 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / March 2008running eq1 (just up to velious) on a private server
hey all, i guess i should start with "oops" since i didn't actually ask here... but i would really love to run a private eq server ... something accessible over the web, but run off a regular PC that would host maybe 5-10 people only original graphics, original eq + kunark + velious i'm thinking like instead of d&d, rolling dice and using pencils and having to talk talk talk talk talk to make a real world, just using original eq to evoke what words used to do and letting players fill in the rest with imagination especially the 5-10 players i have in mind ... i think it would be great now, i know there's no way to do this with stock eq; unlike counterstrike, for example, i can't start a LAN version of the game is there any software out there that could though? i searched a while ago and found things like projectEQ, but i never finished up the research because i let eq2 distract me do any of you have experience with this? i suppose i should ask - does this violate the EULA? i could imagine there being some clause about how using the eq software in this way would violate my agreement with sony, but that's OK because (a) i paid for it, i can do what i want with it, and (b) i don't need sony for anything...as i said, i paid for it, i'm going to modify it to do what i like -- the only reason i bring it up is because i wouldn't want the 1 person i have in mind who still pays sony to play their games to end up in trouble (not that they could ever find out, but still) (or, obviously, instead of "do" i might mean "find that someone's done exactly this for me") i'd like to write my own quests - not sure if that would mess up how this might play out anyway, thanks for the input fennin.faza ahahahhaha, let me say "oops" again projectEQ is probably exactly what i want i assume i can read through a bit and figure out how to get setup with my classic server, and probably figure out how to do custom quests too let me rephrase: do any of you have any experience with private servers at all? do any of you have interest in a private server? would any of you do this same thing for your friends? (does it sound desperately like i'm trying to rewrite history?) > do any of you have interest in a private server? Not me, it's a breach of trust, and potentially against the law. Why not look for and help out some open source MMORPG projects who are developing their own source instead of stealing other peoples?  SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] >> do any of you have interest in a private server? > >Not me, it's a breach of trust, and potentially against the law. > >Why not look for and help out some open source MMORPG projects who are >developing their own source instead of stealing other peoples? pedantic,arent we ? And how exactly is this stealing ? He purchased the client software and the server software for the private server is written by someone else not by Sony. > >> do any of you have interest in a private server? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and the server software for the private server is written by someone > else not by Sony. That's right, it's not theft, it's just a violation of the EULA. Though I admit I haven't specifically checked to see if the EULA for the client software says that I'm not allowed to use it to talk to something other than Sony's EQ servers. So it's possible that I could even use the Sony client for that purpose, though it likely wouldn't work since Sony updates the client fairly often and I'd be amazed if a private server could keep up with it. No, the real crime here is being committed by whoever runs the private server, since if it serves up content identical to some or all of the contents of Sony's version of Norrath, the private server is infringing on Sony's intellectual property (might be a copyright violation, might be something else; IANAL). -- Don. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm -- -- Sukrasisx, Monk 76 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail, -- Terrwini, Druid 60 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you -- Teviron, Knight 59 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s" -- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr > Ula...@hotmail.com writes: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- Teviron, Knight 59 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s" > -- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr fair points - but everyone i would invite would already own a copy of the software though - all ex eq players who are fed up of the things that nearly everyone still reading this group can't help but nod their heads to when someone's complaining about "developments" if i get it set up and running right, i'll probably write a short script to edit quests and then it'll be a breeze to make your own custom eq - and i'll probably share that if there's interest >if i get it set up and running right, i'll probably write a short >script to edit quests and then it'll be a breeze to make your own >custom eq - and i'll probably share that if there's interest Private servers are run by fuckwits for even more inept fuckwits. What idiot would want to devote time to playing a character on a server that has a population of 10 players, and which could shut down at any time? Jeez, get a clue. Oh, and you ARE ripping off Sony's code, which IS a copyright breach. Let's just hope someone who applies to join your shitty server is a member of SOE who then takes you to court. See if you can manage to read the stuff below, then GTFO. 7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, sell, auction, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer all or any portion of the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the Software. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software. 8. We and our suppliers shall retain all rights, title and interest, including, without limitation, ownership of all intellectual property rights relating to or residing in the Disc, the Software and the Game, all copies thereof, and all game character data in connection therewith. You acknowledge and agree that you have not and will not acquire or obtain any intellectual property or other rights, including any right of exploitation, of any kind in or to the Disc, the Software or the Game, including, without limitation, in any character(s), item(s), coin(s) or other material or property, and that all such property, material and items are exclusively owned by us. 9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. You may not create, facilitate, host, link to or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, such as through server emulators. You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure. You may not buy, sell or auction (or host or facilitate the ability to allow others to buy, sell or auction) any Game characters, items, coin or copyrighted material. 16. This Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California as such laws are applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within California between California residents. