It's not exactly the same as taking on a non-profit server hosted in a different country, administered by non U.S. citizens, and running a 10 year old version of the game.
Well the last part there is... As far as i understand it... Irrelevant.
The other two points are sort of relevant if they set up shop in an.. more unregulated.. area... That excludes pretty much all of the EU and a decent chunk of the countries in the Asian region. But beyond that... Not really worth the money to try and get proper traction i think.
It's not exactly the same as taking on a non-profit server hosted in a different country, administered by non U.S. citizens, and running a 10 year old version of the game.
Well the last part there is... As far as i understand it... Irrelevant.
The other two points are sort of relevant if they set up shop in an.. more unregulated.. area... That excludes pretty much all of the EU and a decent chunk of the countries in the Asian region. But beyond that... Not really worth the money to try and get proper traction i think.
I agree the age itself may not be relevant, the Defendant would have to prove that, due to the age of their version, there's no measurable financial impact on Blizzard's current version revenue.
But that's just one portion of a few things that help qualify a case as IP infringement, according to what I've been able to find online regarding the burden of proof in these cases. Others are the extent to which the work is copied wholesale, the revenue generated (if any) by its use by the defendant, as well as the type of use intended by the original product.
I may be leaving out other facets as well, but those stood out as heavy influencers in these sorts of cases.
It's really pathetic how this went from "I am ignoring copyright laws" to "lolol ignoring laws is good cause... slavery!!"
I was citing an example of a law that was not just, was rightly challenged, and eventually changed. It's an extreme example, sure, but it illustrates well the point I was trying to make. A rational human being should always question the rules rather than just blindly accepting them.
And that is the point. Your examples are so extreme that they no longer have anything to do with the case at hand. Then you pat yourself on the shoulder for spreading the enlightment that everyone should challenge the system.
Meanwhile this is still only gaming forum so your attempts to free slaves come across as humorous at best.
Well, if you scroll back to that page in the thread, you'll see the example of slavery I used was in response to somebody who stated I'd have the vote of rapists and murderers for suggesting that it's unwise to accept law without question. I notice you didn't comment on that, though. I guess slavery is where you draw the line for your hyperbole policing?
I drew the line already when he came up with this bullshit of "corrupt laws" and for some reason you felt like backing him up by bringing up laws from 150 years ago.
Go ahead bring more examples without the slightest relation to the topic. The thread has long turned into a mix of political debates and trolling anyway.
Would be interesting to see what line it would go down.. The "living product" line or the one the pirvate servers try to argue, that due to it no longer being accessible... Classic WoW is a legacy product. But then we need to get past the hurdle of "do Blizzard have any legal right to say what you do do with your classic disks" As in... Is there any specific law actually preventing someone to hooking your classic disk up to a server of their own.
That in turn begs the question... should such clemency be extended to the current physical media that never held the classic version to begin with. (or in short. would you as a customer have to have a genuine classci disk to be able to play.)
The box paints a different picture regarding the "rental" aspect.
I kind of like the "Blizzards dedicated live team creates a constant stream of new adventure to undertake, lands to explore, and monsters to vanquish. The epic quest never ends."
Funny but semantics and you know it , but you know what does jump right out on that BOX
Sales Number Billing and Acct Billing
All the information any person could ever want to find out exactly what there money was paying for ....
But as you everyone else who ever payed a sub and has common sense KNOWS "The Adnventure ends when PAyment ends" Like any other service .... ...
Except for Hookers , where the Adventure begins when payment ends , but even they will hold the right to upcharge for additional services ..
And lets not forget to mention if we are going to have show and tell ......Front of Box
First Month of Play Included Internet Connection Required Additional Online Fees Apply
Anyone here confused by this , or feel it justifies stealing there service at alter date ..
I'm a straight shooter, I like to cut to the chase, call a spade a spade.
No where does it state on the box that you are only renting the product. Remember that places like Block Buster at the time were quite clearly *renting* games. No purchase price required.
If your charging me a purchase price for the right to *rent* a product, you better make that very fucking clear and it better be before I pay you my hard earned money.
The debate is whether *you* as the *purchaser* of the *product* have the right to use the product that you *purchased* for your own personal enjoyment.
