The perfect EQ game, in my opinion

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I played EQ1 for 3 years and loved it. I tried EQ2 when it came out mostly
because I wanted to see the Bbautiful new graphics... which didn't
disappoint me. After 4 months of EQ2 I started to really miss the old EQ. I
used to love to buff newbies when I didn't feel like hunting... not possible
in EQ2. I loved hanging out in PoK with characters of all levels and
races... not a place like that in EQ2. I still log onto EQ2 occasionally to
say hello to friends, and have noticed the population getting thinner and
thinner. Are there other EQ1 players out there who have also been
disappointed by the EQ2 world like I have?

If I could have my wish, I'd like to see the old EQ world with the new EQ
graphics, interface and usability. That would make a perfect EQ game.

Dreanna Silvermage of (the late) Ayonae Ro
24 answers Last reply
More about perfect game opinion
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    I also moved from EQ2 back to EQ1, luckily i still find a lot of people to
    play with on my server (AB) in POK i can still do a /w and see over 70
    people in the zone at any one time, EQ2 amazed me with the graphics, but it
    did feel like an awfully lonely place at times and i could spend more than
    an hour sometimes looking for groups, which definetely is not the case on
    EQ1. I would also like to see the EQ1 world with EQ2 graphics.

    I left EQ1 around october last year, so i never got a chance to see the
    dragons of norrath expansion. When i joined EQ1 again about a week ago i
    went to check out the lavastorm zone to see how much it had changed, the
    graphics are amazing. It was quite funny zonning into Solusek after about
    10 minutes of running around the zone. Lol going from the new graphics
    right back to the EQ1 (before any expansions) graphics is quite a shock to
    see.


    "Connie" <connietescar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d6bt6u$bc15$1@news3.infoave.net...
    >I played EQ1 for 3 years and loved it. I tried EQ2 when it came out mostly
    >because I wanted to see the Bbautiful new graphics... which didn't
    >disappoint me. After 4 months of EQ2 I started to really miss the old EQ.
    >I used to love to buff newbies when I didn't feel like hunting... not
    >possible in EQ2. I loved hanging out in PoK with characters of all levels
    >and races... not a place like that in EQ2. I still log onto EQ2
    >occasionally to say hello to friends, and have noticed the population
    >getting thinner and thinner. Are there other EQ1 players out there who
    >have also been disappointed by the EQ2 world like I have?
    >
    > If I could have my wish, I'd like to see the old EQ world with the new EQ
    > graphics, interface and usability. That would make a perfect EQ game.
    >
    > Dreanna Silvermage of (the late) Ayonae Ro
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Connie wrote:


    > If I could have my wish, I'd like to see the old EQ world with the new EQ
    > graphics, interface and usability. That would make a perfect EQ game.

    Something I've been wishing for since EQ2 went live, I love the graphics
    but often find myself missing the depth and play style of EQLive.


    --
    Michael Greenhalgh
    http://tripleb.co.uk
    ---
    MMORPGs
    EverQuest:
    Miglok | Half-Elf Ranger | Venril Sathir
    Rayd | Iksar Shadowknight | Venril Sathir

    EverQuest 2:
    Miglok Skreefyre of Venril Sathir, Hunter of Gnolls | Half-Elf Ranger |
    Lavastorm
    Rayd | Dwarf Summoner | Lavastorm

    Loony Goon Circus Guild | http://www.loonygooncircus.com |
    http://lgc.eq2guilds.org

    City of Heroes:
    Shadow Ranger | Mutation Scrapper | Virtue

    ---
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Try Winter's Roar and emulated eq server that is free. The server has
    around 200 people and mostly the folks are nice. The zones geography
    is the same but the mobs abilities are all different. It takes me back
    to my early eq days. It is fun.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> wrote in news:1116420326.940220.18690
    @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Try Winter's Roar and emulated eq server that is free. The server has
    > around 200 people and mostly the folks are nice. The zones geography
    > is the same but the mobs abilities are all different. It takes me back
    > to my early eq days. It is fun.

    Interesting concept, and sounds like something worth checking out, except
    for the fact that it would probably be a bear for a new player, unless they
    rolled up a solo'ing class, as the chances of finding many others in their
    level range at any given time are likely slim. I'd be interested in seeing
    a level range listing of all current players.

    It would be interesting to see someone else's solutions to some of the game
    issues in EQ.

    --
    Rumble
    "Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
    -- Benjamin Franklin
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
    > "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> wrote in news:1116420326.940220.18690
    > @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > Try Winter's Roar and emulated eq server that is free. The server has
    > > around 200 people and mostly the folks are nice. The zones geography
    > > is the same but the mobs abilities are all different. It takes me back
    > > to my early eq days. It is fun.
    >
    > Interesting concept, and sounds like something worth checking out, except
    > for the fact that it would probably be a bear for a new player, unless they
    > rolled up a solo'ing class, as the chances of finding many others in their
    > level range at any given time are likely slim. I'd be interested in seeing
    > a level range listing of all current players.
    >
    > It would be interesting to see someone else's solutions to some of the game
    > issues in EQ.

    Such as making any class a "solo'ing class"...

    Never played there, but from what I hear it is well thought out, including
    the fact that there are times when there are more levels in the game than
    characters in the game.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    They allow you to two box and have eq windows set up for that. Thus a
    cleric war, shaman monk type thing is easy. WR has a lot of newbies at
    the moment and you can at least go to the web site. Tell em that Arif
    sent you!
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Rumbledor wrote:
    > "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> wrote in news:1116420326.940220.18690
    > @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > Try Winter's Roar and emulated eq server that is free. The server
    has
    > > around 200 people and mostly the folks are nice. The zones
    geography
    > > is the same but the mobs abilities are all different. It takes me
    back
    > > to my early eq days. It is fun.
    >
    > Interesting concept, and sounds like something worth checking out,
    except
    > for the fact that it would probably be a bear for a new player,
    unless they
    > rolled up a solo'ing class, as the chances of finding many others in
    their
    > level range at any given time are likely slim. I'd be interested in
    seeing
    > a level range listing of all current players.