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly disclaimed. Both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any cause of action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the County of San Diego, State of California (if under State law) or the Southern District of California (if under federal law). > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT), c > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that has a population of 10 players, and which could shut down at any > time? Jeez, get a clue. shoulda read the beginning - it would be d&d, essentially, but with eq doing the part of the pencils and paper and the mouthfuls of words describing the world the people who would play are the friends i have that are sick of eq and would love to play classic eq, especially if the quests actually meant something and worked toward a larger whole ... epic mobs don't need to respawn because there isn't anyone playing here but us > Oh, and you ARE ripping off Sony's code, which IS a copyright breach. > Let's just hope someone who applies to join your shitty server is a > member of SOE who then takes you to court. See if you can manage to > read the stuff below, then GTFO. you missed the point so entirely i'm going to only give you a cursory response > 7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a > non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to use the Software [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > law. The Software may contain license management software that > restricts your use of the Software. the license is an agreement between two private parties; violation of it subjects the violating party to damages under the contract, which, in this case, would be $0 > 8. We and our suppliers shall retain all rights, title and interest, > including, without limitation, ownership of all intellectual property [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > item(s), coin(s) or other material or property, and that all such > property, material and items are exclusively owned by us. this is true and actually doesn't need to be said - however, i'm not infringing upon their rights as i am allowed, by law, to use my lawful license (not the EULA, but the license granted inherently by virtue of the copyright statute that i obtained when i purchased the software) in a way that is not excluded by their copyright the long and short of it: i'm not preventing sony from receiving any income by allowing ex-eq players to connect to a server that's actually fun > 9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to > change Game play. You may not create, facilitate, host, link to or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > facilitate the ability to allow others to buy, sell or auction) any > Game characters, items, coin or copyrighted material. and what's the penalty for going against this? i can't play on eq's servers what a shame we all quit years ago > 16. This Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the > State of California as such laws are applied to agreements entered [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Diego, State of California (if under State law) or the Southern > District of California (if under federal law). this is a forum selection and cognivit clause; it doesn't mean i get in any trouble for modifying the use of software i paid for it means if sony has legal beef with their users, those users must come to california to defend under california law the main point is there's a big difference between the LAW and private agreements > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT), c > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Diego, State of California (if under State law) or the Southern > District of California (if under federal law). We've been through this a bazillion times here. The EULA means exactly jack and squat. The only purpose it serves is to provide a guideline by which they will allow your continued use of *their* game servers. Break those "rules" and they state they will cut you off. Telling you that you can't use what's on that CD for absolutely *anything* else is like Craftsman trying to tell you they'll sue you if you use their screwdrivers as chisels. I really don't see what you've got your back so up about. Nothing they would be doing could affect you or your game experience in any remotely conceivable way whatsoever. Seriously P, is that really you, or are you letting someone post from your account or something (too lazy to play IP address detective)? Someone must have really pissed in your Post Toasties this morning. You used to be such a congenial sort. :P -- Richard Carpenter On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT) in <4d326902-32f4-4f93-8905-d53d762d5ac1@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Richard Carpenter <rumbledor@hotmail.com> graced the world with this thought: >> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT), c >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >your Post Toasties this morning. You used to be such a congenial >sort. :P Perhaps Dark Tyger is visiting him. > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT) in > <4d326902-32f4-4f93-8905-d53d762d5...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> member of SOE who then takes you to court. See if you can manage to > >> read the stuff below, then GTFO. < irrelevant EULA excerpts snipped > > >We've been through this a bazillion times here. The EULA means exactly > >jack and squat. The only purpose it serves is to provide a guideline [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Perhaps Dark Tyger is visiting him.- Hide quoted text - Holy smokes! A blast from the past from a blast from the past. How you been, you old grump? :) -- Richard Carpenter >>> do any of you have interest in a private server? >> Not me, it's a breach of trust, and potentially against the law. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > pedantic,arent we ? Yes, it's "Pedantic, aren't we?". > And how exactly is this stealing ? He purchased the client software > and the server software for the private server is written by someone > else not by Sony. Ah yes, my mistake, I thought perhaps the Crushbone orcs were copyright Sony, and the Felwithe Elves were copyright Sony and in fact *all* the content in the game is owned by Sony. I'd forgotten that it's perfectly ok to take all that content, replicate it again (perhaps you could call that copying it) and provide it, and not fall foul of copyright law. Oh, wait, you can't. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > blog ->http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ > [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] i think the argument for why owners of the software can use it how they please is something like this: since there is no copying or distribution of the intellectual property, there is no infringement it's like - you buy a CD, so you own a license to the copyrighted music, yes? if you like, you can rip the CD to mp3 and play it in your portable device - at least as the law stands now you can't, legally, give that mp3 to anyone or sell it or even keep it if you sell/give away the CD i think the stronger argument for why this private server might be illegal would be that by changing the quests around, i may be creating a derivative work or parody...but that doesn't really hold water, it's just a thought In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote: >i think the stronger argument for why this private server might be >illegal would be that by changing the quests around, i may be creating >a derivative work or parody...but that doesn't really hold water, it's >just a thought On this 'private server', where does the code come from for the server? Where does the content come from. Where do you feel it originated? Where is that 'quest' stored? It's certainly not in the client. As I said, devote time to helping people who are creating something new, find an open source MMORPG and put your energy into creating something instead of ripping something off. > In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where is that 'quest' stored? It's certainly not in the client. i was not arguing that i owned the material i argued that since i paid for it, i'm free to use it in *this* way - violating the EULA does not equate to violating the law if you go to ikea and buy a big lamp and the salesman says, "by buying this lamp, you're saying you're going to light up a room but not roast bugs that fly into the room, and if you do that, you can't use the lamp anymore" and then a bug flies in the