That's the foundation of one of the legal arguments. The music industry faced a similar argument with the use of recordable cassette tapes etc. and it was ruled that consumers had the right to make copies of the music for their own personal use.
Another legal arguement is whether someone like Nostalrius can develop software of their own design, making use of their own assets, that has the capability to interact with a product that you purchased so you could use it for your own personal enjoyment.
I'm sure the Car companies and their stock holders would love to make aftermarket parts and that industry illegal.
I find it very interesting that Blizzard and the other companies affected seem to have no appetite to actually take these arguments into a court room. IMHO there is a significant chance that a ruling might not go their way.
I'm not judging the case, that's for the courts. I can see valid arguments on both sides.
p.s.
Looking at the actual box its quite interesting to see the the "Experience may change during online play" point that people like to use actually only pertains to the ESRB rating.
Except for the part where is says: "First month of play included Internet connection required Additional online fees apply"
On both the front and back. It directly implies that there is no game without both internet and a paid service account.
I don't think full disclosure needs to be on the box. The summary disclosure is there with references where the account holder can get the full disclosure.
Not to mention the terms of service that everyone had to click off before even entering the game (people will bring up minors without even thinking that it was a credit card game back then and no time cards, so anyone 18+ is responsible, whether they knew or not). Of course no one completely reads those things in any game, but it might do some good if they did.
The box paints a different picture regarding the "rental" aspect.
I kind of like the "Blizzards dedicated live team creates a constant stream of new adventure to undertake, lands to explore, and monsters to vanquish. The epic quest never ends."
Funny but semantics and you know it , but you know what does jump right out on that BOX
Sales Number Billing and Acct Billing
All the information any person could ever want to find out exactly what there money was paying for ....
But as you everyone else who ever payed a sub and has common sense KNOWS "The Adnventure ends when PAyment ends" Like any other service .... ...
Except for Hookers , where the Adventure begins when payment ends , but even they will hold the right to upcharge for additional services ..
And lets not forget to mention if we are going to have show and tell ......Front of Box
First Month of Play Included Internet Connection Required Additional Online Fees Apply
Anyone here confused by this , or feel it justifies stealing there service at alter date ..
I'm a straight shooter, I like to cut to the chase, call a spade a spade.
No where does it state on the box that you are only renting the product. Remember that places like Block Buster at the time were quite clearly *renting* games. No purchase price required.
If your charging me a purchase price for the right to *rent* a product, you better make that very fucking clear and it better be before I pay you my hard earned money.
The debate is whether *you* as the *purchaser* of the *product* have the right to use the product that you *purchased* for your own personal enjoyment.
That's the foundation of one of the legal arguments. The music industry faced a similar argument with the use of recordable cassette tapes etc. and it was ruled that consumers had the right to make copies of the music for their own personal use.
Another legal arguement is whether someone like Nostalrius can develop software of their own design, making use of their own assets, that has the capability to interact with a product that you purchased so you could use it for your own personal enjoyment.
I'm sure the Car companies and their stock holders would love to make aftermarket parts and that industry illegal.
I find it very interesting that Blizzard and the other companies affected seem to have no appetite to actually take these arguments into a court room. IMHO there is a significant chance that a ruling might not go their way.
I'm not judging the case, that's for the courts. I can see valid arguments on both sides.
p.s.
Looking at the actual box its quite interesting to see the the "Experience may change during online play" point that people like to use actually only pertains to the ESRB rating.
Except for the part where is says: "First month of play included Internet connection required Additional online fees apply"
On both the front and back. It directly implies that there is no game without both internet and a paid service account.
I don't think full disclosure needs to be on the box. The summary disclosure is there with references where the account holder can get the full disclosure.
I was arguing the point of whether the game client was purchased or rented as was claimed. I'm not disputing the fact that WoW is a subscription game
Even the court documents refer to the client as being purchased.
"Plaintiff is a publisher of entertainment software and has
released many popular computer games. (Compl. ¶ 8.) One of the games
that Plaintiff produces, World of Warcraft, involves large numbers of
players interacting with each other simultaneously in a virtual
persistent online world. (Compl. ¶ 9.) World of Warcraft’s revenue is
based on a subscription fee model, which involves consumers first
purchasing a legitimate version of the World of Warcraft game client
software and then also making periodic subscription payments."
