|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
General::General Discussion General discussion about EverQuest(tm), EQEMu, and related topics.
Do not post support topics here. |
12-07-2005, 03:54 AM
|
|
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,290
|
|
Its great that you can get all legal technical and such but all they had to do was remove the 'copyrighted' images from the site and sony would have to go back into its corner unless they specifically mentioned the patcher or the emu server. So lets not act like there was a 'bigger message' coming from Sony as they did not specify it.
I am well aware of how EverQuest works johane, check out my tag, I have been here before this project was even called EQEMu (AGXEMu, FreeQuest, I doubt these names ring a bell to you)
__________________
www.eq2emu.com
EQ2Emu Co-Founder / EQ2Emu Developer
EQEMu Co-Founder / Former EQEMu Developer / GuildWars / Zek Seasons Servers
Last edited by image; 12-07-2005 at 11:57 AM..
|
12-07-2005, 04:02 AM
|
|
|
SOE went as far as to contack my host and they wiped the site ( let me keep the domain and everything surprisingly ) and I DID state the C&D had over 20 items we were asked to stop, and the patcher was one. I guess having the program download on the site caused that.
Pure and simple SOE has the plat to take people to court, as long as the people cant afford to fight back SOE will win.
|
 |
|
 |
12-07-2005, 07:41 AM
|
|
Sarnak
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Northwestern USA
Posts: 83
|
|
One point that seems to be missing from this thread is that no one "owns" their purchased copy or anything that's been downloaded from Sony. It's licensed. Sony owns the software they've provided to anyone, be it from a purchase from a retailer or from a download. When push comes to shove, if Sony really wanted to, they could go way beyond annoying people with the C&D orders. As Mattmeck said, there are other points to take into consideration beyond copyrighted images and patch servers.
An interesting case happened a few years back when a Adtran introduced a low-cost router that ran on what appeared to be pirated software from Cisco. In actuality, the only thing that was similar to Cisco's software was the UI, and the court ruled that since the code running the router was unique and completely different from the code that Cisco used, Adtran was in the clear. They ruled the UI is just that.. an interface, not the OS, and therefore, not an infringement of copyright.
Boog
|
 |
|
 |
12-07-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Heaven.
Posts: 1,260
|
|
Quote:
|
Since the EQ patcher uses HTTP as a transport I guess that maybe a "Patch Server" is just a website on a funny port. So shutting down a website is shutting down the Patch Server. I know that just after Velious came out I grabbed it using wget, so that's what it (the EQLive Patch server) used to be.
|
I'm not sure I understand what connection you're trying to make between protocol and content. Just because its available through an open protocol, doesn't mean its yours for the taking.
__________________
namespace retval { template <class T> class ReturnValueGen { private: T x; public: ReturnValueGen() { x = 0; }; T& Generator() { return x; }; }; } int main() { retval::ReturnValueGen<int> retvalue; return retvalue.Generator(); }
C++ is wonderful.
|
12-07-2005, 09:56 AM
|
|
Sarnak
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Gold Coast, Oz
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cisyouc
I'm not sure I understand what connection you're trying to make between protocol and content. Just because its available through an open protocol, doesn't mean its yours for the taking.
|
I'm saying that a "Patch Server" is just a website. Shutdown the web server you've shut down the patch server.
It's the courts who've said that if you take no steps to protect your property then you might have relinquished some of your rights regarding it.
However, Matt has hit the nail on the head:
Quote:
|
Pure and simple SOE has the plat to take people to court, as long as the people cant afford to fight back SOE will win.
|
|
12-07-2005, 02:51 PM
|
|
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Heaven.
Posts: 1,260
|
|
Quote:
|
It's the courts who've said that if you take no steps to protect your property then you might have relinquished some of your rights regarding it.
|
Still doesn't give us the right to redistribute it on our own servers.
__________________
namespace retval { template <class T> class ReturnValueGen { private: T x; public: ReturnValueGen() { x = 0; }; T& Generator() { return x; }; }; } int main() { retval::ReturnValueGen<int> retvalue; return retvalue.Generator(); }
C++ is wonderful.
|
12-07-2005, 05:09 PM
|
|
Sarnak
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Gold Coast, Oz
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cisyouc
Still doesn't give us the right to redistribute it on our own servers.
|
I think we're talking at cross purposes here....
I do not condone re-distribution of SOE copyrighted material.
I was talking about why SOE would pul a C&D against a web-site vs against a server, and the comment you've quoted was meant to point out, in context, that the best move (lowest risk, maximum gain) from their perspective is to go against a web-site on copyright, and catch the server in the wake. |
|
|
|
12-16-2005, 10:56 AM
|
|
Fire Beetle
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boogerific
One point that seems to be missing from this thread is that no one "owns" their purchased copy or anything that's been downloaded from Sony. It's licensed. Sony owns the software they've provided to anyone, be it from a purchase from a retailer or from a download. When push comes to shove, if Sony really wanted to, they could go way beyond annoying people with the C&D orders. As Mattmeck said, there are other points to take into consideration beyond copyrighted images and patch servers.
An interesting case happened a few years back when a Adtran introduced a low-cost router that ran on what appeared to be pirated software from Cisco. In actuality, the only thing that was similar to Cisco's software was the UI, and the court ruled that since the code running the router was unique and completely different from the code that Cisco used, Adtran was in the clear. They ruled the UI is just that.. an interface, not the OS, and therefore, not an infringement of copyright.
Boog
|
Lets just say someone decides to take someone to court in regards to this, and lets just say that someone was me. I just would'nt appear in court like I have been doing for the past 5 years.. And what a surprise the only thing these companies can ever manage to do is have a warrant out for my arrest which gets them no where.
I dont fear our justice system and never will, atleast not until they can get there lazy arse's up and do somthing other than place warrants out for my arrest.
Last edited by logain721; 12-16-2005 at 07:00 PM..
|
|
|
|
12-16-2005, 11:40 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by logain721
I dont fear our justice system and never will, atleast not until they can get there lazy arse's up and do somthing other than place warrants out for my arrest.
|
Some of us have jobs that require backround checks ect, so ummm that wouldnt work for me. |
12-16-2005, 12:09 PM
|
|
Fire Beetle
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mattmeck
Some of us have jobs that require backround checks ect, so ummm that wouldnt work for me.
|
That is why I love my under the table job at Arrowhead plastics..lol |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:27 AM.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