room and you use the lamp to fry it (ewww, this analogy sucks), are you suddenly now LEGALLY unable to use the lamp? to light your room OR to fry bugs? come on! > As I said, devote time to helping people who are creating something new, > find an open source MMORPG and put your energy into creating something > instead of ripping something off. this is an entirely valid point, but for my own perverse reasons, i'd like to play eq where the orcs in kelethin, after getting slaughtered for their belts, learn to reinforce themselves and may someday attack kelethin i'm gonna give myself GM events every time i play and all the ex-eq friends i have, who were never able to see the few unique, story-changing events of eq ... well, they'll be happy they kept their install CDs > i argued that since i paid for it, i'm free to use it in *this* way - > violating the EULA does not equate to violating the law You're either intentionally avoiding my point, or you're not understanding. I'm not talking about the EULA. I'm talking about the Copyrighted material embedded in the client, server and data files. You don't own any of that copyrighted material, and reproducing it anywhere is a breach of copyright law. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > > i argued that since i paid for it, i'm free to use it in *this* way - > > violating the EULA does not equate to violating the law [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't own any of that copyrighted material, and reproducing it anywhere > is a breach of copyright law. i hear you - we disagree on what my rights are as consequence of having purchased the software i'm saying i own it, and if i chose to connect to a private server rather than sony's server, i'm within my rights you seem to be assuming that i have no rights except those granted to me by sony in the EULA, or you've misunderstood what sony's copyright actually means sony holds the copyright in the software and the content therein (deathfist orcs, kaladim, etc), but because i paid for that software i'm free to use it as i please *except for the ways specifically prohibited by the law* (not the private agreement) -- such as distribution, copying, public performance, whatever i'm allowed to sell my eq cds, i'm allowed to make backup copies, and i'm allowed to change the use to include connecting to a private server >i'm saying i own it You don't, but you're too stupid to appreciate the fact that you don't "own" it. Sony give you the right to use it on their servers via an account, but you don't "own" it. There are fuckwits like you who play WoW and think like you do, and they get laughed at too. Palindrome >>i'm saying i own it > >. Sony give you the right to use it on their servers via an >account, but you don't "own" it. Wishful thinking of Sony. And why are you defending all this legal crap which Sony tries to force on the *paying* customer? > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:49:12 -0700 (PDT), c > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Palindrome i don't see anyone laughing, and i don't see the point of being an a.shole in the conversation either i own the software because i paid for it i'm allowed to use it in any way that isn't prohibited by the law the law is something like: Title 17, US Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. i'm not going to hire a lawyer to figure out that there's nothing wrong with bending the use of a product i paid for to do something else privately, not-for-$ but you read that and tell me what's wrong with my private server idea here's a better analogy: my private server is fan fiction > i own the software because i paid for it > i'm allowed to use it in any way that isn't prohibited by the law Sony says that you are additionally bound by the terms of the EULA because it is a valid contract which you agreed to by installing the software. SignatureJohn Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies" >> i own the software because i paid for it > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >because it is a valid contract which you agreed to by installing the >software. He's too fecking stupid to a) realise that and b) accept he agreed to SONY'S conditions, not some dipshit conditions he's made up to suit himself. He's probably a product of inbreeding and a limited education - private servers are rife with them. I'll just killfile the prick, because he's a waste of time to all concerned. Palindrome > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:28:02 +0000 (UTC), John Gordon > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Palindrome why is it you don't have an actual response? you make yourself look like an idiot by flinging meritless insults are you sure the situation is that it's stupid that i think the confines of a private agreement are not absolute? because by your explanation, in the example above with the house painting, the guy who made an agreement was bound to it forever, kind of like magic, and not at all like the real world where people can change their minds and deal with the consequences which, in this case, means nothing > > i own the software because i paid for it > > i'm allowed to use it in any way that isn't prohibited by the law [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears > -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies" i'm bound by those terms for as long as i chose to remain in contract with sony it's a private agreement that i'm willfully disrespecting when i break my agreement with sony, i haven't broken the law, i've subjected myself to the penalties within that agreement, which are null there's no law saying you have to do what you agree to ... when a private agreement is violated, the agreement itself sets the terms for "justice" which, in this case, would mean i'd have to pay sony whatever "damages" they suffered as a result of me using my copy of EQ privately (so $0) and i'd be unable to play on their servers (a shame since i quit a while ago) if you agree to paint my house for $1000, and you don't, did you break the law? is there a law saying "you must paint someone's house if they offer you $1000" or "you must do anything you say you will do" or anything like that? > i'm bound by those terms for as long as i chose to remain in contract > with sony You're bound for as long as you use their software. > when i break my agreement with sony, i haven't broken the law Yes you have. You haven't broken *criminal* law, but you have broken contract law. > there's no law saying you have to do what you agree to Yes there is! Again, it's not a criminal law, but contract law. > in this case, would mean i'd have to pay sony whatever "damages" they > suffered as a result of me using my copy of EQ privately (so $0) Why do you say it's $0? At the very least, Sony could say that you owe them their monthly fee for as long as you continued using their software. > if you agree to paint my house for $1000, and you don't, did you break > the law? You broke contract law, yes. They can't throw you in jail for it, but you can be sued. SignatureJohn Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies" > In <ef6af2c2-36e8-485c-ba4d-d5bfdd4ef...