This line has nothing to do with WoW's ever evolving world and everything to do with the ESRB rating. Companies can't control your experience with other players, nor fully protect you from the mouth's of online gamers.
This was a common used line for anything involving other bodies online. Fifteen years ago I was a part-time gamestop employee and I remember having to clearly inform parents of this for any online game.
Happily playing Vanilla and BC WoW, again, since September 2016.
I hope they succeed,the world NEEDS competition and NOT laws that basically create monopolies...ahem right Hasbro?
Do we really want Blizzard with all it's money to keep out spending and advertising above everyone else so that smaller competition cannot compete? Ok we are talking about intellectual property rights.I say TOO BAD,once you SELL us the game,it is OURS.When i receive a receipt for a purchase,it is MINE. If for example Blizzard feels their property is worth a lot more,then try charging a lot more for the SALE,see how you make out...lol.
ll over the justice system,there are BAD laws,ones that eventually get changed and one's with tons of loopholes to allow crooked people to flourish and that is including the likes of Blizzard.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I hope they succeed,the world NEEDS competition and NOT laws that basically create monopolies...ahem right Hasbro?
Do we really want Blizzard with all it's money to keep out spending and advertising above everyone else so that smaller competition cannot compete? Ok we are talking about intellectual property rights.I say TOO BAD,once you SELL us the game,it is OURS.When i receive a receipt for a purchase,it is MINE. If for example Blizzard feels their property is worth a lot more,then try charging a lot more for the SALE,see how you make out...lol.
ll over the justice system,there are BAD laws,ones that eventually get changed and one's with tons of loopholes to allow crooked people to flourish and that is including the likes of Blizzard.
If a game is good, it does not matter how much Bliz spends on advertising. I will play what i like.
You are talking about completely different things here.
Like all the rest, trying to make up nonsense to convince yourselves that it is ok to steal.
Just stop the nonsense, all of you. People that are using this (WOW) game to play on any other servers than the "official" ones are stealing.
Just stop pretending, or trying to make nonsense arguments.
I hope they succeed,the world NEEDS competition and NOT laws that basically create monopolies...ahem right Hasbro?
Do we really want Blizzard with all it's money to keep out spending and advertising above everyone else so that smaller competition cannot compete? Ok we are talking about intellectual property rights.I say TOO BAD,once you SELL us the game,it is OURS.When i receive a receipt for a purchase,it is MINE. If for example Blizzard feels their property is worth a lot more,then try charging a lot more for the SALE,see how you make out...lol.
ll over the justice system,there are BAD laws,ones that eventually get changed and one's with tons of loopholes to allow crooked people to flourish and that is including the likes of Blizzard.
If a game is good, it does not matter how much Bliz spends on advertising. I will play what i like.
You are talking about completely different things here.
Like all the rest, trying to make up nonsense to convince yourselves that it is ok to steal.
Just stop the nonsense, all of you. People that are using this (WOW) game to play on any other servers than the "official" ones are stealing.
Just stop pretending, or trying to make nonsense arguments.
We can agree to disagree. I don't feel I'm stealing, I'm using a product I paid for. One which no longer exists on the market.
Happily playing Vanilla and BC WoW, again, since September 2016.
I hope they succeed,the world NEEDS competition and NOT laws that basically create monopolies...ahem right Hasbro?
Do we really want Blizzard with all it's money to keep out spending and advertising above everyone else so that smaller competition cannot compete? Ok we are talking about intellectual property rights.I say TOO BAD,once you SELL us the game,it is OURS.When i receive a receipt for a purchase,it is MINE. If for example Blizzard feels their property is worth a lot more,then try charging a lot more for the SALE,see how you make out...lol.
ll over the justice system,there are BAD laws,ones that eventually get changed and one's with tons of loopholes to allow crooked people to flourish and that is including the likes of Blizzard.
If a game is good, it does not matter how much Bliz spends on advertising. I will play what i like.
You are talking about completely different things here.
Like all the rest, trying to make up nonsense to convince yourselves that it is ok to steal.
