Because the game is shutdown. WOW is not shutdown so they cannot just allow pirated version to run. They never hope to make one dime out of SWG so they let it go. Why spend a few thousand dollars defending SWG when they have nothing to gain from it. WOW had a lot to lose and lots to gain by what they did.
Nostalrius was left to run for almost a year, what you need to keep in mind is that most companies don't mind private servers. It's when the private servers take the **** and get too big that they start to get annoyed.
Because the game is shutdown. WOW is not shutdown so they cannot just allow pirated version to run. They never hope to make one dime out of SWG so they let it go. Why spend a few thousand dollars defending SWG when they have nothing to gain from it. WOW had a lot to lose and lots to gain by what they did.
Respectfully
Read Blizzards statement more closely.
"The honest answer is, failure to protect against intellectual property infringement would damage Blizzard’s rights. This applies to anything that uses WoW’s IP"
It is very simple: because the SWGEMU is considered under the "fan art" exception of IP and copyright law.
Part of that exception requires that the original company not lose any revenue from the fan art's use (which they are not because the commercial version of SWG is closed), and further the producers of the fan art may not profit or sell/use it commercially (thus, the EMU is supported by donations only, they can not even sell ad space on the EMU webpages).
Also, since the people are remaking the server code from scratch, the IP of the producer of the original server game code itself is not being used, and thus is not any infringement on the rights of the producer of the original server code (SOE sold to DBG).
Further, it also dovetails with fair use doctrine, for people that bought physical copies of SWG at some time in the past.
Because people lawfully purchased those discs, people can use what is on them, including copyrighted material, for their personal use. That is why every user of the EMU is required to have a copy of the original discs.
So, the SWGEMU is "allowed" to exist because it treads a very careful lane, of how it is made and being supported, fair use law protecting the owners of original disks, and because of the fact that the commercial version of SWG is closed.
Because the game is shutdown. WOW is not shutdown so they cannot just allow pirated version to run. They never hope to make one dime out of SWG so they let it go. Why spend a few thousand dollars defending SWG when they have nothing to gain from it. WOW had a lot to lose and lots to gain by what they did.
Respectfully
Read Blizzards statement more closely.
"The honest answer is, failure to protect against intellectual property infringement would damage Blizzard’s rights. This applies to anything that uses WoW’s IP"
Respectfully,
like the person you quoted said WoW is still operating it's not abandonware and so it's still worth protecting the "IP" as they are still making money off it.
SWG on the other hand there's no point in trying to protect it as it's abandonware and not operating so there's no point in trying to protect something as they'll never restart that game and make money from it plus those playing swg prob don't give rats behind about swtor and wouldn't play even if swg was closed.
You'll note EA will never give an official okay for swgemus due to not wanting to undermine swtor license wise even though the swg code doesn't really belong to them and belongs to several other companies and it was said in the past, by sony, that the "code" was lost and so they couldn't restart it if they wanted.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
It is very simple: because the SWGEMU is considered under the "fan art" exception of IP and copyright law.
Part of that exception requires that the original company not lose any revenue from the fan art's use (which they are not because the commercial version of SWG is closed), and further the producers of the fan art may not profit or sell/use it commercially (thus, the EMU is supported by donations only, they can not even sell ad space on the EMU webpages).
Also, since the people remaking the server code from scratch, the IP of the producer of the original server game code itself is not being used, and thus is not any infringement on the rights of the producer of the original server code (SOE sold to DBG).
Further, it also dovetails with fair use doctrine, for people that bought physical copies of SWG at some time in the past.
Because people lawfully purchased those discs, people can use what is on them, including copyrighted material, for their personal use. That is why every user of the EMU is required to have a copy of the original discs.
So, the SWGEMU is "allowed" to exist because it treads a very careful lane, of how it is made and being supported, and because of the fact that the commercial version of SWG is closed.
It is all perfectly legal.
I believe that you are very close to the mark.
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
Disney ofc could claim it is not transformative enough to fall under fair use. Slam them for using art/audio assets they now own... =P
Then bury the people behind it in legal fees until they give up and shut it down..
Not really.
Disney would have to prove the EMU does not qualify for the fan art exception, when on its face, it satisfies all of the requirements for it to do that.
Probably would not make it out of a preliminary hearing.
That said, if they really wanted to go after the EMU people, they could keep bleeding them with legal fees, but why bother when there is no pay off at the end (i.e. damages) and all you would do is alienate the fans of an IP that you are currently releasing new movies and merchandice for?
And if there are no damages, you can not demonstrate commercial harm, as such there is no case.
Disney would have to prove the EMU does not qualify for the fan art exception, when on its face, it satisfies all of the requirements for it to do that.
Probably would not make it out of a preliminary hearing.
