.

[Joshex]

I've said this before;

the easiest solution to this situation is to make a P2P server, Peer to Peer.

in short codewalker is already doing the ground work, all we need is a stand allone game client, one that can interpret battles and spawns and statistics and physics on it own.

then when you select a 'server' to log-in under, you aren't actually on a server, instead you broadcast 'SERVER-NAME + FUNCTION' to any and all participants as and when interactive information is required. if you select 'protector' then you will be completely invisible to people who select 'virtue' because each one is listed as it's own entity.

individual players comps will handle thier own stats and physics and battle calcs, NPCS and enemies would be calculated by whomever calculates and uploads the information first.

yeah it would be a bit laggy, but at least there wont be a D/C, you can't D/C from your own computer lol. well.. You can but you have to try hard to mess something up.

We can still legally save game save information to a real server. as it's not actually the entire game/server it would be no different than uploading a document to a file host.

[Eoraptor]

Legally speaking, City of X exists in a bit of a gray area. On the one hand it's protected by contract law in the form of the EULA we all clicked off on to play the game. And also by Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which makes reverse engineering it without permission technically illegal. (DMCA is under challenge all the time, which is why I use the T word)

On the other hand, the clients on the internet are perfectly legal to possess as they were freely distributed by the company, and I don't remember the EULA specifying they be deleted if the game were discontinued. those files can no more be made illegal than a free AOL CD can. And also, lots of City of Heroes material exists on the internet, including the CityofHeroes.ca website, billions of screen captures of the environment, copyrighted characters, interface, etc... If NCSoft wants to protect its copyrights, it has to tred carefully on the existence of all of these items.

Fair Use law indicates that since the client software was freely distributed, that we are all still free to use it as we see fit so long as those uses are not-for-profit. The problem is that the game in its native state requires an active game server, and those were NOT given out freely by NCSoft, so creating one would either require DMCA-violating reverse engineering (yes this is going on) or direct theft of the code from NCSoft. in other words, both illegal.

on the yet another hand, there is such a thing as abandoned property law. and it can be applied to electronics and data. after a certain amount of time, if a company, publisher, developer, distributor, etc, has done nothing with a product that is already in the public sphere... and refuses to provide active support, warranty service, etc, on it... then that product can be considered abandoned, and thus public domain. There is an entire market out there for abandonware videogames... and right now, approaching one year after closing, the clock is ticking on the abandonware timer.

In general, the EULA is effective in law right this very moment, but since the isn't an active game, it's legal force is very limited. personally, I don't have the money to hire lawyers to sort out the more finite legal minutia, but a good lawyer could make a case that the game is either abandoned, or viable for fair-use-protection on private servers so long as no money at all is involved... but don't quote me on that.

[JaguarX]

Legally speaking, City of X exists in a bit of a gray area. On the one hand it's protected by contract law in the form of the EULA we all clicked off on to play the game. And also by Digital Millenium Copyright ct, which maches reverse engineering it without permission technically illegal. (DMCA is uder challenge all the time, which is why I use the T word)

On the other hand, the clients on the internet are perfectly legal to posses as they were freely distributed by the company, and I don't remember the EULA specifying they be deleted if the game were discontinued. those files can no more be made illegal than a free AOL CD can. And also, lots of City of Heroes material exists on the internet, including the CityofHeroes.ca website, billions of screen captures of the environment, copyrighted characters, interface, etc... If NCSoft wants to protect its copyrights, it has to tred carefully on the existence of all of these items.

Fair Use law indicates that since the client software was freely distributed, that we are all still free to use it as we see fit so long as those uses are not-for-profit. The problem is that the game in its native state requires an active game server, and those were NOT given out freely by NCSoft, so creating one would either require DMCA-violating reverse engineering (yes this is going on) or direct theft of the code from NCSoft. in other words, both illegal.

on the other hand, there is such a thing as abandoned property law. and it can be applied to electronics and data. after a certain amount of time, if a company, publisher, developer, distributor, etc, has done nothing with a product that is already in the public sphere... and refuses to provide active support, warranty service, etc, on it... then that product can be considered abandoned, and thus public domain. There is an entire market out there for abandonware videogames... and right now, approaching one year after closing, the clock is ticking on the abandonware timer.