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> writes: > > > i'm bound by those terms for as long as i chose to remain in contract > > with sony > > You're bound for as long as you use their software. well that's a fair point, but the EULA says my license is to use the software in conjunction with their servers, and i'm not doing that, so whether my idea counts as use or not would be up to legal minds, i think even if i am bound by the agreement and thus liable for disobeying it, liability for breaking the agreement, per se, is nothing .... however (see below) > > when i break my agreement with sony, i haven't broken the law > > Yes you have. You haven't broken *criminal* law, but you have broken > contract law. ...i meant more like, i haven't violated copyright law by breaking my contract with sony > > there's no law saying you have to do what you agree to > > Yes there is! Again, it's not a criminal law, but contract law. well yes, but not in an absolute sense, which is what i was getting at for example, in the EULA, sony disclaims all warrantys, which is a violation of the uniform commercial code since they deal in software > > in this case, would mean i'd have to pay sony whatever "damages" they > > suffered as a result of me using my copy of EQ privately (so $0) > > Why do you say it's $0? At the very least, Sony could say that you > owe them their monthly fee for as long as you continued using their > software. this is where i wanted to get when i said "however" above ... this is a good point i can't think of any situation where you'd have to pay an online subscription fee to use software offline, but they could say that not really worried about that, but good point > > if you agree to paint my house for $1000, and you don't, did you break > > the law? > > You broke contract law, yes. They can't throw you in jail for it, but > you can be sued. well it would be an interesting ordeal to say the least ^_^ > > You're bound for as long as you use their software. > > well that's a fair point, but the EULA says my license is to use the > software in conjunction with their servers, and i'm not doing that, so > whether my idea counts as use or not would be up to legal minds, i > think I decided to go back and review the EULA in this context, and I'll admit that it starts out saying it "describes the terms on which SOE offers you access to an account to play [their] game". Those terms, which you agree to when you click "I Accept" to start up the patcher, include things like "a non-transferable license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game" (which is defined earlier to refer exclusively to SOE's game). So by using the software to access a private server, you're definitely violating the EULA, but the EULA itself seems to say it's laying out the terms by which they offer you access to an account. So if you use the software to access a private server, and they find out, they are within their rights to cancel any EQ account you have with them. That is true not just for whoever's running the private server, but anyone who uses SOE's software to play on it. Of course, if you're looking to play on a private server you might not care if your Sony EQ account were to be wiped out. Anyway, I'll grant that using the game to access the server might not carry any penalty more severe than that. At least, I don't see any place where previously agreeing to the EULA means I've entered into a contract limiting my actions. It's the continued access to my account that requires continued adherence to the EULA. Totally separate from that, is the question of copyright on the game content. If you reuse any of the art or text dialogs, I'd expect you could get nailed on that. > Totally separate from that, is the question of copyright on the game > content. If you reuse any of the art or text dialogs, I'd expect you > could get nailed on that. well yes, that is the other issue, the main one (i feel) i'm claiming that because i paid for a copy of the game, i'm allowed to play the game in a different way kind of like if you buy monopoly and decide to put $ from community chest and chance under free parking ... did you violate parker brothers' copyright by playing the game differently? what if it was written on the box that you weren't allowed to change the rules? or yeah, what if you photoshopped the rules to monopoly to allow free parking (point of fact: it isn't in the rules, and if you play with anyone younger than 10, they'll want free parking in the game) ... would your edited version of the rules be a violation of copyright? i mean, you copied the rules and the rules were copyrighted (assuming they were, anyway), but then you changed it, so surely you've broken the law! especially since sony says you did, and they're such a company of integrity i prefer the example of fan fiction ... ever stumble upon the millions of web pages filled with alternate endings and different scenarios from copyrighted books? are those uses of copyrighted characters a violation of copyright? my answer is absolutely not BECAUSE you haven't violated the actual law that grants rights under copyright ... the blurb i posted 90 million years ago (ie, yesterday), saying that only the copyright holder can distribute, make copies, etc making "derivative works" is on that list, and i don't that's what this is, but if i'm wrong then that's probably why (i don't know the difference between a "derivative work" and "the thing i paid to own [the game and the right to use the copyrighted stuff within] being used differently" ... again, ask a lawyer, i only wanted to know if anyone thought the idea was cool) >> Totally separate from that, is the question of copyright on the game >> content. If you reuse any of the art or text dialogs, I'd expect you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >i'm claiming that because i paid for a copy of the game, i'm allowed >to play the game in a different way You really are dense aren't you? You did not pay for a copy of the game, you merely licensed a copy of the client software. Do you even understand the difference? >(i don't know the difference between a "derivative work" and "the >thing i paid to own [the game and the right to use the copyrighted >stuff within] being used differently" ... again, ask a lawyer, i only >wanted to know if anyone thought the idea was cool) You own nothing when it comes to EQ. You have licensed a copy of the client software, of which you may make a copy or distribute it to other machines you use in order to connect to Sony's servers. Anything else is a violation. To think you own any portion of the game itself is pure stupidity. ~F >>i'm claiming that because i paid for a copy of the game, i'm allowed >>to play the game in a different way > >You really are dense aren't you? You did not pay for a copy of the >game, you merely licensed a copy of the client software. Do you even >understand the difference? No,and I dont want to. This distinctinction is artificial and just serves to keep lawyers employed. :) Its like saying I may not use my daily newspaper to wipe my a.s. :) >>>i'm claiming that because i paid for a copy of the game, i'm allowed >>>to play the game in a different way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >employed. :) >Its like saying I may not use my daily newspaper to wipe my a.s. :) It's actually not like saying that at all. If you wanted to take your copy of the client software and use it to test the blocks on your hard drive you would have a similar argument to what you make. But if you wanted to take that newspaper and re-brand it and it's content as your own DipShit Times that would be a legal problem for you. But I digress, Palindrome was dead on about this thread. ~F > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT), c > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > game, you merely licensed a copy of the client software. Do you even > understand the difference? actually, the law itself doesn't understand the difference... taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software # Buying the original software. Licenses never say that the buyer does not buy the software but instead pays for the right to use the software. In the US, the first-sale doctrine, Softman v. Adobe [1] and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. ruled that software sales are purchases, not licenses, and resale, including unbundling, is lawful regardless of a contractual prohibition. The reasoning in Softman v. Adobe suggests that resale of student licensed versions, provided they are accurately described as such, is also not infringing. so i do own the thing that i paid for (the copy of the game), according to at least some people whose job it is to decide what is and isn't the law > >(i don't know the difference between a "derivative work" and "the > >thing i paid to own [the game and the right to use the copyrighted [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ~F there's a legal distinction between saying i'm contractually prohibited from using the software to connect to another machine and saying i'm statutorily prohibited from connecting to another machine then again, i don't actually think i'm the dense one, so maybe we can take this discussion to someone who can arbitrate our legal issue ]actually, the law itself doesn't understand the difference... ] ]taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software No, the people who post to Wikipedia don't know the difference. Wikepedia isn't a court of law. Only a fool would read Wikipedia for legal advice. JimP. Signaturehttp://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette http://www.