    I had a look at the website last night and I'm thinking about trying it
    out tonight. A couple of questions spring to mind though:

    1) How do they get away with that? Did they get permission or
    assistance from Sony? If not, surely Sony would have a strong case for
    stopping them running. (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what they
    would sue for but it just seems wrong that they can do this without
    permission)

    2) If they didn't get permission from Sony, how did they do it?
    Reverse engineer the EQLive client or perhaps examine all the data
    transmitting between the client and the server. (Again I don't know
    anything about either method but both sound to be huge tasks to me)

    steve.kaye
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    steve.kaye wrote:
    > Rumbledor wrote:
    > > "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> wrote in news:1116420326.940220.18690
    > > @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
    > >
    > > > Try Winter's Roar and emulated eq server that is free. The
    server
    > has
    > > > around 200 people and mostly the folks are nice. The zones
    > geography
    > > > is the same but the mobs abilities are all different. It takes
    me
    > back
    > > > to my early eq days. It is fun.
    > >
    > > Interesting concept, and sounds like something worth checking out,
    > except
    > > for the fact that it would probably be a bear for a new player,
    > unless they
    > > rolled up a solo'ing class, as the chances of finding many others
    in
    > their
    > > level range at any given time are likely slim. I'd be interested in
    > seeing
    > > a level range listing of all current players.
    >
    > I had a look at the website last night and I'm thinking about trying
    it
    > out tonight. A couple of questions spring to mind though:
    >
    > 1) How do they get away with that? Did they get permission or
    > assistance from Sony? If not, surely Sony would have a strong case
    for
    > stopping them running. (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what they
    > would sue for but it just seems wrong that they can do this without
    > permission)
    >
    > 2) If they didn't get permission from Sony, how did they do it?
    > Reverse engineer the EQLive client or perhaps examine all the data
    > transmitting between the client and the server. (Again I don't know
    > anything about either method but both sound to be huge tasks to me)
    >
    > steve.kaye

    Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    should answer both your questions:

    1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may not
    be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I can't
    imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project. Also,
    playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of your EULA.

    2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive serers.
    This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite possibly
    breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many areas. Again,
    IANAL, and am not familiar with the projects contributors or
    co-ordinators, but it is defenitely a Grey project at best.
    Specifically, they sniffed a lot of EQ traffic.
    --
    Xiphos - Personally, I'd rather develop a game from the ground up to
    maintain both creative and legal integrity and legitemacy. But hey,
    that's just me.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    42 wrote:
    > In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > >
    > > Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    > > should answer both your questions:
    > >
    > > 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    > > asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may
    not
    > > be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I can't
    > > imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project. Also,
    > > playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of your
    EULA.
    >
    > Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most,
    if
    > not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't using
    > EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That weakens
    it
    > substantially.

    Actually, no. By installing the EQ client software, then using it with
    third party software (in this case the EQemu site), you are in direct
    violation of the EULA.

    > What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"??

    Then you have agreed not to use the license for which you have paid.
    This includes, but is not limited to, non-use of said product.

    > What if
    > the EULA forbids you to sniff traffic and my ISP sniffs traffic are
    > *they* in violation of the EULA?

    No. They are *potentially* in violation of wiretap regulations in their
    area, however.

    > What if my brother takes my copy of the
    > software and decompiles it (for the sake of argument lets assume it
    > really was that simple) would *he* be in violation of the EULA?

    No, he would be in violation of the DMCA in this case.

    Now, say your brother, who is not a player of the game, starts sniffing
    packets on the house network. NOW we start hitting the loopholes I
    suspect at least some of the EQemu developers might be using.

    > > 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    serers.
    > > This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite
    possibly
    > > breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many areas.
    >
    > there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own
    code
    > that interfaces with another product.

    Never said otherwise. Elsewise OpenOffice would be in a heapload more
    trouble.

    > No copyright is violated.

    Ah, but there my be an issue with IP regulations.

    > Players
    > are expected to have purchased EQ, and have rights to use the
    software
    > more or less however they see fit.

    Tell me you are a lawyer and I'll concede. However my understanding of
    this, as with most commercial software, is that you do not actually own
    said software. You have LEASED a LICENSE to make use of said software
    in a manner that complies with the EULA.

    > There is nothing illegal about
    > reverse engineering. A great deal of innovation comes from seeing how

    > other things work.

    More accurately; there SHOULDN'T be anything illegal about reverse
    engineering-

    > The only anti-reverse engineering law is in america and only with
    > respect to that ridiculous piece of law called the DMCA which forbids
    it
    > only with respect to circumventing encyrption and copy protection
    > mechanisms, and even that is beyond stupid.

    Here, I agree with you 100%. I never said nor claimed these laws were
    in any way good, sane, or justifiable. Now if you good people reside
    in areas where the laws governing so-called Intellectual Property are
    sane, then have at. Me, I live in the Great Nation of the Stupid and
    Paranoid.

    Good day, friend citizen. I certainly hope you're not criticizing The
    Law; such actions may be considered treasonous (If you've never played
    Paranoia, then disregard this reference).

    > Proection of security by making it illegal to look at how the lock
    works
    > is good recipe for making shitty locks.

    Again, I agree with you completely, and point to the low quality of
    software coming from many closed-source commercial ventures.

    > You punish people for theft of what the lock protects, not for
    finding
    > out how the lock works.

    I again agree; that is how things SHOULD work. Heh, I *AM*, actually,
    a Systems Security Administrator :)

    > They only really grey area of EQ emu comes to the EULA, which is
    pretty
    > weak in terms of legal enforceablily at the best of times, and is
    > further weakened by the fact that the developers/players may in fact
    be
    > disagreeing with it.

    I'm not quite sure what you were saying at the end of that statement,
    but I do agree that EULA's are pretty weak nd often unenforcable in the
    end. However, they are there, and do at least make some token efforts
    to digitally provide a sort of contract between the software licensor
    and software licensee.

    > > Again,
    > > IANAL, and am not familiar with the projects contributors or
    > > co-ordinators, but it is defenitely a Grey project at best.
    > > Specifically, they sniffed a lot of EQ traffic.
    >
    > While its definately not in the spirit of the game to sniff traffic,
    and
    > SOE is welcome to ban any account that they catch doing it because
    its
    > their server and they can ban for any reason they like, the reality
    is
    > that its not *illegal*, nor should it be, to look at what is going on

    > one's own LAN.

    Never said it was. However, they do infringe on Sony's IP by making
    use of copyrighted material; such as Norrath, Iksar, Luclin, Fier'Dal,
    Tier'Dal, Koada'Dal, Faydwer, Kunark, Qeynos, Oggok, etc. etc. This
    makes it a grey area at best, as they are using Sony copyrighted
    material in a public exhibition without proper authorization.