That said, if they really wanted to go after the EMU people, they could keep bleeding them with legal fees, but why bother when there is no pay off at the end (i.e. damages) and all you would do is alienate the fans of an IP that you are currently releasing new movies and merchandice for?
Yeah that was my point too... make up some half-bogus charge and then just bleed them in to submission. As for why... Because Disney is fucking nuts when it comes to it´s properties. But i guess Star Wars is still to low on the company totem pole (not being a original IP) for any of the really insane IP shenanigans.
Also the fact that they have no control of a piece of their IP that could be seen as a official licenced product, especially as it is set during the classic era. And with Rogue 1 coming that could turn in to a sensitive spot.
Disney's interest would be the IP usage. Company insists servers close. People say no problem but you need to reinstate the service. If this went to court Disney could "win" but face the risk of finding themselves with an attachment to reinstate the service.
Where in the world do you get that idea from.
The only thing you "own" is the physical media... as in they can not come to your house and demand that you return the CD...
The rest was access to a service... No different than if a magazine goes OOB or Netflix have drop a series from their service. (or for that matter have to shut down)
As I - and others - said people bought the game. And - certainly in the EU - it has been legally established in the highest EU court - that people do not simply own the physical media. Were do you get that idea from?
The access to a service was covered by a monthly subscription. And this is very diferent to magazines - not a service at all but 100% advance purchase of physical goods or the likes of Netflix which 100% rents you the right to watch programmes.
Now what is interesting to consider - and educational - are when services like Netflix "sell" people e.g. films.
Now I don't subscribe to Netflix but one of the two services I subscribe to - if I buy a film from them - send out a DVD. They introduced this after the EU court ruling. Coincidence? Maybe but in doing so it means that if they should pull the plug they will have no obligation. Amazon operate like this in the EU as well if you rip an album - they will send you the disc (haven't checked US). And when Walmart closed its music service they made arrangements with another provider.
No arrangement was made for people who had bought SWG to continue playing.
Now if there had been no upfront charge and just a monthly subscription different kettle of fish. People bought SWG however and that gives them (non-exclusive) ownership.
Now you might think this is stupid but instead of an mmo think of a large company that has paid millions for some software for - well everything really from order systems, delivery, payroll, HR, development. Systems that often have dependencies. Could be as simple as having to connect to a server that checks the registration number - which is pretty common these days for all sorts of stuff. You going to say that all they own is the physical media when e.g. said service shuts. Well the highest court in the EU decided otherwise and in sinple terms they ruled that the software is a product and as such gets both the legal protection and the legal obligations of a product - and as we know there are issues with products. And what they avoided not to do was to set about trying to create a whole new set of laws.
Every argument as to why an Emu is illegal, theft and piracy concerning Vanilla WoW is also valid for Star Wars Galaxies.
Does not the risk losing control of the IP as stated by Blizzard:
"The honest answer is, failure to protect against intellectual property infringement would damage Blizzard’s rights. This applies to anything that uses WoW’s IP, including unofficial servers"
Not also ring true for Disney concerning Star Wars?
No that is a generalization. Many factors are considered and one of them is the stance of the owning body, which in the case of Star Wars has assumed a stance of indifference with some stipulations. Blizzard's Warcraft is generic enough that it could be easily impeded upon by another property. Star Wars is too big and specific to suffer the same fate.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Disney would have to prove the EMU does not qualify for the fan art exception, when on its face, it satisfies all of the requirements for it to do that.
Probably would not make it out of a preliminary hearing.
That said, if they really wanted to go after the EMU people, they could keep bleeding them with legal fees, but why bother when there is no pay off at the end (i.e. damages) and all you would do is alienate the fans of an IP that you are currently releasing new movies and merchandice for?
Yeah that was my point too... make up some half-bogus charge and then just bleed them in to submission. As for why... Because Disney is fucking nuts when it comes to it´s properties. But i guess Star Wars is still to low on the company totem pole (not being a original IP) for any of the really insane IP shenanigans.
Also the fact that they have no control of a piece of their IP that could be seen as a official licenced product, especially as it is set during the classic era. And with Rogue 1 coming that could turn in to a sensitive spot.
And as I said in my first post the people running the server could choose not to contest the case - thereby avoiding huge legal fees - and simply agree to close the server down asking the judge to instruct Disney to reinstate the service. SWG would therefore cease to be "abandonware". End of case.
Of course for Disney this would be the start of a nightmare. Almost certainly one of the reasons that AC has/is being moved to privately hosted servers and probably played a part in EA spinning off Broadsword as well (for UO and DAoC).
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
IF you really wanna know the ins and outs of this start here, http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html, I've been skimming through it's been pretty informative thus far. There's even an index to look through to see case judgments on fair use... (IE) what is and what is not seen as such.