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Dec 21, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog Mar 11, 2008 > ]actually, the law itself doesn't understand the difference... > ] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > JimP. > --http://www.linuxgazette.net/Linux Gazettehttp://www.drivein-jim.net/blog/Dec 21, 2007: Drive-In movie theatreshttp://poetry.drivein-jim.net/poetry blog Mar 11, 2008 fair point, so here's the language of the actual judge in the adobe case: Adobe argues that the first sale doctrine does not apply because Adobe does not sell or authorize any sale of its software. Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream of commerce as a license. Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. [**12] This assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. In short, [**13] the terms of the Adobe EULA at issue prohibit licensees from transferring or assigning any individual Adobe product that was originally distributed as part of a Collection unless it is transferred with all the software in the original Collection. This license provision conflicts with the first sale doctrine in copyright law, which gives the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work the right to dispose of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner. and the court resolves the fact that while something may be called a license, it may in fact be a sale: A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); but notice how it says 'a number of courts' and not all courts ... so i feel i've proven my point that there is disagreement within the law about the fact that sony says you're licensing their product while some people think you actually own it (based on "the economic realities of the transaction") i'm willing to concede that it may be coincidental that wikipedia happened to be accurate In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote: >i'm saying i own it, and if i chose to connect to a private server >rather than sony's server, i'm within my rights You seem to think I'm talking about the client software. Where did this server software come from exactly? Where did the information contained in that server software come from? Where did the quest details, which don't exist in any files you have on your machine come from? > In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You seem to think I'm talking about the client software. Where did this > server software come from exactly? i have no idea, honestly, that's what this thread was about ... i heard of projectEQ i was asking if i was the only person to wonder about doing this > Where did the information contained in that server software come from? ditto > Where did the quest details, which don't exist in any files you have on > your machine come from? ditto if you're saying that info has to be stolen, that's a whole other thing for our discussion though... if it was compiled by someone playing the game (and taking notes on all the quests or estimating how the server has to behave, etc) then that's about equivalent to the "new-use" idea that i've been talking about - that information is probably subject to the same protections, and likewise, it doesn't seem like it would be copyright infringement to use that product that was paid for in a different way if it was all custom, that might actually be worse because it could seem more like a "derivative" product ... though i'm not sure, and i do think you need a lawyer to figure that out i was thinking about that before > if it was compiled by someone playing the game (and taking notes on > all the quests or estimating how the server has to behave, etc) then > that's about equivalent to the "new-use" idea that i've been talking > about - that information is probably subject to the same protections, > and likewise, it doesn't seem like it would be copyright infringement > to use that product that was paid for in a different way Yes, it's exactly copyright infringement. You can not copy the content, it is copyrighted. You must request permission to make copies of any kind. > if it was all custom, that might actually be worse because it could > seem more like a "derivative" product ... though i'm not sure, and i > do think you need a lawyer to figure that out No you wouldn't, it's a breach of copyright law, simply. More importantly, it's morally decrepit. Regardless of what the law says. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > > if it was compiled by someone playing the game (and taking notes on > > all the quests or estimating how the server has to behave, etc) then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, it's exactly copyright infringement. You can not copy the content, > it is copyrighted. You must request permission to make copies of any kind. i claimed the above action would be of the same calibur as connecting to a different machine - in both cases, a mutation of the software i paid for that i'm arguing does not amount to copyright infringement and that you, for your reasons, are arguing does amount to copyright infringement the reason i'm saying it's not copying is because i'm not actually making any copies - i'm using the same software i paid for i'm not sure why you're saying putting the software i paid for to a different use is infringing copyright (by copying, distributing, performing publicly, etc) before we go around in circles, please explain to me why you're repeating the same "yes, you are infringing copyright" ... drill it home for me, because clearly i'm dumb as can be > > if it was all custom, that might actually be worse because it could > > seem more like a "derivative" product ... though i'm not sure, and i > > do think you need a lawyer to figure that out > > No you wouldn't, it's a breach of copyright law, simply. it can't be that simple if someone as dumb as i can't get it...please explain i'm asking you earnestly to explain to me *why* putting copyrighted work to a new, private use, is copyright infringement > More importantly, it's morally decrepit. Regardless of what the law says. you only say that because you assume i'm doing something wrong why isn't it "morally decrepit" for someone to sell you something and then tell you that you can only use that product the way they say? what if you bought a meal, and had a bite and didn't like it, and decided to spice it up? you paid for it, right? can't you put mustard on your watermelon if it tastes good to you? you paid for it, it's yours! so what if the box says "you can't do anything other than shove this down your throat" ?? doesn't bullying seem at all "morally decrepit" to you? maybe that analogy doesn't do anything because it's not based around intellectual property... so what if you were watching a tv show you bought on DVD and didn't like the ending ... are you saying you'd be violating copyright to copy the DVD to your hard drive and re-edit it, changing some of the