Just stop the nonsense, all of you. People that are using this (WOW) game to play on any other servers than the "official" ones are stealing.
Just stop pretending, or trying to make nonsense arguments.
So, what if I'm paying Blizzard a subscription fee? Right now, I'm 2 months into a 6 month subscription. If I go home tonight and decide to login to a private server instead of an official one, am I "stealing" from Blizzard? If so, what am I stealing? I've paid for their product and their service.
See, folks like you try to simplify this, but this isn't a simple issue due to the nature of this type of game.
Impossible, we all know that nobody who plays private servers also pays a sub for current WoW. They only play private servers cause they're free.
Even though, out of my group of friends, every single one of them are playing Legion (and trying to get me to), and all of them played on Nost and are looking forward to doing so again. But, I'm probably just insane and they're all imaginary.
You are wrong man I know alot of people who play both... Please don't make things up!
Sorry, I'm stealing a piece of your comment from another thread - "The simple reason a $15 sub doesn't work"
--He mentions SWGemu server had a loop hole--
The EMU is totally not for profit and is being run as a de facto charity, all donations go towards upkeep, no one directly working on the project draws a salary. The EMU is considered "fan art".
The reason for this is at the core of why the SWG is legal/possible and is allowed under the law to exist: the "fan art" exception to copyright law in the US.
There are several conditions that must be met to satisfy the "fan art" exception to IP law, and they mostly center around money. First, the company whose IP it is can not be made to lose money by someone's fan art (since SWG is closed, that one is not hard). Another condition is that the producer of the fan art, conversely, can not profit from the company's IP either. (There are other conditions as well, including "not damaging the reputation of company of value of the IP by producing the fan art (which can't really be said since they are exactly remaking a game SOE/LA released)).
Seems to me Nostalrius/Elysium is setting themselves up for this.
Happily playing Vanilla and BC WoW, again, since September 2016.
Everyone is shouting IP THEFT left and right around here, yet not once have I seen mention of the semi-new provisions in the US' DMCA in regards to online games or online services that are no longer available.
If Nost went to court they would have to prove that the original owner no longer provides the game in question. What is interesting is that one can logically argue that while WoW 7.0 is still WoW, WoW 1.12 is ALSO WoW but is no longer available by the owners choice. Also much of the art assets used in 1.12 has also been abandoned for newer models as WoW has trudged on over the years.
it would be an interesting case, as it would be the first use of the new provisions to prove legality on behalf of non-profit entity for a game that is still in service yet does not provide access to an older version of said service.
so it is not a clear case of IP theft, nor is it a certainty that the Emulated server is legal. Mainly because such an occurrence has not gone to trial under the new DMCA provisions to give legal precedent.
P.S.
Copyright and Trademarks don't disappear, the original work is still protected. Obviously this can change but we'll be dead before any Blizzard product becomes public with current laws.
please google and read about the changes I mentioned to the US' DMCA passed into law in 2015 because the law did change in regards to abandonware services and the legality of their emulation.
you are making an argument based on a false premise, that the current law makes this an open and shut case of IP theft, before 2015 you would have been right. . .right before it changed.
Sorry but WoW doesn't fall under abandonware in any way shape or form. You're grasping at invisible straws.
Regardless, abandoned software is still protected by copyright law and if the owner of the copyright wishes can prosecute any violators of the copyright law. It is not legal to distribute even abandoned software that is copyrighted.
Yes WoW Legion is not abandonware. and yes your point about abandonware videogames being still under protection was valid. . .until the changes made to the DMCA in 2015 specifically in regards to videogames.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015! I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention
* * * * *
(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the
Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the
following classes of copyrighted works: . . .
. . . .(8)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or
downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the
copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an
external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game for personal gameplay on a personal
computer or video game console; or
(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game
console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an
eligible library, archives or museum, where such activities are carried out without any
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed
or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives or
museum.
(ii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent
necessary for an eligible library, archives or museum to engage in the preservation
activities described in paragraph (i)(B).
(iii) For purposes of the exemptions in paragraphs (i) and (ii), the following
definitions shall apply:
(A) “Complete games” means video games that can be played by users without
accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external
computer server.