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
I'm sure if you look deep enough you'll find all the answers you're seeking.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
If the original server code - created by SoE as was - was being used then there would be an IP / copyright issue; that is (assumed to be) not the case. The people (typically volunteers) who run these services usually generate the code themselves.
Nor is the server an alternative - the original service having been shuttered. Hence the "abandonware" tag that has been used.
Good source though - but things are subtle and rulings are often made with an eye on the big picture.
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
IF you really wanna know the ins and outs of this start here, http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html, I've been skimming through it's been pretty informative thus far. There's even an index to look through to see case judgments on fair use... (IE) what is and what is not seen as such.
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
I'm sure if you look deep enough you'll find all the answers you're seeking.
One thing you have to remember.
US copyright law only pertains to the US. If you're selling your product in another country, it's that countries laws and regulations that rule the day.
There is International copyright law, and that applies only to the countries who have signed on and agreed to the rules and conditions contained within the that treaty.
US copyright law only pertains to the US. If you're selling your product in another country, it's that countries laws and regulations that rule the day.
There is International copyright law, and that applies only to the countries who have signed on and agreed to the rules and conditions contained within the that treaty.
Correct. And US courts are have not generated a ruling like that in the EU. There was a discussion several months ago and a link to what forms the basis of current US copyright / IP law and the general concensus was that if the same type of case came before the US supreme court then they would - probably - rule the same way. Same big picture issues basically. However until they do assuming that software is a product is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
If the original server code - created by SoE as was - was being used then there would be an IP / copyright issue; that is (assumed to be) not the case. The people (typically volunteers) who run these services usually generate the code themselves.
Nor is the server an alternative - the original service having been shuttered. Hence the "abandonware" tag that has been used.
Good source though - but things are subtle and rulings are often made with an eye on the big picture.
Yeah one section talked about that it's usually on a case by case basis, IE.. Blizzard would have more of a case than LA/Disney, in that SWG isn't in direct competition with a current product of theirs, while it could be argued WOW emulators are in competition with Blizzards currently live service.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
IF you really wanna know the ins and outs of this start here, http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html, I've been skimming through it's been pretty informative thus far. There's even an index to look through to see case judgments on fair use... (IE) what is and what is not seen as such.
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
I'm sure if you look deep enough you'll find all the answers you're seeking.
One thing you have to remember.
US copyright law only pertains to the US. If you're selling your product in another country, it's that countries laws and regulations that rule the day.
There is International copyright law, and that applies only to the countries who have signed on and agreed to the rules and conditions contained within the that treaty.
Very true, that's why I usually only focus on what is pertinent to myself in the US. Whereas others focus on how it works where they are. I'm not going to try and start a server of my own that's for sure . Nor will I start illegally downloading products, because it's okay to do somewhere else.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"Because the game is shutdown. WOW is not shutdown so they cannot just allow pirated version to run. They never hope to make one dime out of SWG so they let it go. Why spend a few thousand dollars defending SWG when they have nothing to gain from it. WOW had a lot to lose and lots to gain by what they did. "
Sony owned SWG and now I believe Daybreak does, the reason SWG servers are still going is because DBG are not a bunch of douche nozzels like Blizzard. Proof is that they freaking endorsed the EQ servers.
Sony owned SWG and now I believe Daybreak does, the reason SWG servers are still going is because DBG are not a bunch of douche nozzels like Blizzard. Proof is that they freaking endorsed the EQ servers.
DMCA and copyright don't extend to SWG, since it is an abandoned game. Disney, etc. don't have legal standing to shut them down as long as it remains as a nonprofit endeavor.
If the holder of the IP wanted to solve the problem they could do it by simply making a sequel that is as good or better than the original. The EMU servers would dry up overnight for an SWG 2 that wasn't watered down or otherwise compromised (wrong era, non-theme park, etc.)
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Comments
Read Blizzards statement more closely.
"The honest answer is, failure to protect against intellectual property infringement would damage Blizzard’s rights. This applies to anything that uses WoW’s IP"
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Part of that exception requires that the original company not lose any revenue from the fan art's use (which they are not because the commercial version of SWG is closed), and further the producers of the fan art may not profit or sell/use it commercially (thus, the EMU is supported by donations only, they can not even sell ad space on the EMU webpages).
Also, since the people are remaking the server code from scratch, the IP of the producer of the original server game code itself is not being used, and thus is not any infringement on the rights of the producer of the original server code (SOE sold to DBG).
Further, it also dovetails with fair use doctrine, for people that bought physical copies of SWG at some time in the past.
Because people lawfully purchased those discs, people can use what is on them, including copyrighted material, for their personal use. That is why every user of the EMU is required to have a copy of the original discs.