In general, the EULA is effective in law right this very moment, but since the isn't an active game, it's legal force is very limited. personally, I don't hae the money to hire lawyers to sort out the more finite legal minutia, but a good lawyer could make a case that the game is either abandoned, or viable for fair-use-protection on private servers so long as no money at all is involved... but don't quote me on that.

Yup.


The time is ticking but it aint up yet. Althugh I wouldnt be surprised if they put out a token COX product or something to say they are legally still using it.

The shady part is that ncsoft havent said yay or nay or anyword at least publically about the plans. Which may mean they have no plan or may mean they have plans and just decided to not make a statement yet or not sure what to do with it yet. Just because they havent doesnt mean they dont have plans is also some people should keep in mind but at the same time thye very well may have no plans. Who knows, but it's early to tell. It's easy to not have plans "officially" but when it's time to sue, there is an entire plan laid out and that person jeopardized millions of dollars worth of planning and they probably have the cash to take even the sliver of evidence and make it their case against the average joe that may be lucky to have enough for a lawyer that wont immediately put in a proverbial "plea bargain". Even if they, prior didnt have a single plan and or hada plan and put it on ice until "proper opportunity" like many businesses do, but the average joe aint got enough money for a lawyer to prove otherwise.

But even the no-money thing can get tricky especially when there is solicitation for "donations" to keep the server running or the likes. All it takes is one person to offer money for the service, and if the provider of said private server accepts, they have legally accepted money for the product and it's no longer ran in a no-money collected fashion. So best thing in that case is to accept no money under any circumstances even if someone insists. Tell them to enjoy the game, appreciate the offer, but no thanks. Assuming that would the only legal speed bump. And of course be wary of websites that list private servers but require membership fee or the likes. Even if the actual private server isnt collecting money, it can get caught in the legal crossfire. Which can result in shutdown. And given the rate, the slow rate these things pop up, it would be a major set back and months before another one gets going assuming it's known of.

[GuyPerfect]

And also by Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which makes reverse engineering it without permission technically illegal.

The DMCA only safeguards against reverse engineering when it's used to circumvent digital protection measures implemented by the copyright owner. City of Heroes does not make use of copy protection in any form whatsoever, so the DMCA will never apply to it in any conceivable context. Ever. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Further reading:

US Code Title 17, Chapter 12: Copyright Protection and Management Systems

[JaguarX]

The DMCA only safeguards against reverse engineering when it's used to circumvent digital protection measures implemented by the copyright owner. City of Heroes does not make use of copy protection in any form whatsoever, so the DMCA will never apply to it in any conceivable context. Ever. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Further reading:

US Code Title 17, Chapter 12: Copyright Protection and Management Systems

yeah. but the other laws still apply. they can reverse engineeer it but the copright, trademarks, and IP still remains in effect.

Instead of city of heroes, it's Town of Supers, and instead of statesman it's Sovereignman, instead of Lord Recluse it's Lord Arachnid.

[Peregrine Falcon]

I for one have said repeatedly (paraphrasing): Reverse Engineering is definitely legal. Hosting a server in which you deliver content (missions, stories, etc) that is covered by NCSoft Copyright is infringement. Whether they are legal or not doesn't change the fact that NCSoft might decide to threaten or even sue you for either one.

Absolutely correct. However, even though it's been repeatedly determined that running your own server is legal, and it's the copyrighted mission content that would actually get you in trouble, that doesn't actually prevent NCSoft from suing.

Which is why I've always recommended that, if a private server gets running, it should be put up on servers that are physically located in a country that ignores US law. Like Russia for instance.

If NCsoft wanted to pursue anything, the worst they'd do is send a C&D letter.

I believe this to be the case as well. I also believe it's unlikely they'd actually sue because of the possibility that they might lose. It's possible that a judge could rule that since NCSoft isn't actively using their copyrighted material, the CoH missions/lore, that they have no interest in keeping it and therefore people who have a legally purchased copy of CoH are allowed to create and run a private server.

Don't get me wrong, it's not likely that a judge would make this ruling, but it's possible. And if a judge does make this ruling it would set a precedent that would affect all MMO companies. I believe that this is why SOE entered into an agreement with the SWG-EMU folks allowing them to run their private server so long as the players have a legally purchased copy of SWG.