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server
support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or,
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months;
provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
(C) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video
game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an
online service or facility.
(D) A library, archives or museum is considered “eligible” when the collections of the
library, archives or museum are open to the public and/or are routinely made available to
researchers who are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum.
key points to note: WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
Blizzard has no plans to implement "legacy" servers at this time.
WoW cannot be played offline, either in singleplayer or multiplayer.
Nost is not receiving a profit from running the game.
Nost can be classified as an archive since the game is made available to the public
You do realize you could say this about every single MMORPG on the market? They ALL have versions not available to the public that arent planned on ever being released again.
key points to note: WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
Blizzard has no plans to implement "legacy" servers at this time.
WoW cannot be played offline, either in singleplayer or multiplayer.
Nost is not receiving a profit from running the game.
Nost can be classified as an archive since the game is made available to the public
You do realize you could say this about every single MMORPG on the market? They ALL have versions not available to the public that arent planned on ever being released again.
Not every game is Vanilla WoW, but I would say we are starting to see some of these pop up.
You don't throw away 1st additions, you archive them.
Happily playing Vanilla and BC WoW, again, since September 2016.
Everyone is shouting IP THEFT left and right around here, yet not once have I seen mention of the semi-new provisions in the US' DMCA in regards to online games or online services that are no longer available.
If Nost went to court they would have to prove that the original owner no longer provides the game in question. What is interesting is that one can logically argue that while WoW 7.0 is still WoW, WoW 1.12 is ALSO WoW but is no longer available by the owners choice. Also much of the art assets used in 1.12 has also been abandoned for newer models as WoW has trudged on over the years.
it would be an interesting case, as it would be the first use of the new provisions to prove legality on behalf of non-profit entity for a game that is still in service yet does not provide access to an older version of said service.
so it is not a clear case of IP theft, nor is it a certainty that the Emulated server is legal. Mainly because such an occurrence has not gone to trial under the new DMCA provisions to give legal precedent.
P.S.
Copyright and Trademarks don't disappear, the original work is still protected. Obviously this can change but we'll be dead before any Blizzard product becomes public with current laws.
please google and read about the changes I mentioned to the US' DMCA passed into law in 2015 because the law did change in regards to abandonware services and the legality of their emulation.
you are making an argument based on a false premise, that the current law makes this an open and shut case of IP theft, before 2015 you would have been right. . .right before it changed.
Sorry but WoW doesn't fall under abandonware in any way shape or form. You're grasping at invisible straws.
Regardless, abandoned software is still protected by copyright law and if the owner of the copyright wishes can prosecute any violators of the copyright law. It is not legal to distribute even abandoned software that is copyrighted.
Yes WoW Legion is not abandonware. and yes your point about abandonware videogames being still under protection was valid. . .until the changes made to the DMCA in 2015 specifically in regards to videogames.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015! I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention
* * * * *
(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the
Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the
following classes of copyrighted works: . . .
. . . .(8)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or
downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the
copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an
external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game for personal gameplay on a personal
computer or video game console; or
(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game
console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an
eligible library, archives or museum, where such activities are carried out without any
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed
or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives or
museum.
(ii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent
necessary for an eligible library, archives or museum to engage in the preservation
activities described in paragraph (i)(B).
(iii) For purposes of the exemptions in paragraphs (i) and (ii), the following
definitions shall apply:
(A) “Complete games” means video games that can be played by users without
accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external
computer server.
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server
support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or,
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months;
provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
(C) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video
game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an
online service or facility.
(D) A library, archives or museum is considered “eligible” when the collections of the
library, archives or museum are open to the public and/or are routinely made available to
researchers who are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum.
key points to note: WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
Blizzard has no plans to implement "legacy" servers at this time.
WoW cannot be played offline, either in singleplayer or multiplayer.
Nost is not receiving a profit from running the game.
Nost can be classified as an archive since the game is made available to the public
None of which will have any bearing in any criminal proceedings that will be taken out against them. Not having permission from the current IP holders is all that is required to successfully prosecute.
Everyone is shouting IP THEFT left and right around here, yet not once have I seen mention of the semi-new provisions in the US' DMCA in regards to online games or online services that are no longer available.