    > Think of the paradise for the Gator's of the world if they could sue
    you
    > for tampering (packet sniffing, reverse engineering, etc) with your
    own
    > computer. (In violation of so-called reverse engineering laws, in
    > violations of copyright laws, in violation of the click-thru EULA for

    > gator when you installed yaiet (yet another ie toolbar).

    Actually, there have been some interesting news articles over the
    course of the past year of companies such as Gator going after people
    in the US for just that. Scary stuff. This nation is completely futzing
    insane.

    > > Xiphos - Personally, I'd rather develop a game from the ground up
    to
    > > maintain both creative and legal integrity and legitemacy. But hey,
    > > that's just me.
    >
    > If you buy a few hundred dollars worth of Warhammer 40k models,
    decide
    > you don't like the rules why shouldn't you write some of your own?
    >
    > Would you truly feel that you had violated both your creative and
    legal
    > integrity to use those models for something other than by-the-book
    > warhammer 40k?

    If it were for personal, non-public or non-commercial use? No. If it
    were for public and/or commercial use? Absolutely, and Games Workshop
    would be completely within their rights to come down on me full force.

    Perhaps you've never heard of a little company called FASA? They did
    something very similar to that. To their credit they were under the
    impression they had gotten proper permission to use the liknesses of
    the Macross, Crusher Joe, and Dougram mechs. FASA went under from the
    lawsiut expenses, and BattleTech will never be the same. I still miss
    my Tournament legal LAM's.

    > Give me break!!

    Woah, cool down there, B. US laws are incredibly insane, often inane,
    but they can still be enforced and that's what makes them scary.

    > What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    > different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    > warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their
    models
    > yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)

    Actually, in both instances, they own copyright. That right there
    gives them say in how their properties are used.
    --
    Xiphos - 0x0042 == B in ASCII. In binary, it's 0100 0010. This makes
    for a double-bird when represented on one's fingers. Pretty cool, huh?
    :)
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Actually, Wine dances a very fine line with Microsoft; I do believe MS
    *is* pursuing Wine and WineX. Using IE, specifically, with Wine is
    considered a violation of the Windows and IE EULA.

    dosemu can be used with FreeDOS, a completely free-speech
    implementation of the Disk Operating System. Derived from DRDOS, iirc,
    much like MSDOS was, so MS would have no legal legs to stand on in that
    case.

    dosbox emulates the 80x86 CPU, doesn't it? So they are also free and
    clear, seeing as how the reason Intel couldn't go after AMD or Cyrex is
    the same reason they can't go after these guys.

    Samba implements a compatable network service to the Microsoft Windows
    networking services. As it is developed openly and completely seperate
    and without any knowledge of the workings of MS networking protocols
    outside those freely observable in the wild, they are also free and
    clear of IP and licensing issues.
    --
    Xiphos - Perhaps we should all go on over to groklaw and ask them?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    xiphos@rahul.net says...
    >
    > Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    > should answer both your questions:
    >
    > 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    > asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may not
    > be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I can't
    > imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project. Also,
    > playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of your EULA.

    Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most, if
    not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't using
    EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That weakens it
    substantially.

    What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"?? What if
    the EULA forbids you to sniff traffic and my ISP sniffs traffic are
    *they* in violation of the EULA? What if my brother takes my copy of the
    software and decompiles it (for the sake of argument lets assume it
    really was that simple) would *he* be in violation of the EULA?

    > 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive serers.
    > This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite possibly
    > breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many areas.

    there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own code
    that interfaces with another product. No copyright is violated. Players
    are expected to have purchased EQ, and have rights to use the software
    more or less however they see fit. There is nothing illegal about
    reverse engineering. A great deal of innovation comes from seeing how
    other things work.

    The only anti-reverse engineering law is in america and only with
    respect to that ridiculous piece of law called the DMCA which forbids it
    only with respect to circumventing encyrption and copy protection
    mechanisms, and even that is beyond stupid.

    Proection of security by making it illegal to look at how the lock works
    is good recipe for making shitty locks.

    You punish people for theft of what the lock protects, not for finding
    out how the lock works.

    They only really grey area of EQ emu comes to the EULA, which is pretty
    weak in terms of legal enforceablily at the best of times, and is
    further weakened by the fact that the developers/players may in fact be
    disagreeing with it.

    > Again,
    > IANAL, and am not familiar with the projects contributors or
    > co-ordinators, but it is defenitely a Grey project at best.
    > Specifically, they sniffed a lot of EQ traffic.

    While its definately not in the spirit of the game to sniff traffic, and
    SOE is welcome to ban any account that they catch doing it because its
    their server and they can ban for any reason they like, the reality is
    that its not *illegal*, nor should it be, to look at what is going on
    one's own LAN.

    Think of the paradise for the Gator's of the world if they could sue you
    for tampering (packet sniffing, reverse engineering, etc) with your own
    computer. (In violation of so-called reverse engineering laws, in
    violations of copyright laws, in violation of the click-thru EULA for
    gator when you installed yaiet (yet another ie toolbar).

    > Xiphos - Personally, I'd rather develop a game from the ground up to
    > maintain both creative and legal integrity and legitemacy. But hey,
    > that's just me.

    If you buy a few hundred dollars worth of Warhammer 40k models, decide
    you don't like the rules why shouldn't you write some of your own?

    Would you truly feel that you had violated both your creative and legal
    integrity to use those models for something other than by-the-book
    warhammer 40k?

    Give me break!!

    What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their models
    yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:43:37 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    >xiphos@rahul.net says...
    >>
    >> Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    >> should answer both your questions:
    >>
    >> 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    >> asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may not
    >> be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I can't
    >> imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project. Also,
    >> playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of your EULA.
    >
    >Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most, if
    >not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't using
    >EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That weakens it
    >substantially.