So, the SWGEMU is "allowed" to exist because it treads a very careful lane, of how it is made and being supported, fair use law protecting the owners of original disks, and because of the fact that the commercial version of SWG is closed.
It is all perfectly legal.
Perfectly legal is stretching it a bit. But legal enough. (if it was not Disney would have had it shut down as soon as they got the Star Wars IP:)
Now with that said as soon as they make even a dollar of that emulator... They are toast.
This have been a good conversation
like the person you quoted said WoW is still operating it's not abandonware and so it's still worth protecting the "IP" as they are still making money off it.
SWG on the other hand there's no point in trying to protect it as it's abandonware and not operating so there's no point in trying to protect something as they'll never restart that game and make money from it plus those playing swg prob don't give rats behind about swtor and wouldn't play even if swg was closed.
You'll note EA will never give an official okay for swgemus due to not wanting to undermine swtor license wise even though the swg code doesn't really belong to them and belongs to several other companies and it was said in the past, by sony, that the "code" was lost and so they couldn't restart it if they wanted.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Then bury the people behind it in legal fees until they give up and shut it down..
This have been a good conversation
As to other comments, The infringements are not pertaining to a single product, but to a whole franchise.
If Disney was worried about any risk for loss of ownership rights, I'm sure they would shut things down lickedy split.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Disney would have to prove the EMU does not qualify for the fan art exception, when on its face, it satisfies all of the requirements for it to do that.
Probably would not make it out of a preliminary hearing.
That said, if they really wanted to go after the EMU people, they could keep bleeding them with legal fees, but why bother when there is no pay off at the end (i.e. damages) and all you would do is alienate the fans of an IP that you are currently releasing new movies and merchandice for?
And if there are no damages, you can not demonstrate commercial harm, as such there is no case.
Also the fact that they have no control of a piece of their IP that could be seen as a official licenced product, especially as it is set during the classic era. And with Rogue 1 coming that could turn in to a sensitive spot.
This have been a good conversation
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
The access to a service was covered by a monthly subscription. And this is very diferent to magazines - not a service at all but 100% advance purchase of physical goods or the likes of Netflix which 100% rents you the right to watch programmes.
Now what is interesting to consider - and educational - are when services like Netflix "sell" people e.g. films.
Now I don't subscribe to Netflix but one of the two services I subscribe to - if I buy a film from them - send out a DVD. They introduced this after the EU court ruling. Coincidence? Maybe but in doing so it means that if they should pull the plug they will have no obligation. Amazon operate like this in the EU as well if you rip an album - they will send you the disc (haven't checked US). And when Walmart closed its music service they made arrangements with another provider.
No arrangement was made for people who had bought SWG to continue playing.
Now if there had been no upfront charge and just a monthly subscription different kettle of fish. People bought SWG however and that gives them (non-exclusive) ownership.
Now you might think this is stupid but instead of an mmo think of a large company that has paid millions for some software for - well everything really from order systems, delivery, payroll, HR, development. Systems that often have dependencies. Could be as simple as having to connect to a server that checks the registration number - which is pretty common these days for all sorts of stuff. You going to say that all they own is the physical media when e.g. said service shuts. Well the highest court in the EU decided otherwise and in sinple terms they ruled that the software is a product and as such gets both the legal protection and the legal obligations of a product - and as we know there are issues with products. And what they avoided not to do was to set about trying to create a whole new set of laws.
Of course for Disney this would be the start of a nightmare. Almost certainly one of the reasons that AC has/is being moved to privately hosted servers and probably played a part in EA spinning off Broadsword as well (for UO and DAoC).
What I've seen so far doesn't seem to support the idea of offering a free alternative to a copyrighted paid service.
I'm sure if you look deep enough you'll find all the answers you're seeking.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Nor is the server an alternative - the original service having been shuttered. Hence the "abandonware" tag that has been used.
Good source though - but things are subtle and rulings are often made with an eye on the big picture.
US copyright law only pertains to the US. If you're selling your product in another country, it's that countries laws and regulations that rule the day.
There is International copyright law, and that applies only to the countries who have signed on and agreed to the rules and conditions contained within the that treaty.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"Because the game is shutdown. WOW is not shutdown so they cannot just allow pirated version to run. They never hope to make one dime out of SWG so they let it go. Why spend a few thousand dollars defending SWG when they have nothing to gain from it. WOW had a lot to lose and lots to gain by what they did. "
Sony owned SWG and now I believe Daybreak does, the reason SWG servers are still going is because DBG are not a bunch of douche nozzels like Blizzard. Proof is that they freaking endorsed the EQ servers.
DMCA and copyright don't extend to SWG, since it is an abandoned game. Disney, etc. don't have legal standing to shut them down as long as it remains as a nonprofit endeavor.