If Nost went to court they would have to prove that the original owner no longer provides the game in question. What is interesting is that one can logically argue that while WoW 7.0 is still WoW, WoW 1.12 is ALSO WoW but is no longer available by the owners choice. Also much of the art assets used in 1.12 has also been abandoned for newer models as WoW has trudged on over the years.
it would be an interesting case, as it would be the first use of the new provisions to prove legality on behalf of non-profit entity for a game that is still in service yet does not provide access to an older version of said service.
so it is not a clear case of IP theft, nor is it a certainty that the Emulated server is legal. Mainly because such an occurrence has not gone to trial under the new DMCA provisions to give legal precedent.
P.S.
Copyright and Trademarks don't disappear, the original work is still protected. Obviously this can change but we'll be dead before any Blizzard product becomes public with current laws.
please google and read about the changes I mentioned to the US' DMCA passed into law in 2015 because the law did change in regards to abandonware services and the legality of their emulation.
you are making an argument based on a false premise, that the current law makes this an open and shut case of IP theft, before 2015 you would have been right. . .right before it changed.
Sorry but WoW doesn't fall under abandonware in any way shape or form. You're grasping at invisible straws.
Regardless, abandoned software is still protected by copyright law and if the owner of the copyright wishes can prosecute any violators of the copyright law. It is not legal to distribute even abandoned software that is copyrighted.
Yes WoW Legion is not abandonware. and yes your point about abandonware videogames being still under protection was valid. . .until the changes made to the DMCA in 2015 specifically in regards to videogames.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015! I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
None of which will have any bearing in any criminal proceedings that will be taken out against them. Not having permission from the current IP holders is all that is required to successfully prosecute.
All I read was, "I can't hear you." meanwhile you have your fingers in your ears.
The ruling is quite clear - partB (B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server
support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or,
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months;
provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
Happily playing Vanilla and BC WoW, again, since September 2016.
Everyone is shouting IP THEFT left and right around here, yet not once have I seen mention of the semi-new provisions in the US' DMCA in regards to online games or online services that are no longer available.
If Nost went to court they would have to prove that the original owner no longer provides the game in question. What is interesting is that one can logically argue that while WoW 7.0 is still WoW, WoW 1.12 is ALSO WoW but is no longer available by the owners choice. Also much of the art assets used in 1.12 has also been abandoned for newer models as WoW has trudged on over the years.
it would be an interesting case, as it would be the first use of the new provisions to prove legality on behalf of non-profit entity for a game that is still in service yet does not provide access to an older version of said service.
so it is not a clear case of IP theft, nor is it a certainty that the Emulated server is legal. Mainly because such an occurrence has not gone to trial under the new DMCA provisions to give legal precedent.
P.S.
Copyright and Trademarks don't disappear, the original work is still protected. Obviously this can change but we'll be dead before any Blizzard product becomes public with current laws.
please google and read about the changes I mentioned to the US' DMCA passed into law in 2015 because the law did change in regards to abandonware services and the legality of their emulation.
you are making an argument based on a false premise, that the current law makes this an open and shut case of IP theft, before 2015 you would have been right. . .right before it changed.
Sorry but WoW doesn't fall under abandonware in any way shape or form. You're grasping at invisible straws.
Regardless, abandoned software is still protected by copyright law and if the owner of the copyright wishes can prosecute any violators of the copyright law. It is not legal to distribute even abandoned software that is copyrighted.
Yes WoW Legion is not abandonware. and yes your point about abandonware videogames being still under protection was valid. . .until the changes made to the DMCA in 2015 specifically in regards to videogames.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015! I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention
* * * * *
(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the
Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the
following classes of copyrighted works: . . .
. . . .(8)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or
downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the
copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an
external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game for personal gameplay on a personal
computer or video game console; or
(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game
console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an
eligible library, archives or museum, where such activities are carried out without any
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed
or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives or
museum.
(ii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent
necessary for an eligible library, archives or museum to engage in the preservation
activities described in paragraph (i)(B).
(iii) For purposes of the exemptions in paragraphs (i) and (ii), the following
definitions shall apply:
(A) “Complete games” means video games that can be played by users without
accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external
computer server.