    Installation of the software requires agreeing to the EULA, unless
    you've hacked the install files, which is a violation in itself. If
    tested in court, the most likely outcome is that since the software
    cannot NORMALLY be used without agreeing to the EULA, it's assumed
    that you agreed to it by using it.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Stop the madness! (Marvel Vs Cryptic Studios petition)
    http://www.petitiononline.com/marvscoh/petition.html

    Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
    http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 May 2005 19:43:37 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > >xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > >>
    > >> Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    > >> should answer both your questions:
    > >>
    > >> 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    > >> asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may not
    > >> be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I can't
    > >> imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project. Also,
    > >> playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of your EULA.
    > >
    > >Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most, if
    > >not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't using
    > >EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That weakens it
    > >substantially.
    >
    > Installation of the software requires agreeing to the EULA, unless
    > you've hacked the install files, which is a violation in itself. If
    > tested in court, the most likely outcome is that since the software
    > cannot NORMALLY be used without agreeing to the EULA, it's assumed
    > that you agreed to it by using it.

    Not that I give the EULA any weight whatsoever, and this is one of the very
    reasons that I feel I give the proper weight to the EULA.

    I might have agreed to the EULA when I installed the game. I honestly don't
    remember, but will stipulate such for the sake of argument. I most
    definitely didn't agree to the current EULA. I could dig around and find my
    original CDs (maybe) and see what it is that I actually agreed to in order
    to install the software, but since I'm too lazy to do so, and I'd imagine so
    are most other people, you'd have to do a helluva lot of work to actually
    support your contention, even assuming, arguendo, that the EULA had the
    force of law.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:

    > In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > xiphos@rahul.net says...
    >>
    >> Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    >> should answer both your questions:
    >>
    >> 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    >> asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may
    >> not be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I
    >> can't imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project.
    >> Also, playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of
    >> your EULA.
    >
    > Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most,
    > if not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't
    > using EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That
    > weakens it substantially.

    But you are using their software. Without looking at the EULA or the
    stuff you agree to during the install, I am quite certain that there is
    something in there where you agree to using it only on official EQ
    servers and that any other use is in violation of the Terms of Use.

    > What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"??

    You don't get to install/use the software.

    > What
    > if the EULA forbids you to sniff traffic and my ISP sniffs traffic are
    > *they* in violation of the EULA?

    It depends on the intent. If the intent is to ensure that traffic is
    being most efficiently routed, probably not. If, however, it is being
    sniffed to aid in the reverse-engineering/hacking, it probably is.

    > What if my brother takes my copy of
    > the software and decompiles it (for the sake of argument lets assume
    > it really was that simple) would *he* be in violation of the EULA?

    Don't know about the EULA, but he would probably be going against the
    copyright/IP covering it. Especially if he is going to be using it to
    create a direct competitor to EQ.

    >> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    >> serers.
    >> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite possibly
    >> breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many areas.
    >
    > there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own code
    > that interfaces with another product.

    It is if the other product states that you are only to use the product on
    their severs.

    > No copyright is violated.

    Not in this case, no.

    > Players are expected to have purchased EQ, and have rights to use the
    > software more or less however they see fit.

    Wrong. Each time the player loads EQ, they are agreeing to the terms
    stated in the EULA.

    > There is nothing illegal
    > about reverse engineering. A great deal of innovation comes from
    > seeing how other things work.

    You can reverse engineer, however to use thier IP for your own use is
    illegal and requires the payment of royalties/licensing fees. To use it
    without their permission is not permitted.

    > The only anti-reverse engineering law is in america and only with
    > respect to that ridiculous piece of law called the DMCA which forbids
    > it only with respect to circumventing encyrption and copy protection
    > mechanisms, and even that is beyond stupid.

    Red herring. This doesn't have anything to do with the argument in
    question.

    <snip>

    > They only really grey area of EQ emu comes to the EULA, which is
    > pretty weak in terms of legal enforceablily at the best of times, and
    > is further weakened by the fact that the developers/players may in
    > fact be disagreeing with it.

    But when you disagree with it, you don't get to use the software.

    >> Xiphos - Personally, I'd rather develop a game from the ground up to
    >> maintain both creative and legal integrity and legitemacy. But hey,
    >> that's just me.
    >
    > If you buy a few hundred dollars worth of Warhammer 40k models, decide
    > you don't like the rules why shouldn't you write some of your own?

    The thing is, buying model figurines is completely different from
    buying/using software. When you buy figurines, you buy them and they
    become your property. When you buy software, it doesn't become your
    property. You are paying for the right to use a copy of the software,
    that is it.

    > What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    > different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    > warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their models
    > yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)

    What makes it different is that models and software are two completely
    different things. Thus, the comparison of one to another is not valid.


    --
    Marcel
    http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    news:Xns965BA547B38E0mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:

    > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:
    >
    >> In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    >> xiphos@rahul.net says...
    >>> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    >>> serers.
    >>> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite
    >>> possibly breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many
    >>> areas.
    >>
    >> there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own
    >> code that interfaces with another product.
    >
    > It is if the other product states that you are only to use the product
    > on their severs.

    Well, no, it is still not illegal to design a product using your own code
    that interfaces with another product. It may be against the EULA to
    actually use the "other" product that way however.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
    Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    > Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    > news:Xns965BA547B38E0mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    >
    > > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > > news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:
    > >
    > >> In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > >> xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > >>> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    > >>> serers.
    > >>> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite
    > >>> possibly breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many
    > >>> areas.
    > >>
    > >> there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own
    > >> code that interfaces with another product.
    > >
    > > It is if the other product states that you are only to use the product
    > > on their severs.
    >
    > Well, no, it is still not illegal to design a product using your own code
    > that interfaces with another product. It may be against the EULA to
    > actually use the "other" product that way however.

    See, samba, dosemu, dosbox, wine, etc.

    If Microsoft isn't pursuing the matter, it's a safe bet it's not worth
    pursuing.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <xiphos@rahul.net> wrote:
    > Actually, Wine dances a very fine line with Microsoft; I do believe MS
    > *is* pursuing Wine and WineX. Using IE, specifically, with Wine is
    > considered a violation of the Windows and IE EULA.

    http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-user/mfc-legal-issues
    http://www.betanews.com/article/Wine_Project_Enlists_Legal_Backing/1115999569

    Try again.

    > dosemu can be used with FreeDOS, a completely free-speech
    > implementation of the Disk Operating System. Derived from DRDOS, iirc,
    > much like MSDOS was, so MS would have no legal legs to stand on in that
    > case.

    And an "EQ emulator" could be used with a different client (granted, one
    that's not been written, but not anything outside the realm of possibility).
    The *fact* that many people who use dosemu use it with "dos" negates the
    argument that it "can be" used without involving a Microsoft product.