[Joshex]

Legally speaking, City of X exists in a bit of a gray area. On the one hand it's protected by contract law in the form of the EULA we all clicked off on to play the game. And also by Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which makes reverse engineering it without permission technically illegal. (DMCA is under challenge all the time, which is why I use the T word)

On the other hand, the clients on the internet are perfectly legal to possess as they were freely distributed by the company, and I don't remember the EULA specifying they be deleted if the game were discontinued. those files can no more be made illegal than a free AOL CD can. And also, lots of City of Heroes material exists on the internet, including the CityofHeroes.ca website, billions of screen captures of the environment, copyrighted characters, interface, etc... If NCSoft wants to protect its copyrights, it has to tred carefully on the existence of all of these items.

Fair Use law indicates that since the client software was freely distributed, that we are all still free to use it as we see fit so long as those uses are not-for-profit. The problem is that the game in its native state requires an active game server, and those were NOT given out freely by NCSoft, so creating one would either require DMCA-violating reverse engineering (yes this is going on) or direct theft of the code from NCSoft. in other words, both illegal.

I hate to poke a little at this but, Zone-sama is an example of fair use. Fair use is no only for 'not for protfit' orgs, it's also allowed to be used For Profit in the case that you can prove the owning company would never make efforts to develop something to the same degree you are. for example a pornographic city of heroes server would be a distinct exception to the rule on the basis that NCSoft would never in a million years do that.

if they take you to court over it they are basically opening themselves up for a huge shaming fiasco the moment your lawyer asks them "given the chance, would you make a pornographic version of city of heroes?"

if NCSoft says Yes - they wont hear the end of it as the worlds media and angry parents condemn them and vow to force thier kids and themselves to never play NCSoft titles again as they are all obviously a bunch of sick perverts. -This is conditional I am not actually calling them sick perverts.

if NCSoft is smart they would drop thier case in that instance after a clear "No, Never! we are commited to designing games for all audiences"

also, again, it's a Terms Of Service, not a legally binding agreement based on present international or national laws.

Also why does no one even listen to me about a Peer to Peer server, if you don't believe me then look it up, sheesh do I have to spell it out?

You download the installation files from a torrent. the installation will have an auto run patcher which connects to another torrent to check for updates and downloads them to a pre-specified folder.

There is no Server or Host

You use your ISP as a broadcast point or temporary relay, this relay is utilized in connecting with other users in the same fashion that Torrents work, instead of connecting to a Server you use a 'Tracker' which is broadcast by your application during use.

For example CoH peer to peer might broadcast it's own unique address or IP; http://tracker.cityofheroesp2p.net:6969/Cityofheroes/Servername

the city of hereoes listing before server name would be utilized for calls for cross server stuff like chatting to Globals and Consignments and possibly in the future: incarnate trials (getting a magisterium going would be much easier if there were some cross server way to do it.)

so bassically anyone who runs the client becomes a seeder and a peer, constantly sending and recieving battle and movement information from other players calculations so everything sums up and everyone has the same experience.

do I need to be more clear?

[Mantic]

The main problem with your distributed server mechanism is that you are demanding bucketloads of bandwidth from USERS and introducing a dynamic latency factor that would screw up everyone's game experience. Mind you, I've thought of similar methods for other types of games where latency is not an issue and agree that it's a worthy technology, but in the case of a conventional realtime MMO it would be awful. Especially if you realize that most of the hardcore dedicated players of CoH seem to have been rural types (I suspect there's a contempt of familiarity at work there -- urbanites not being as interested in a fantasy about running around a modern city, and ruralites yawning at the prospect of a fantasy about running around the woods), whose internet access is typically overpriced and problematic.

As for the legality question, I tend to take the attitude that RE project developers should operate as if the activity is undoubtedly illegal, staying out of the spotlight and not trying to attract a lot of attention to themselves, while doing everything possible to cover themselves from legal reprisal if the effort comes. What end-users assume is their own problem, because no matter how upset they might get about those assumptions, there's no scenario in which emulator developers should have any liability for user butthurt.

Also, I don't see what Scientology has to do with anything, and I co not doubt for a moment NCSoft's willingness to publish City of Pornography. City of Scientology, however, they might have reservations about.... so what do we know about Xenu?