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server
support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or,
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months;
provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
(C) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video
game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an
online service or facility.
(D) A library, archives or museum is considered “eligible” when the collections of the
library, archives or museum are open to the public and/or are routinely made available to
researchers who are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum.
key points to note: WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
Blizzard has no plans to implement "legacy" servers at this time.
WoW cannot be played offline, either in singleplayer or multiplayer.
Nost is not receiving a profit from running the game.
Nost can be classified as an archive since the game is made available to the public
None of which will have any bearing in any criminal proceedings that will be taken out against them. Not having permission from the current IP holders is all that is required to successfully prosecute.
I give up. . .
. . .I should have realized that I can't inform the willfully ignorant.
key points to note: WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
I give up. . .
. . .I should have realized that I can't inform the willfully ignorant.
I wouldn't call that bit right there informing. I'd call it spinning using a very thin argument that carves out an old WOW patch and tries to portray it as an abandoned game.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Everyone is shouting IP THEFT left and right around here, yet not once have I seen mention of the semi-new provisions in the US' DMCA in regards to online games or online services that are no longer available.
If Nost went to court they would have to prove that the original owner no longer provides the game in question. What is interesting is that one can logically argue that while WoW 7.0 is still WoW, WoW 1.12 is ALSO WoW but is no longer available by the owners choice. Also much of the art assets used in 1.12 has also been abandoned for newer models as WoW has trudged on over the years.
it would be an interesting case, as it would be the first use of the new provisions to prove legality on behalf of non-profit entity for a game that is still in service yet does not provide access to an older version of said service.
so it is not a clear case of IP theft, nor is it a certainty that the Emulated server is legal. Mainly because such an occurrence has not gone to trial under the new DMCA provisions to give legal precedent.
P.S.
Copyright and Trademarks don't disappear, the original work is still protected. Obviously this can change but we'll be dead before any Blizzard product becomes public with current laws.
please google and read about the changes I mentioned to the US' DMCA passed into law in 2015 because the law did change in regards to abandonware services and the legality of their emulation.
you are making an argument based on a false premise, that the current law makes this an open and shut case of IP theft, before 2015 you would have been right. . .right before it changed.
Sorry but WoW doesn't fall under abandonware in any way shape or form. You're grasping at invisible straws.
Regardless, abandoned software is still protected by copyright law and if the owner of the copyright wishes can prosecute any violators of the copyright law. It is not legal to distribute even abandoned software that is copyrighted.
Yes WoW Legion is not abandonware. and yes your point about abandonware videogames being still under protection was valid. . .until the changes made to the DMCA in 2015 specifically in regards to videogames.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015! I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention
* * * * *
(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the
Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the
following classes of copyrighted works: . . .
. . . .(8)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or
downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the
copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an
external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable local
gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game for personal gameplay on a personal
computer or video game console; or
(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the
computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game
console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an
eligible library, archives or museum, where such activities are carried out without any
purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed
or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives or
museum.
(ii) Computer programs used to operate video game consoles solely to the extent
necessary for an eligible library, archives or museum to engage in the preservation
activities described in paragraph (i)(B).
(iii) For purposes of the exemptions in paragraphs (i) and (ii), the following
definitions shall apply:
(A) “Complete games” means video games that can be played by users without
accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external
computer server.
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
representative has either issued an affirmative statement indicating that external server
support for the video game has ended and such support is in fact no longer available or,
alternatively, server support has been discontinued for a period of at least six months;
provided, however, that server support has not since been restored.
(C) “Local gameplay” means gameplay conducted on a personal computer or video
game console, or locally connected personal computers or consoles, and not through an
online service or facility.
(D) A library, archives or museum is considered “eligible” when the collections of the
library, archives or museum are open to the public and/or are routinely made available to
researchers who are not affiliated with the library, archives or museum.
Comments
The other two points are sort of relevant if they set up shop in an.. more unregulated.. area... That excludes pretty much all of the EU and a decent chunk of the countries in the Asian region. But beyond that... Not really worth the money to try and get proper traction i think.
This have been a good conversation
But that's just one portion of a few things that help qualify a case as IP infringement, according to what I've been able to find online regarding the burden of proof in these cases. Others are the extent to which the work is copied wholesale, the revenue generated (if any) by its use by the defendant, as well as the type of use intended by the original product.