    > dosbox emulates the 80x86 CPU, doesn't it? So they are also free and
    > clear, seeing as how the reason Intel couldn't go after AMD or Cyrex is
    > the same reason they can't go after these guys.

    Interesting... and do you know why Intel couldn't go after AMD?

    Because reverse engineering is *legal*. =P

    http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=353553&seqNum=3&rl=1

    Ironically, Intel is now the one reverse engineering AMD chips.

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1561875,00.asp?
    kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

    (split link)

    > Samba implements a compatable network service to the Microsoft Windows
    > networking services. As it is developed openly and completely seperate
    > and without any knowledge of the workings of MS networking protocols
    > outside those freely observable in the wild, they are also free and
    > clear of IP and licensing issues.

    You seem very confused. How do you think the EQ emulator was created? By
    using what was "freely observable in the wild". I.E., reverse engineering
    the network stream, then building a server that duplicated what they
    observed.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <Xns965BA547B38E0mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4>,
    mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com says...
    > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:
    >
    > > In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > > xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > >>
    > >> Glancing over the site, I see they're srving up using EQemu. This
    > >> should answer both your questions:
    > >>
    > >> 1) IANAL, but I believe technically Sony could come down on their
    > >> asses, just as they could any other EQemu site. That said, it may
    > >> not be in Sony's best interest to currently pay them any mind; I
    > >> can't imagine Sony NOT being aware of this open-source project.
    > >> Also, playing on this, or any other EQemu server is a violation of
    > >> your EULA.
    > >
    > > Actually. Strictly speaking, if you are playing on an emu site most,
    > > if not all, of they eula simply doesn't apply, because you aren't
    > > using EQ's service, and don't actually -need- to agree to it. That
    > > weakens it substantially.
    >
    > But you are using their software. Without looking at the EULA or the
    > stuff you agree to during the install, I am quite certain that there is
    > something in there where you agree to using it only on official EQ
    > servers and that any other use is in violation of the Terms of Use.
    >
    > > What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"??
    >
    > You don't get to install/use the software.

    Says who? Remember I -didn't- agree to those terms.

    > > What
    > > if the EULA forbids you to sniff traffic and my ISP sniffs traffic are
    > > *they* in violation of the EULA?
    >
    > It depends on the intent. If the intent is to ensure that traffic is
    > being most efficiently routed, probably not. If, however, it is being
    > sniffed to aid in the reverse-engineering/hacking, it probably is.

    So then packet sniffing is allowed. Period.
    Your argument is that reverse engineering isn't allowed.

    > > What if my brother takes my copy of
    > > the software and decompiles it (for the sake of argument lets assume
    > > it really was that simple) would *he* be in violation of the EULA?
    >
    > Don't know about the EULA, but he would probably be going against the
    > copyright/IP covering it. Especially if he is going to be using it to
    > create a direct competitor to EQ.

    That wouldn't be too bright. Given that you have to have EQ to play his
    game he could argue that he's actually boosting sales of the product.


    > >> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    > >> serers.
    > >> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite possibly
    > >> breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many areas.
    > >
    > > there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own code
    > > that interfaces with another product.
    >
    > It is if the other product states that you are only to use the product on
    > their severs.
    >
    > > No copyright is violated.
    >
    > Not in this case, no.
    >
    > > Players are expected to have purchased EQ, and have rights to use the
    > > software more or less however they see fit.
    >
    > Wrong. Each time the player loads EQ, they are agreeing to the terms
    > stated in the EULA.

    For the sake of argument, lets say they are doing just that. What then?

    Well.. the EULA, as most contracts do, stipulate what actions and
    remedies will be taken should you violate terms of the contract. In this
    case: SOE will discontinue your service. (ie ban you).

    Given that these players aren't playing on the EQ server, they may be
    quite comfortable with the remedy. So SOE can ban them and be done with
    it. The EULA has been fully satisfied. SOE will have excersized its
    right to ban you for EULA violation, and the player will continue
    playing on a remote server. All parties are happy now. Right?

    If not, why not? :)

    > > There is nothing illegal
    > > about reverse engineering. A great deal of innovation comes from
    > > seeing how other things work.
    >
    > You can reverse engineer,

    Correct. (Except in the case of the DMCA in America.)

    > however to use thier IP for your own use is
    > illegal and requires the payment of royalties/licensing fees. To use it
    > without their permission is not permitted.

    Incorrect.

    Think about it.

    I can take apart a patented blender see how it works, walk over to radio
    shack and buy a motor and some blades etc and make a blender of my own.
    That is neither illegal nor does it require permission or payments --
    unless I try to commercialize it. But I can do it in my own basement all
    I please.

    Similiarly I can take a copy of lord of the rings, type it up on my
    computer, change the fonts, change everyones name to someone I know, add
    cute illustrations and print it out. This also legal and can be done
    without permission or payments. I cannot however
    distribute/broadcast/etc because that would violate copyright law.

    When you buy something you are granted the right to do whatever you want
    with it, with specific limitations which are covered by patent and
    copyright laws. Contrary to what you seem to think the IP holder
    doesn't, within IP law, have the power to dictate exactly what you can
    and cannot do with something he sells you that incorporates his IP.

    His only recourse is contracts if he wants to further restrict what you
    can do with the product. But contracts are not law, they aren't even
    legally binding when they haven't been signed.



    > > The only anti-reverse engineering law is in america and only with
    > > respect to that ridiculous piece of law called the DMCA which forbids
    > > it only with respect to circumventing encyrption and copy protection
    > > mechanisms, and even that is beyond stupid.
    >
    > Red herring. This doesn't have anything to do with the argument in
    > question.

    Well DUH! Bringing up reverse engineering in the FIRST place was a red
    herring. I'm only explaining WHY.


    > <snip>
    >
    > > They only really grey area of EQ emu comes to the EULA, which is
    > > pretty weak in terms of legal enforceablily at the best of times, and
    > > is further weakened by the fact that the developers/players may in
    > > fact be disagreeing with it.
    >
    > But when you disagree with it, you don't get to use the software.

    Funny thing about contracts: If you refuse to sign them they don't
    actually apply.

    You see, if I write up a contract and it says: By signing this contract
    you agree to fill my truck full of the gold nuggets that I just sold
    you. By refusing to sign this contract you agree not to make use of the
    gold nuggets for your own purposes.

    So there is no way I could sue you for using those nuggets if you refuse
    to sign it. Similiarly there is no way SOE could sue for violating the
    EULA if you clicked I disagree.

