Just Wondering

[johane]

Originally Posted by image

Johane, let me quote what mattmeck said

"The C&D specifically stated why they were coming after the Scorp site, it was because we used EQ names and graphics on the site without there permition"

While I know he meant permission:
- Says nothing about a patch server first of all
- Second it only refers to the site, so why the entire server got shutdown is beyond me

My point is that SOE would be on very shaky ground trying to get a site shut down for (a) running a patch server or (b) running an emu.

But they have absolutely zero risk pulling a C&D based on copyright of images, and it makes the shareholders feel warm and fuzzy.

Keep in mind what SOE's sole responsibilities are:

KEEPING SONY SHAREHOLDERS HAPPY

and

try not to break the law too much

and

keep the SEC and IRS happy

Now one way to keep shareholders happy is to concentrate on things that make money.

SOE makes money by people buying the game and then subscribing and then buying expansion after expansion.

If an emu with a patch server exists people can buy EQ, patch up to Live, and then play the emu, so SOE doesnt get as much money.

So patch servers are direct threats to their revenue model.

Emus that dont have patch servers will only have relatively few players who dont also subscribe to Live, relative to the potential number on the emu with Patch server.

The reason you see Fan sites that arn't taken down is because they make SOE money. They have (or at least had in 2000) a PR person whose job was to make the major fan sites feel happy and get big communities, as big community here equals more SOE subscribers. So even if they don't have permission, they are the best form of advertising - the kind they don't have to pay for. This is good for shareholders.

I find it kinda hard to see the Scorpious community as being a positive advert for EQ, but perhaps I am ignorant on this point.

Since the EQ patcher uses HTTP as a transport I guess that maybe a "Patch Server" is just a website on a funny port. So shutting down a website is shutting down the Patch Server. I know that just after Velious came out I grabbed it using wget, so that's what it (the EQLive Patch server) used to be.

[image]

Its great that you can get all legal technical and such but all they had to do was remove the 'copyrighted' images from the site and sony would have to go back into its corner unless they specifically mentioned the patcher or the emu server. So lets not act like there was a 'bigger message' coming from Sony as they did not specify it.

I am well aware of how EverQuest works johane, check out my tag, I have been here before this project was even called EQEMu (AGXEMu, FreeQuest, I doubt these names ring a bell to you)

SOE went as far as to contack my host and they wiped the site ( let me keep the domain and everything surprisingly ) and I DID state the C&D had over 20 items we were asked to stop, and the patcher was one. I guess having the program download on the site caused that.

Pure and simple SOE has the plat to take people to court, as long as the people cant afford to fight back SOE will win.

[boogerific]

One point that seems to be missing from this thread is that no one "owns" their purchased copy or anything that's been downloaded from Sony. It's licensed. Sony owns the software they've provided to anyone, be it from a purchase from a retailer or from a download. When push comes to shove, if Sony really wanted to, they could go way beyond annoying people with the C&D orders. As Mattmeck said, there are other points to take into consideration beyond copyrighted images and patch servers.

An interesting case happened a few years back when a Adtran introduced a low-cost router that ran on what appeared to be pirated software from Cisco. In actuality, the only thing that was similar to Cisco's software was the UI, and the court ruled that since the code running the router was unique and completely different from the code that Cisco used, Adtran was in the clear. They ruled the UI is just that.. an interface, not the OS, and therefore, not an infringement of copyright.

Boog

[Cisyouc]

Since the EQ patcher uses HTTP as a transport I guess that maybe a "Patch Server" is just a website on a funny port. So shutting down a website is shutting down the Patch Server. I know that just after Velious came out I grabbed it using wget, so that's what it (the EQLive Patch server) used to be.

I'm not sure I understand what connection you're trying to make between protocol and content. Just because its available through an open protocol, doesn't mean its yours for the taking.

[johane]

Originally Posted by Cisyouc

I'm not sure I understand what connection you're trying to make between protocol and content. Just because its available through an open protocol, doesn't mean its yours for the taking.

I'm saying that a "Patch Server" is just a website. Shutdown the web server you've shut down the patch server.

It's the courts who've said that if you take no steps to protect your property then you might have relinquished some of your rights regarding it.

However, Matt has hit the nail on the head:

Pure and simple SOE has the plat to take people to court, as long as the people cant afford to fight back SOE will win.

[Cisyouc]

It's the courts who've said that if you take no steps to protect your property then you might have relinquished some of your rights regarding it.

Still doesn't give us the right to redistribute it on our own servers.

[logain721]

Originally Posted by boogerific

One point that seems to be missing from this thread is that no one "owns" their purchased copy or anything that's been downloaded from Sony. It's licensed. Sony owns the software they've provided to anyone, be it from a purchase from a retailer or from a download. When push comes to shove, if Sony really wanted to, they could go way beyond annoying people with the C&D orders. As Mattmeck said, there are other points to take into consideration beyond copyrighted images and patch servers.

An interesting case happened a few years back when a Adtran introduced a low-cost router that ran on what appeared to be pirated software from Cisco. In actuality, the only thing that was similar to Cisco's software was the UI, and the court ruled that since the code running the router was unique and completely different from the code that Cisco used, Adtran was in the clear. They ruled the UI is just that.. an interface, not the OS, and therefore, not an infringement of copyright.
Boog

Lets just say someone decides to take someone to court in regards to this, and lets just say that someone was me. I just would'nt appear in court like I have been doing for the past 5 years.. And what a surprise the only thing these companies can ever manage to do is have a warrant out for my arrest which gets them no where.

I dont fear our justice system and never will, atleast not until they can get there lazy arse's up and do somthing other than place warrants out for my arrest.

Originally Posted by logain721

I dont fear our justice system and never will, atleast not until they can get there lazy arse's up and do somthing other than place warrants out for my arrest.

Some of us have jobs that require backround checks ect, so ummm that wouldnt work for me.

[logain721]

Originally Posted by mattmeck

Some of us have jobs that require backround checks ect, so ummm that wouldnt work for me.

That is why I love my under the table job at Arrowhead plastics..lol