I may be leaving out other facets as well, but those stood out as heavy influencers in these sorts of cases.
Go ahead bring more examples without the slightest relation to the topic.
The thread has long turned into a mix of political debates and trolling anyway.
That in turn begs the question... should such clemency be extended to the current physical media that never held the classic version to begin with. (or in short. would you as a customer have to have a genuine classci disk to be able to play.)
Muddy waters indeed
This have been a good conversation
Even the court documents refer to the client as being purchased.
"Plaintiff is a publisher of entertainment software and has released many popular computer games. (Compl. ¶ 8.) One of the games that Plaintiff produces, World of Warcraft, involves large numbers of players interacting with each other simultaneously in a virtual persistent online world. (Compl. ¶ 9.) World of Warcraft’s revenue is based on a subscription fee model, which involves consumers first purchasing a legitimate version of the World of Warcraft game client software and then also making periodic subscription payments."
http://mojoware.org/downloads/blizzard-vs-reeves/blizzard-vs-reeves.31.pdf
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
This line has nothing to do with WoW's ever evolving world and everything to do with the ESRB rating. Companies can't control your experience with other players, nor fully protect you from the mouth's of online gamers.
This was a common used line for anything involving other bodies online. Fifteen years ago I was a part-time gamestop employee and I remember having to clearly inform parents of this for any online game.
Do we really want Blizzard with all it's money to keep out spending and advertising above everyone else so that smaller competition cannot compete?
Ok we are talking about intellectual property rights.I say TOO BAD,once you SELL us the game,it is OURS.When i receive a receipt for a purchase,it is MINE.
If for example Blizzard feels their property is worth a lot more,then try charging a lot more for the SALE,see how you make out...lol.
ll over the justice system,there are BAD laws,ones that eventually get changed and one's with tons of loopholes to allow crooked people to flourish and that is including the likes of Blizzard.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You are talking about completely different things here.
Like all the rest, trying to make up nonsense to convince yourselves that it is ok to steal.
Just stop the nonsense, all of you. People that are using this (WOW) game to play on any other servers than the "official" ones are stealing.
Just stop pretending, or trying to make nonsense arguments.
Sorry, I'm stealing a piece of your comment from another thread - "The simple reason a $15 sub doesn't work"
--He mentions SWGemu server had a loop hole--
The EMU is totally not for profit and is being run as a de facto charity, all donations go towards upkeep, no one directly working on the project draws a salary. The EMU is considered "fan art".
The reason for this is at the core of why the SWG is legal/possible and is allowed under the law to exist: the "fan art" exception to copyright law in the US.
There are several conditions that must be met to satisfy the "fan art" exception to IP law, and they mostly center around money. First, the company whose IP it is can not be made to lose money by someone's fan art (since SWG is closed, that one is not hard). Another condition is that the producer of the fan art, conversely, can not profit from the company's IP either. (There are other conditions as well, including "not damaging the reputation of company of value of the IP by producing the fan art (which can't really be said since they are exactly remaking a game SOE/LA released)).
Seems to me Nostalrius/Elysium is setting themselves up for this.
Seriously, READ THE CHANGES PASSED INTO LAW IN 2015!
I'll even paste it here so you don't have to bother using Google for 3 seconds. . .
https://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf
pages 78-80 holds the relevant data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention
. . . .(8)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or
key points to note:
WoW version 1.12 is no longer available from blizzard at all in Legion.
Blizzard has no plans to implement "legacy" servers at this time.
WoW cannot be played offline, either in singleplayer or multiplayer.
Nost is not receiving a profit from running the game.
Nost can be classified as an archive since the game is made available to the public
You do realize you could say this about every single MMORPG on the market? They ALL have versions not available to the public that arent planned on ever being released again.
You don't throw away 1st additions, you archive them.
Not having permission from the current IP holders is all that is required to successfully prosecute.
The ruling is quite clear -
partB
(B) “Ceased to provide access” means that the copyright owner or its authorized
. . .I should have realized that I can't inform the willfully ignorant.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
So you going to go play over at Nost's sever site?