    And to address somebody elses comment... its trivially easy to install
    everquest WITHOUT agreeing to the EULA.

    So...

    If I disagree with the EULA, who says I can't use the software? I bought
    the disk; copyright law forbids me from taking specific actions with it
    (reproduction/broadcast/etc..) but I can muck with its contents to my
    hearts content. No law forbids it and the EULA doesn't apply because I
    didn't sign it.

    > >> Xiphos - Personally, I'd rather develop a game from the ground up to
    > >> maintain both creative and legal integrity and legitemacy. But hey,
    > >> that's just me.
    > >
    > > If you buy a few hundred dollars worth of Warhammer 40k models, decide
    > > you don't like the rules why shouldn't you write some of your own?
    >
    > The thing is, buying model figurines is completely different from
    > buying/using software.

    The thing is: No its not.

    > When you buy figurines, you buy them and they
    > become your property. When you buy software, it doesn't become your
    > property.

    It becomes your property as much as the software does. Which is to say
    they that just like software: to an extent they do not.

    > You are paying for the right to use a copy of the software,
    > that is it.

    When you buy models you are paying for the right to use those copies of
    the model. "That is it." to use your words.

    You didn't buy the intellectual property. You can't go into business
    selling replicas of those models, selling posters with their
    likenesses... or violate any of the other rights the IP holder has
    retained.

    > > What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    > > different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    > > warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their models
    > > yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)
    >
    > What makes it different is that models and software are two completely
    > different things.

    Consider the simpler case of plastic models, and virtual models. (forget
    this vaguely defined "software" for the moment, just consider re-use of
    the *models*.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <1116536470.357853.96140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > 42 wrote:

    > Actually, no. By installing the EQ client software, then using it with
    > third party software (in this case the EQemu site), you are in direct
    > violation of the EULA.

    Or would be if you agreed to it. ;)

    > > What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"??
    >
    > Then you have agreed not to use the license for which you have paid.
    > This includes, but is not limited to, non-use of said product.

    Not quite. That term is part of the EULA I just disagreed with; meaning
    I disagreed with the term that said I wouldn't use it if I disagreed
    with it. Cute huh?

    Meanwhile I do own the CD, nobody claims otherwise, and the law doesn't
    prevent me from doing what I want with CDs I own (within the boundaries
    of copyright).

    In all seriousness that argument shouldn't really fly. But it
    underscores the grey area that EULAs fall into in terms of being
    inherently weaker than real contracts.

    <big snip>

    >
    > Good day, friend citizen. I certainly hope you're not criticizing The
    > Law; such actions may be considered treasonous (If you've never played
    > Paranoia, then disregard this reference).

    First RPG I encountered actually, before even the venerable D&D.

    <big snip>

    > Never said it was. However, they do infringe on Sony's IP by making
    > use of copyrighted material; such as Norrath, Iksar, Luclin, Fier'Dal,
    > Tier'Dal, Koada'Dal, Faydwer, Kunark, Qeynos, Oggok, etc. etc. This
    > makes it a grey area at best, as they are using Sony copyrighted
    > material in a public exhibition without proper authorization.

    None of that is on the server though. All the strings of dialog, all the
    models, zonemaps, textures, etc etc... all the "stuff" that is
    "Norrath" is on the client side, and purchased from sony. Even if you
    successfully argued that players couldn't use EQ with an an alternate
    server, you're issue would be with the players, not the server provider.

    Suing your players because they aren't buying a tied product (server
    service) ... well that's not the way to improve business.

    > > Would you truly feel that you had violated both your creative and legal
    > > integrity to use those models for something other than by-the-book
    > > warhammer 40k?
    >
    > If it were for personal, non-public or non-commercial use? No. If it
    > were for public and/or commercial use? Absolutely, and Games Workshop
    > would be completely within their rights to come down on me full force.

    Is WR a fansite of sorts or a commercial venture? I'd say fansite at
    this point.

    > Perhaps you've never heard of a little company called FASA? They did
    > something very similar to that. To their credit they were under the
    > impression they had gotten proper permission to use the liknesses of
    > the Macross, Crusher Joe, and Dougram mechs. FASA went under from the
    > lawsiut expenses, and BattleTech will never be the same. I still miss
    > my Tournament legal LAM's.

    I have heard of it. Perhaps I even own copies of the original tech
    readouts along with the "revised" editions. ;)

    The issue there however was that FASA was violating copyright. Copyright
    grants rights over reproduction and distribution. FASA (inadvertantly)
    violated both.


    > > What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    > > different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    > > warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their
    > models
    > > yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)
    >
    > Actually, in both instances, they own copyright. That right there
    > gives them say in how their properties are used.

    No. Not in this case.

    Copyright law grants copyright holders rights over reproduction,
    distribution. Nothing more. It confers no rights to allow copyright
    holders to dictate usage in general.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Faned wrote:

    > Because reverse engineering is *legal*. =P

    "Was" legal. The inimitable DMCA made it illegal, though many of its
    stiplations have not yet been tested in court.

    --
    Fingon Grancoeur, Paladin of Resolute on Lucan D'Lere
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    42 wrote:
    > > > What happens to the terms of an EULA if you click "I disagree"??
    > >
    > > Then you have agreed not to use the license for which you have
    paid.
    > > This includes, but is not limited to, non-use of said product.
    >
    > Not quite. That term is part of the EULA I just disagreed with;
    meaning
    > I disagreed with the term that said I wouldn't use it if I disagreed
    > with it. Cute huh?
    >
    > Meanwhile I do own the CD, nobody claims otherwise, and the law
    doesn't
    > prevent me from doing what I want with CDs I own (within the
    boundaries
    > of copyright).
    >
    > In all seriousness that argument shouldn't really fly. But it
    > underscores the grey area that EULAs fall into in terms of being
    > inherently weaker than real contracts.

    Here I agree with you whole heartedly; EULAs really are a poor
    substitute for a proper contract, and also underscorre the problem with
    trying to controll a product as tightly as many corporations have
    become accustomed to.

    > > Good day, friend citizen. I certainly hope you're not criticizing
    The
    > > Law; such actions may be considered treasonous (If you've never
    played
    > > Paranoia, then disregard this reference).
    >
    > First RPG I encountered actually, before even the venerable D&D.