scenes and doing your own voiceover work so the guy gets the girl or whatever? think about that and answer me ... where's the copyright violation? you aren't selling it, you aren't displaying it publicly, you aren't making copies (you're using the copy you paid for) ... blah blah blah, whatever the statute says, you're not doing that ... and screw the company who says "you can't do what the law says you can do because we SAY you can't and you're going to listen to us like the sheep you are" please consider me the dumbest possible person and explain to me where the violation of copyright law exists ...and use little words~ > why isn't it "morally decrepit" for someone to sell you something and > then tell you that you can only use that product the way they say? Because, theoretically, you were aware of all the restrictions before buying the product. If you're not happy with the restrictions, don't buy it. SignatureJohn Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies" > the reason i'm saying it's not copying is because i'm not actually > making any copies - i'm using the same software i paid for You're talking about the client. I'm talking about the CONTENT which you do NOT own. At best, you own the client (you don't, but let's pretend you do). You have no rights at all to anything at the server end. None. Zero. Zilch. You never signed up to any rights, you never entered an agreement to posses any rights, you have none. If you use *anything* from the actual everquest game then you are breaking copyright law. > i'm not sure why you're saying putting the software i paid for to a > different use is infringing copyright (by copying, distributing, > performing publicly, etc) What software? You bought the server? And all the data there-in? Nice, how much did it cost you to license that from sony (you know, like Ubi-soft did for a while). > before we go around in circles, please explain to me why you're > repeating the same "yes, you are infringing copyright" ... drill it > home for me, because clearly i'm dumb as can be You don't want to find out your breaking copyright law so you're ignoring the most fundamental tenant of it. If you bought Doom, the game, and you then released a mod, and that mod contained the original artwork, you would be breaking copyright law even if you only gave it to your friends for private play. It's not your content. > i'm asking you earnestly to explain to me *why* putting copyrighted > work to a new, private use, is copyright infringement Stop using the word private, it's irrelevant. You either have rights to copy something or you don't, and you don't, no matter what the intended use. > you only say that because you assume i'm doing something wrong No, I'm not assuming anything, you're refusing to admit you're doing something wrong so you can justify you actions to yourself. You're morally decrepit if you steal copyright material. > why isn't it "morally decrepit" for someone to sell you something and > then tell you that you can only use that product the way they say? Because you agree to that when you signed up - if you don't like it - don't sign up. I make a choice every time I sign an EULA. If I break that agreement, then I'm morally decrepit. > so what if you were watching a tv show you bought on DVD and didn't > like the ending ... are you saying you'd be violating copyright to > copy the DVD to your hard drive and re-edit it, changing some of the > scenes and doing your own voiceover work so the guy gets the girl or > whatever? Yes, that is *exactly* a breach of copyright. > think about that and answer me ... where's the copyright violation? You copied material you had no right to do so. You own the physical media and you own the right to watch it, but you DO NOT OWN THE RIGHT TO COPY IT. It's called Copy Right for a reason. I'm done, you refuse to admit the truth because it doesn't fit what you want to hear. Go read up on copyright law, actually read the words, take it in, and then come back. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] >> so what if you were watching a tv show you bought on DVD and didn't >> like the ending ... are you saying you'd be violating copyright to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, that is *exactly* a breach of copyright. You know that, I know that, the rest of the planet knows that, but Captain Fuckwit doesn't. Palindrome > > the reason i'm saying it's not copying is because i'm not actually > > making any copies - i'm using the same software i paid for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you use *anything* from the actual everquest game then you are > breaking copyright law. Actually, I don't see any way the OP's idea *could* work unless they wrote their own server-side code. That's the way I've seen it done, anyway. The contents on the CD were only used for the art assets and the client-side application - which is pretty much all that is *on* the CD. I do agree that the OP doesn't *own* the software, and is merely licensing it, however, and this has been thoroughly debated here as well as in the music-related groups, the principles of fair use *do* apply. I really doubt that any attempts on SoE's part to shut down a private server of this nature would bear any fruit beyond the effects of financial bullying. Lastly, "morally decrepit"? Come on. If we're going to start tieing our views on morality driectly to what the law of the land states is legal, we're in very sad shape. I still don't understand the level of ire some people are exhibiting here. Why exactly do you find this very notion so offensive? -- Richard Carpenter > I still don't understand the level of ire some people are exhibiting > here. Why exactly do you find this very notion so offensive? Because I believe theft is wrong, because I believe that the effort artists go to to create stuff should be protected, because when I create stuff I believe I should have rights over it. Copy right is important. Theft of copy right material is morally decrepit *regardless* of the law. If I create something, it's mine, and I believe that unless I agree to share it, it should remain mine. That's why several times I suggested the OP join an open source alternative to EQ, because people have agreed to come together and freely share their ideas and create something new, instead of stealing something from someone else. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > > I still don't understand the level of ire some people are exhibiting > > here. Why exactly do you find this very notion so offensive? > > Because I believe theft is wrong, because I believe that the effort > artists go to to create stuff should be protected, because when I create > stuff I believe I should have rights over it. you do have some rights, but you don't have the right to behave unreasonably with regard to *any* of your property, whether it's saying no one can use your copyrighted work in a certain way or whether it's saying anyone who steps on your lawn has the right to get blown away by a landmine you planted > Copy right is important. Theft of copy right material is morally > decrepit *regardless* of the law. If I create something, it's mine, and > I believe that unless I agree to share it, it should remain mine. so i did a little more research, i looked up fair use it's the idea that no reasonable copyright holder would object to their copyrighted work under certain circumstances, such as: -when the use is private and not commercial -when there is no impact on the market of the copyrighted material and some other scenarios you should feel free to look up in short, the fact that it's private and not commercial is in fact *entirely* relevant - i was right, you were wrong ("Stop using the word private, it's irrelevant. " -Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:47:34 +0000) and that there is no impact on the market, is, in the words of supreme court justice o'conner in the case