[Energy Aura]

I'll have to agree with a combination of the posts...

1.  I agree with TonyV...Legal action seems VERY dubious at best.
2.  Joshex I've said the same thing before...IP servers hosted by individuals with Diablo 2 type connection.  Thus being on "my" server requires and invite/my access IP.  Getting there by hacking me is illegal.
3. Everything GuyPerfect said.

My hope is for:
1. A small individual server that we can all have for our individual play, and a method to interact via remote access to play with others.
2. Character data saved on local machines so individuals can use their characters on other servers.  (I personally will build a "TF Server" for doing the large TFs (i.e. Incarnate Trials).)
3. A static (local) WW/BM that acts like beta having component items for sale.
4. SG Bases and AE...

Now just wondering and I don't expect an answer...If there "ever" was a new server and it was based on BETA I24, wouldn't the "free stuff" on BETA (i.e. Paragon Market) be a given or would that be a programmed deal?  If it was a programmed issue, could it be made to use game INF to buy stuff?  Thus avoiding real cash.  As a matter of fact, ALL items in game should be for INF.

Well here's to the mystery programmers trying to get all of us back to the game that has no equal. Your efforts are truly HEROIC ! ! !

[JaguarX]

Absolutely correct. However, even though it's been repeatedly determined that running your own server is legal, and it's the copyrighted mission content that would actually get you in trouble, that doesn't actually prevent NCSoft from suing.

Which is why I've always recommended that, if a private server gets running, it should be put up on servers that are physically located in a country that ignores US law. Like Russia for instance.
I believe this to be the case as well. I also believe it's unlikely they'd actually sue because of the possibility that they might lose. It's possible that a judge could rule that since NCSoft isn't actively using their copyrighted material, the CoH missions/lore, that they have no interest in keeping it and therefore people who have a legally purchased copy of CoH are allowed to create and run a private server.

Don't get me wrong, it's not likely that a judge would make this ruling, but it's possible. And if a judge does make this ruling it would set a precedent that would affect all MMO companies. I believe that this is why SOE entered into an agreement with the SWG-EMU folks allowing them to run their private server so long as the players have a legally purchased copy of SWG.

true but even proving they have no interest in or no plans on keeping it or what ever just yet. A car that sits for a day (legally parked) isnt considered abandoned because someone is itching to get it for free and figure since the owner aint used it in a day they must not want it.  It's too early. They havent said a plan yet, that we know of, but really with all the fuss, they probably wont communicate any of their plans dealing with that stuff just yet. 

But at the same time, they might not have any plans yet or no plans for the future.


And yeah a server in some place like Russia would work but there are downsides. On paper many of those countries looks like easy  pickings but there are a lot of stuff else to consider like internal regulations and information flow may not be, as free flowing as in many other places due to said regulations in some countries. Russia, I dont think there wil many problems that may arise besides the initial hesitation of clicking on a site  many issues or link that says COX but have some unheard of strange Russian address to it.

But I think the peer 2 peer idea would suffice and with no worries and while being low key.





But it's not likely they will sue, probably more likely that even if they do sue they wont see much of the money anyways. Anyone have 500,000- couple of million hanging around? If anything they probably have good chance of winning. Remember most judges are not gamers, they probably dont give a crap about "game coimmunities and closeness of the people and relationships over games" and some even think games are part of the decay of society and looking for any way to do their part in ridding of  "that problem". Not to mention, on paper depending on how it's written it could easily look like a bunch of people who is trying to make off with the works of others. But probably worse that will happen is a C&D because even if they sue the crap out of someone and run them into bankruptcy, that is money they will never see and still have to pay their own legal team. Yeah they probably wont but within the world of NCSOFT and COX I've seen very slim chance stuff happen that was at one point dubious but when it happened, it was "what in the world"?


But either way, try some stuff and see what happens. Who knows. NCSOFT may not even give a crap. Or they might be watching like a hawk collecting data and looking at posts to prove it was with intent to do something illegal and the person knew it was illegal. Who knows. The worse thing that can happen if something dont pop up is years down the line saying we should of could would of... Dont let that happen if there is a chance besides, eventually that RE loophole when it comes to digital media may not be there forever.