    A very excellent game. Too bad we seem to be headed in that direction
    ;)

    <snip>

    At this point, I will concede the argument about reverse engineering
    and packet sniffing. You've made a good argument, and I realize that
    was not a valid venue for arguing the illegitemacy to EQemu and it's
    developers and operators. This point, however, I will continue to
    argue:

    > > Never said it was. However, they do infringe on Sony's IP by
    making
    > > use of copyrighted material; such as Norrath, Iksar, Luclin,
    Fier'Dal,
    > > Tier'Dal, Koada'Dal, Faydwer, Kunark, Qeynos, Oggok, etc. etc. This
    > > makes it a grey area at best, as they are using Sony copyrighted
    > > material in a public exhibition without proper authorization.
    >
    > None of that is on the server though. All the strings of dialog, all
    the
    > models, zonemaps, textures, etc etc... all the "stuff" that is
    > "Norrath" is on the client side, and purchased from sony. Even if you

    > successfully argued that players couldn't use EQ with an an alternate

    > server, you're issue would be with the players, not the server
    provider.

    Except the content IS mirrored on the server side to some extent, and
    does constitute an unlicensed reproduction and use of the copyrighted
    content.

    It is still being transmittted and reproduced by a public third party.

    > Suing your players because they aren't buying a tied product (server
    > service) ... well that's not the way to improve business.

    Hasn't stopped the RIAA (rimshot)

    > > > Would you truly feel that you had violated both your creative and
    legal
    > > > integrity to use those models for something other than
    by-the-book
    > > > warhammer 40k?
    > >
    > > If it were for personal, non-public or non-commercial use? No. If
    it
    > > were for public and/or commercial use? Absolutely, and Games
    Workshop
    > > would be completely within their rights to come down on me full
    force.
    >
    > Is WR a fansite of sorts or a commercial venture? I'd say fansite at
    > this point.

    I, too, used to believe that being a fansite released me of various
    copyright limitations. Hasbro's lawyers have informed me, and many
    other Transformer fans and their associated fansites, otherwise. Wile
    they allow us to continue to operate, it was made clear to all that we
    were to operate within certain guidlines.

    I don't know if Hasbro still actively goes after new fan sites, or
    maintains active communication with said fan sites (my own has been
    down for some time now), but the lesson is that being a fan site does
    not grant you right to use said material in any fasion, nor any form of
    immunity.

    > > Perhaps you've never heard of a little company called FASA? They
    did
    > > something very similar to that. To their credit they were under the
    > > impression they had gotten proper permission to use the liknesses
    of
    > > the Macross, Crusher Joe, and Dougram mechs. FASA went under from
    the
    > > lawsiut expenses, and BattleTech will never be the same. I still
    miss
    > > my Tournament legal LAM's.
    >
    > I have heard of it. Perhaps I even own copies of the original tech
    > readouts along with the "revised" editions. ;)

    Well then accept my apologies :) I'm used o dealing with folk who have
    not herd of these properties.

    > The issue there however was that FASA was violating copyright.
    Copyright
    > grants rights over reproduction and distribution. FASA
    (inadvertantly)
    > violated both.

    And this is no different.

    > > > What makes playing EQ on an emu server morally or ethically any
    > > > different. (I'll concede its legally slightly different because
    > > > warhammer 40k hasn't figured out how to attach an EULA to their
    > > models
    > > > yet, describing exactly what you can and cannot use them for.)
    > >
    > > Actually, in both instances, they own copyright. That right there
    > > gives them say in how their properties are used.
    >
    > No. Not in this case.
    >
    > Copyright law grants copyright holders rights over reproduction,
    > distribution. Nothing more. It confers no rights to allow copyright
    > holders to dictate usage in general.

    Granted, but the EQemu sites ARE reproducing copyrighted material in
    the form of server-side in-game content and much of the server-side
    interactions. While the code itself may be legal, much of the content
    may still be in copyright violation.
    --
    Xiphos - 3rd clone, green access level, PXH-HK2 pilot, rigger, T'Skrang
    Good Guy (Really!), Iksar SK, GURPS GM
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
    news:slrnd8q2hp.oea.faned@wyld.qx.net:

    > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    >> Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    >> news:Xns965BA547B38E0mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    >>
    >> > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >> > news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    >> >> xiphos@rahul.net says...
    >> >>> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    >> >>> serers.
    >> >>> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite
    >> >>> possibly breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many
    >> >>> areas.
    >> >>
    >> >> there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own
    >> >> code that interfaces with another product.
    >> >
    >> > It is if the other product states that you are only to use the
    >> > product on their severs.
    >>
    >> Well, no, it is still not illegal to design a product using your own
    >> code that interfaces with another product. It may be against the
    >> EULA to actually use the "other" product that way however.
    >
    > See, samba, dosemu, dosbox, wine, etc.
    >
    > If Microsoft isn't pursuing the matter, it's a safe bet it's not worth
    > pursuing.

    I wasn't very clear here. Running your copy of EQ, and connecting to the
    perfectly legal emulated server is likely breaking the EULA, for what
    that is worth. So, SoE could ban you from using their servers if you did
    do that. Beyond that, I don't see any repercussions at all, and don't
    expect it's likely that SoE would ban someone over that either.
    Designing the emulation server is not in any way illegal, depending on
    how they went about doing it anyway.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
    Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    > Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
    > news:slrnd8q2hp.oea.faned@wyld.qx.net:
    >
    > > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    > >> Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    > >> news:Xns965BA547B38E0mbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    > >>
    > >> > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > >> > news:MPG.1cf68c4cbdfaf8e7989b40@shawnews:
    > >> >
    > >> >> In article <1116527628.943503.70710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > >> >> xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > >> >>> 2) EQemu is a nifty collaborative project to emulate the EQlive
    > >> >>> serers.
    > >> >>> This was achieved by blatantly ignoring the EULA, and quite
    > >> >>> possibly breaking copyright and reverse-engineering laws in many
    > >> >>> areas.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> there is nothing illegal about designing a product using your own
    > >> >> code that interfaces with another product.
    > >> >
    > >> > It is if the other product states that you are only to use the
    > >> > product on their severs.
    > >>
    > >> Well, no, it is still not illegal to design a product using your own
    > >> code that interfaces with another product. It may be against the
    > >> EULA to actually use the "other" product that way however.
    > >
    > > See, samba, dosemu, dosbox, wine, etc.
    > >
    > > If Microsoft isn't pursuing the matter, it's a safe bet it's not worth
    > > pursuing.
    >
    > I wasn't very clear here. Running your copy of EQ, and connecting to the
    > perfectly legal emulated server is likely breaking the EULA, for what
    > that is worth. So, SoE could ban you from using their servers if you did
    > do that. Beyond that, I don't see any repercussions at all, and don't
    > expect it's likely that SoE would ban someone over that either.
    > Designing the emulation server is not in any way illegal, depending on
    > how they went about doing it anyway.