harper & row v national enterprises (471 us 539), "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use" and he goes on to say "fair use, when properly applied, is limited to copying by others which does not materially impair the marketability of the work which is copied" > That's why several times I suggested the OP join an open source > alternative to EQ, because people have agreed to come together and > freely share their ideas and create something new, instead of stealing > something from someone else. it's not stealing according to the supreme court this fair use applies here regardless of whether i created a derivative work or a parody or whatever QED! > -when there is no impact on the market of the copyrighted material If someone creates from scratch their own private server that works with the EQ client, people might start using it and stop using Sony's servers. That's an impact. Sony will lose all those monthly fees. SignatureJohn Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies" > In <89e1b7fa-caa9-4944-a7c7-d1a920ef6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the EQ client, people might start using it and stop using Sony's servers. > That's an impact. Sony will lose all those monthly fees. The only people who would be involved would be the small, select group of the OP's friends/family. I don't know if they presently even play EQ. -- Richard Carpenter > > the reason i'm saying it's not copying is because i'm not actually > > making any copies - i'm using the same software i paid for > > You're talking about the client. > > I'm talking about the CONTENT which you do NOT own. i didn't say i own the content, i said i own the copy of it and i'm free to do with it what i please so long as not violating the law using what's on that CD in a different way is *not* making an illegal copy, it's using the copy i paid for > If you use *anything* from the actual everquest game then you are > breaking copyright law. i'm going to borrow from your frustration and give up trying to explain my point to you agree to disagree > > before we go around in circles, please explain to me why you're > > repeating the same "yes, you are infringing copyright" ... drill it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > artwork, you would be breaking copyright law even if you only gave it to > your friends for private play. so you're saying what's wrong is making a derivative work, NOT running EQ itself privately thus, i could do this with an emulated server, but i couldn't use custom quests, i'd only be able to use what was stock > > you only say that because you assume i'm doing something wrong > > No, I'm not assuming anything, you're refusing to admit you're doing > something wrong so you can justify you actions to yourself. You're > morally decrepit if you steal copyright material. sorry i wasn't around to make a prompt response, but since i read your last post (this one i'm responding to now), i'm understanding that you are actually blending "copy" and "derivative work" in your argument ... you're just plain wrong about the copying and it's clear as day - i purchased a copy and i'm allowed to use it in different ways; that's sound in the law the derivative work thing, though, is where i'm suddenly hung up ... it seems like i *may be* wrong, but you didn't explain it or understand why i don't know what the law is about derivative works, and i said that i think way up at the top of this thread THAT is going to be where i'm shown to be breaking the law with my idea, if anywhere > > why isn't it "morally decrepit" for someone to sell you something and > > then tell you that you can only use that product the way they say? > > Because you agree to that when you signed up - if you don't like it - > don't sign up. I make a choice every time I sign an EULA. If I break > that agreement, then I'm morally decrepit. then i disagree with your characterization ... but who cares? > > so what if you were watching a tv show you bought on DVD and didn't > > like the ending ... are you saying you'd be violating copyright to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes, that is *exactly* a breach of copyright. i think you're right, but because it's a "derivative work" i also think i'll stick to being "morally decrepit" by doing this anyway, since the fact that it's on a private server means no one will ever know about it except the >10 people i invite to play through custom campaigns plus sony isn't being harmed in any way and i'm not a lawyer, so i don't know if the fact that it's private and not meant to be for profit or as a substitute for actual eq (all the players would be ex-eq1 players) constitute a "fair use" exception or anything and you don't either > > think about that and answer me ... where's the copyright violation? > > You copied material you had no right to do so. You own the physical > media and you own the right to watch it, but you DO NOT OWN THE RIGHT TO > COPY IT. again, the fact that i'm not making a copy is why it took so long for me to recast your comments in a way that make sense and have validity it's the derivative work bit, i think, that's got me snagged, not the copying > I'm done, you refuse to admit the truth because it doesn't fit what you > want to hear. Go read up on copyright law, actually read the words, > take it in, and then come back. i did ask you several times to explain yourself, and you failed to, but you arrived at what i now think is the right answer it seems i could have done all the work and had as much reward if i would have just kept talking to pallindrome > -- > Tony Evans > Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 > blog ->http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ > [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote: >i'm saying i own it Wrong, but then you do seem retarded morally as well as mentally. > i'm within my rights See above. Palindrome > In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Palindrome you haven't done anything other than call names; you haven't made a single point or contributed to the discussion in any way and you said you were going to killfile me and you didn't so ... >>>> do any of you have interest in a private server? >>> Not me, it's a breach of trust, and potentially against the law. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Oh, wait, you can't. And where did Sony get the idea for Orcs,Elves living in trees on platforms,"Halflings" living in homes with round doors and windows from ? I would call *this* stealing. On Mar 13, 7:11 pm, Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: > And where did Sony get the idea for Orcs,Elves living in trees on > platforms,"Halflings" living in homes with round doors and windows > from ? > I would call *this* stealing. the idea of orcs, elves, etc, is not copyrightable the expression of those things in sony's world is copyrightable i'm still not violating their copyright since i paid money to own the software and am free to use it in ways that do not violate the relevant copyright statutes whether or not i'm creating a parody or derivate work, etc, is a different issue...i think it comes down to no one's taking money from SOE, they're not hurt at all, so any liability would be moot however, this is usenet, so let's discuss it to death ^_^ someone research such things and let us know =P >On Mar 13, 7:11 pm, Ula...@hotmail.com wrote: >> And where did Sony get the idea for Orcs,Elves living in trees on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >someone research such things and let us know =P More power to you,your effort is appreciated. And UO free shards are running for years now,I play off and on on the same for about 3 years now. Hm,I think the idea about elves *living on platforms* and "Halflings" having homes with "round doors and windows" was originated by Tolkien,sure there were myths about elves before. > > do any of you have interest in a private server? