Just Wondering

Originally Posted by Cisyouc

Theres a difference.
If you jaywalk, most likely nothing would happen.
If this became a place for EQ Warez, EQEMu most likely would be shut down, much like Scorpious2k and Winter's Roar which have been shut down and did, notably, have patchers (not saying that was the cause, I do not know the facts well enough)

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

Rember that pic of the high elf on the main page at the very bottom, yep they gave that as one of the 20+ examples they listed.

[Sakrateri]

So EQEMU has gotten permission for the ones on the homepage here? If not then perhaps they should be changed ?

[image]

Sounds like Sony is beating around the bush to me

[johane]

Originally Posted by image

Sounds like Sony is beating around the bush to me

No, Sony is acting in a prudent manner, and protecting the interests of their shareholders.

You see, there is a grey area about EULAs in law, and there's another grey area regarding files they distribute via a flat HTTP transport (note there's no copyright headers come from the SOE patch server) may or may not be freely distributed to the public . Just as this community doesn't want to test these things in court ( we can't afford it!) Sony doesnt really want this kind of thing to test it in court (as they're not absolutely 100% certain they'd win).

Using copyrighted images is however a completely different issue. Sony know they'd win any court case about them - no doubt whatsoever.

So they shut down (what they see as) offensive sites based on that aspect of copyright law.

Their actions have zero risk to them, and they protect their shareholder's investment. Don't forget, if they don't actively demonstrate that they try to protect their copyright of images made freely available to anonymous users over the Internet they (might) erode their propietry interest in said images.

Shutting down a site over a patcher however opens another can of worms. EQLive subscribers pay for a service. Do "owners" of the EQ client who are NOT subscribers have the right to use that software for other purposes? According to the EULA no, but EULAs are dodgy in law anyway (whatever they are they arn't contracts!). Sony certainly doesnt want to go to court over that on the (very slim) chance that they lose and open a huge can of worms for the entire commercial MMORPG industry. Given the love that US Courts have for Corporations, I have little doubt that they would win in court, but it's NOT zero risk.

FYI, I'm not a Lawyer, but I was CTO of a publically listed Internet gaming company that went belly up in the dotcom crash. The above is how things work in Real Life.

[boppoom]

seems kinda quiet ever since he posted that post lol...... mabey a point proven!?!?!

[Traul]

Originally Posted by boppoom

seems kinda quiet ever since he posted that post lol...... mabey a point proven!?!?!

Maybe because he only posted it a couple hours ago

[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

Please look at www.eqemulator.net , www.eqvault.com,www.everlore.com, etc.

As I said, beating around the bush for Sony or else they would have gone after mattmeck for the patch server and hosting an eqemu server.

Last but not least my apologies to boppoom for having a life beyond this site and cannot respond within his appropriate time frame.

I also congratulate boppoom on his first post, he has a great future here! -_-

[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.

[johane]

Originally Posted by Cisyouc

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

I think we're talking at cross purposes here....

I do not condone re-distribution of SOE copyrighted material.

I was talking about why SOE would pul a C&D against a web-site vs against a server, and the comment you've quoted was meant to point out, in context, that the best move (lowest risk, maximum gain) from their perspective is to go against a web-site on copyright, and catch the server in the wake.