    Considering what they had access to (the client and the data stream) and
    what they didn't have access to (anything on Sony's servers), I can't
    imagine a way that they could have gone about creating an EQ emulator that
    *would* be illegal.

    I'm sure we'd hear if Sony had been hacked and the server code stolen. =)

    Interestingly enough, from bits and pieces of info gleaned over the years
    regarding the specs of the EQ servers, and from reading up on the EQ
    emulator project, it appears the EQ emulator has the potential to be a far
    more robust implementation. I would bet money on it being a far "cleaner"
    codebase.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <1116615015.547269.21750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    xiphos@rahul.net says...
    > 42 wrote:

    > >
    > > In all seriousness that argument shouldn't really fly. But it
    > > underscores the grey area that EULAs fall into in terms of being
    > > inherently weaker than real contracts.
    >
    > Here I agree with you whole heartedly; EULAs really are a poor
    > substitute for a proper contract, and also underscorre the problem with
    > trying to controll a product as tightly as many corporations have
    > become accustomed to.

    And there lies the crux of this whole thing. Corporations -want- to
    control the product far more than the law gives them power too. Software
    doesn't need an EULA any more than a warhammer model, dvd, or book does.

    Plain old copyright law assures the IP can't be ripped off and sold,
    reproduced, sold, etc.


    > Except the content IS mirrored on the server side to some extent, and
    > does constitute an unlicensed reproduction and use of the copyrighted
    > content.

    That's not necessarily true. We should be able to agree without
    controversy that *None* of the visual elements are on the server in any
    form.

    That leaves the character strings, the names of places and things, the
    dialog, and so on. While its possible some of these are on the server.
    Its possible that they aren't.

    The names of NPCs for example could be on the client, the server
    database perhaps only contains "NPC-123", which gets looked up on the
    client to "Lord Negafen" or "a giant rat"...

    The same could be true of any string of text, dialog, etc.

    Finally, WR is largely an original work, with its -own- quests, and its
    own npcs, the zone connection maps are -different- than EQ Live, it has
    its own skills, tradeskill items, custom AAs, etc. For all I know its
    not Lord Negafen, but "Veldorag the Ancient" hiding out in the zone we'd
    recognize as SolB where we'd think Blackburrow ought to be.



    > > Suing your players because they aren't buying a tied product (server
    > > service) ... well that's not the way to improve business.
    >
    > Hasn't stopped the RIAA (rimshot)

    Touche.

    But its not quite the same thing one 2 counts. First the RIAA doesn't
    have any specific knowledge that you actually purchased the CD you are
    sharing, but that's not really either here nor there.

    The real important difference isn't the idea of a company suing its
    customers, but rather the product tieing that's going on.

    EQ subscription service is separate from the Everquest client box. They
    are bought separately. And its possible to have one without the other.
    The box only comes with a demo of the subscription.

    While SOE may think of them and market them as bundled inseparable
    products, that doesn't make it inherently true.

    Be interesting if by suing their customers they could trigger an
    antitrust lawsuit for product tying. After all Ford can't sue you if you
    decide to buy triple-A instead of subscribing to their own internal
    roadside assistance program.

    Again this is a bit unrealistic... but then legally binding contracts
    that dictate what servers you are allowed to interact with with software
    you bought is too. I'm just waiting for the day Microsoft pops a "Thou
    shalt not connect to mozilla.org into its Windows EULA...", and perhaps
    even blocks it via the built in firewall etc. ;)

    > > Is WR a fansite of sorts or a commercial venture? I'd say fansite at
    > > this point.
    >
    > I, too, used to believe that being a fansite released me of various
    > copyright limitations. Hasbro's lawyers have informed me, and many
    > other Transformer fans and their associated fansites, otherwise. Wile
    > they allow us to continue to operate, it was made clear to all that we
    > were to operate within certain guidlines.
    >
    > I don't know if Hasbro still actively goes after new fan sites, or
    > maintains active communication with said fan sites (my own has been
    > down for some time now), but the lesson is that being a fan site does
    > not grant you right to use said material in any fasion, nor any form of
    > immunity.

    Quite right.

    Fortunately even if WR were deemed a fansite it contains nothing copy
    protected. (And I argued previously that the server itself need contain
    nothing that is protected as well.)

    > > > Actually, in both instances, they own copyright. That right there
    > > > gives them say in how their properties are used.
    > >
    > > No. Not in this case.
    > >
    > > Copyright law grants copyright holders rights over reproduction,
    > > distribution. Nothing more. It confers no rights to allow copyright
    > > holders to dictate usage in general.
    >
    > Granted, but the EQemu sites ARE reproducing copyrighted material in
    > the form of server-side in-game content and much of the server-side
    > interactions. While the code itself may be legal, much of the content
    > may still be in copyright violation.

    If the content manipulations are strictly id handling then it doesn't
    need to be in violation. Especially if the mappings from numeric ids to
    copyprotected strings and dialog are handled strictly on the client
    side.

    There is a Magic the Gathering online game (not MtGO) that makes use of
    the text and card images from a software encyclopedia that WotC sold
    several years ago.

    The game software contains no copy protected material, but users must
    own the encyclopedia to view the card images, and text. The game (unlike
    mtgo) doesn't enforce the rules, but merely provides a virtual card
    table, and then links into the users copy of the encyclopedia.

    This software is legal. (Although it may contradict the encyclopedia's
    EULA, if they'd thought to put a term in there against accessing the
    card database and image files from software other than the
    encyclopedia.)

    EQEMU servers are a variation on this theme.

    I'm quite confident that there is no action that could be brought
    against WR that would stand up in court.

    There *is* definately room for action to be brought against people
    playing on WR, as they are in violation of the EULA.

    However I honestly do not think that EQ can legally enforce product
    tying their monopoly on EQ client software to eq server services
    strictly via an EULA beyond banning them from live servers, which is the
    remedy the EULA specifies for non-compliance.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Video Games