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > blog ->http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ > [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] it's not against the law my dream, and it's a small dream and i don't mind that, is to play eq the way i always wanted - fun quests, important quests In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote: >it's not against the law It's a breach of copyright law. >my dream, and it's a small dream and i don't mind that, is to play eq >the way i always wanted - fun quests, important quests You can do that on the existing live servers, you just have to impose some limitations on yourself. > In alt.games.everquest, c <smalltalkingchic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >it's not against the law > > It's a breach of copyright law. Imagine a scenario where a few friends got together and thought it would be interesting to pick a few chapters from some book and re- write the endings, rearrange the plot, alter the characters - basically put their own spin on it - and then share the results of their efforts amongst each other in a sort of weekly book club. It is *exactly* the same thing, but I hardly think John Grisham would have a *legal* leg to stand on if he didn't like their doing it. That said, they may be perfectly willing to put a stop to it by throwing enough litigation at them to make ceasing and desisting their only option financial option - which should be the real crime, IMO. -- Richard Carpenter > Imagine a scenario where a few friends got together and thought it > would be interesting to pick a few chapters from some book and re- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *exactly* the same thing, but I hardly think John Grisham would have a > *legal* leg to stand on if he didn't like their doing it. Yes he would, have every legal right, because it's a breach of copyright. What he would NOT get, would be any financial compensation. The law is nice and clear, it's a breach, but has no value, and *that* is why most people don't follow it up. > That said, they may be perfectly willing to put a stop to it by > throwing enough litigation at them to make ceasing and desisting their > only option financial option - which should be the real crime, IMO. Here's the thing - if you want to do it, just ask. If you ask, and they say yes, then you're golden, if you don't ask you're stealing. If you respect an artist, you'll ask. If you respect their work, you'll ask. If you believe that artists have a right to own their own creations and to be in control of how they are copied, then you'll ask. If I loved an author enough to want to do what you suggest, then it wouldn't take me 5 minutes to find out how to contact them and just ask. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > > Imagine a scenario where a few friends got together and thought it > > would be interesting to pick a few chapters from some book and re- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The law is nice and clear, it's a breach, but has no value, and *that* > is why most people don't follow it up. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "fair use" would allow it. The law may be clear, but I'm not so sure you are with respect to those details. > > That said, they may be perfectly willing to put a stop to it by > > throwing enough litigation at them to make ceasing and desisting their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you believe that artists have a right to own their own creations and > to be in control of how they are copied, then you'll ask. Neither is at question here. No one is copying anything. Also, it's not a sign of disrespect. If anything, it amounts more to paying homage. > If I loved an author enough to want to do what you suggest, then it > wouldn't take me 5 minutes to find out how to contact them and just ask. Getting a bit dramatic there, but fine. Sure, it would be nice to have their blessing, but it wouldn't really make any difference. For one, everyone already knows what the answer would be and why (greed - ruling out pretty much any emotional aspects of the discussion). Secondly, they would have absolutely no way of even knowing of the existance of this private server, much less being affected by it in *any* way. I just don't see how they could demonstrate any damage or even risk thereof to their intellectual property. -- Richard Carpenter > > If I loved an author enough to want to do what you suggest, then it > > wouldn't take me 5 minutes to find out how to contact them and just ask. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > everyone already knows what the answer would be and why (greed - > ruling out pretty much any emotional aspects of the discussion). that greed ... would you say that's "morally decrepit" ? :P > Secondly, they would have absolutely no way of even knowing of the > existance of this private server, much less being affected by it in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Richard Carpenter i snipped most all of your post, but i want to thank you for looking beyond the letter of the law to understand that my idea isn't nefarious at all and happens also to not likely be illegal though i admit i'm working on the fair use angle ^_^ > and happens also to not likely be illegal > though i admit i'm working on the fair use angle ^_^ It's a breach of copyright all the way up to the point you defend your case in a court of law and have your breach excluded as fair use. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "fair use" would allow it. The law may be > clear, but I'm not so sure you are with respect to those details. Technically, Fair Use doesn't allow anything, it's an agreed exclusion for breaching copyright, and you have to prove your use was fair in court after being sued. Also, even if you're a lawyer you'd be unlikely to commit to saying fair use covers it, because it's been shown in many court cases over the years that fair use has very different interpretations based on the source material and the intent of the person re-publishing it. Sony provide a commercial service which relies on their copyright material. Anyone providing a substitute service using their copyright material would struggle, in my non-legal non-laywer view, to claim fair use. It's breach of copyright to avoid paying subscription fees. But there's no point debating fair use, because you have to prove it in a court of law once sued. It is however, worth remembering why fair use was introduced, which was to initially protect a number of uses of material, "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It was designed to protect 'comment' and 'education'. It's also been used to allow time-shifting of TV recordings obviously, which don't really fall under those categories, so it *is* possible to avoid breaches through fair use, but it's not automatic and it's not simply a case of 'keeping it small and cost free'. This is still my favourite page on copyright - http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - although it tends to focus on the reproduction of written content on the 'net, it still has value. SignatureTony Evans Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993 blog -> http://perception-is-truth.blogspot.com/ [ anything below this line wasn't written by me ] > ahahahhaha, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > this same thing for your friends? (does it sound desperately like i'm > trying to rewrite history?) Try looking up shards of dalaya. After paying £10 a month for approx 3 years, plus expansions (rough total £450), I personally wouldnt give two sh.ts about someone running a private server, and couldnt give a crap what sony's postion on it would be. It would only ever be taken down if it was being paid for by subscribers (Shards is run, or was run, by donations). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.