Everquest 2 emulation

[FightersChoice]

Upon it's release I will have full C++ knowledge extending to cracking and building EQ2's Source. Still in C++ may I be, But I have until march! So I will be ready to help if you decide to crack it!

[haloboycs]

If i remembered it correctly, a post somewhere in this forum long ago said that Dev here not goin to make a emulate codes to EQ2.

Might try search it.

[just_add_water]

And I hope to get to the moon with a pogo stick, each time I keep jumping higher! I hope to be there by march.

[rubyrhinosaur]

wow, nice, this guy offers help and you insult him... i remember this from somewhere?

[Memener]

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

"Those people who think they know everything upset those of us that do."

[devn00b]

Memenerr the king of talking out his ass..

EQEMu hasnt had any legal problems because we have done nothing to get us busted.

ELUA's arent binding contracts, they dont hold up in court.

Reverse Engineering of software (via packet sniffs) is not agenst the law. (Sony VS Bleem!)

Sony has lost lots of time/money figting agenst emulators (see above) in the past, doubt they would do it again.

[Memener]

saying what think is bad bad bad bad

[RexChaos]

Why does it matter that SONY makes hardware? I don't see why that was even part of the argument. And no...SONY won't file a suit against the 40 something people running servers for EQEMu.

Why? I'll tell you why...because EQEMu isn't stealing anything from SONY. EQ is a SERVICE that SONY provides. Once you buy the EQ software you can play it however you want. The EULA can't force you to not play the game. They can sue you for certain things, but not for playing on a server.

That would NEVER hold up in court. EQEMu is not making money from this. They are also not losing any money from this. I'm not going to pay to play EQ. I wouldn't play it at all if it weren't for EQEMu. So they haven't lost any money there. If they were there may be a case, but there is none. The EQEMu team provides a free service to OWNERS of the EQ software.

They do not promote people stealing software, nor do they condone any other illegal activities. They are doing nothing illegal.

I assume EQEMu is all their own code and therefore no litigation can touch the software. For the same reason why Microsoft can't touch WINE for Linux. It's an emulator to run Windows software in Linux. Same idea. You buy MS software, you can run it on whatever OS you want to run it on. MS won't support it though. Same deal with EQ. Same deal with the Ultima Online servers. Those still go on as well. It's out there. It's not gonna go away. SONY did waste a LOT of time and resources on attempting to destroy Bleem! and to what end? There are other PS emulators out there as well.

If you're so worried about SONY, why are you even here?

[devn00b]

again...they could try..and just with bleem (links to follow) they wouldnt win.

sorry to tell you mem. ELUA's are not binding contracts end of story. If you wish to debate this further i'll give you the # to my lawyer and you can debate it with him.


Here comes a few long posts to show just how much you talk out yer ass..

[devn00b]

B. Reverse engineering

Copyrighted software ordinarily contains both copyrighted
and unprotected or functional elements. Sega Enters. Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended
opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does
not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in
the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a prod-
uct that must be compatible with a copyrighted product fre-
quently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to
gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted
product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engi-
neering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46
(1994).

Reverse engineering encompasses several methods of gain-
ing access to the functional elements of a software program.
They include: (1) reading about the program; (2) observing
"the program in operation by using it on a computer;"
(3) performing a "static examination of the individual com-
puter instructions contained within the program; " and
(4) performing a "dynamic examination of the individual
computer instructions as the program is being run on a
computer." Id. at 846. Method (1) is the least effective,
because individual software manuals often misdescribe the
real product. See id. It would be particularly ineffective in this
case because Sony does not make such information available
about its PlayStation. Methods (2), (3), and (4) require that
the person seeking access load the target program on to a
computer, an operation that necessarily involves copying the
copyrighted program into the computer's random access
memory or RAM.

Please note EQEMU falls under the above

[5] The question then becomes whether the methods by
which Connectix reverse-engineered the Sony BIOS were
necessary to gain access to the unprotected functional ele-
ments within the program. We conclude that they were. Con-
nectix employed several methods of reverse engineering
(observation and observation with partial disassembly) each
of which required Connectix to make intermediate copies of
copyrighted material. Neither of these methods renders fair
use protection inapplicable. Sega expressly sanctioned disas-
sembly. See id. at 1527-28. We see no reason to distinguish
observation of copyrighted software in an emulated computer
environment. Both methods require the reverse engineer to
copy protected as well as unprotected elements of the com-
puter program. Because this intermediate copying is the gra-
vamen of the intermediate infringement claim, see 17 U.S.C.
S 106(1); Sega, 977 F.2d at 1518-19, and both methods of
reverse engineering require it, we find no reason inherent in
these methods to prefer one to another as a matter of copy-
right law. Connectix presented evidence that it observed the
Sony BIOS in an emulated environment to observe the func-
tional aspects of the Sony BIOS. When this method of reverse
engineering was unsuccessful, Connectix engineers disassem-
bled discrete portions of the Sony BIOS to view directly the
ideas contained therein. We conclude that intermediate copy-
ing in this manner was "necessary" within the meaning of
Sega.

This was taken from Sony VS Connectix (another PSX Emulator)

Care to debate anymore? if so i can throw up more. its np to me...but please know the facts before you spew crap acting like you know what it is.

[devn00b]

In the above example sony lost (big suprize? not realy).

They also lost 2 or 3 different court cases agenst Bleem! when they tryed to argue about .

Now on to ELUA's give me a few mins to reference more data..less your done?

[RexChaos]

burnt

[nilar]

Rofl I think /dev/n00b wins

[RexChaos]

I think my sig applies in this case...

[Memener]

burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt
burnt