Several claims in Marvel vc NCSoft dismissed

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

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385

"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims, NCsoft
revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."

--
| Victory Server: |
| Bex - Level 34 Blaster (Assault Rifle/Devices) |
| Brother Grim - Level 32 Scrapper (Broadsword/Regeneration) |
| Amaryll - Level 19 Defender (Empathy/Radiation) |
| Gravometric - Level 18 Controller (Gravity/Radiation) |
21 answers Last reply
More about several claims marvel ncsoft dismissed
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On 11 Mar 2005 17:22:42 GMT, John Parkinson
    <jp--usenet--spam--trap@destiny.org.uk> wrote:

    >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385
    >
    >"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims, NCsoft
    >revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
    >defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."

    Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    I'm still curious as to what claims were left to be heard in court,
    but it sounds like Marvel doesn't have a strong legal leg to stand on
    anymore. Hooray for smart judges! The only thing I fear is that this
    will open the door for names like "Wulforene" to be allowed to remain.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >On 11 Mar 2005 17:22:42 GMT, John Parkinson
    ><jp--usenet--spam--trap@destiny.org.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385
    >>
    >>"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims, NCsoft
    >>revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
    >>defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."
    >
    >Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    >"a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    >infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    That one was particularly worrying, since it seemed Marvel had a point.
    CoH isn't an "online service" in the sense of an ISP.

    >I'm still curious as to what claims were left to be heard in court,
    >but it sounds like Marvel doesn't have a strong legal leg to stand on
    >anymore. Hooray for smart judges! The only thing I fear is that this
    >will open the door for names like "Wulforene" to be allowed to remain.

    Surely good taste will be enough to keep those out.

    And if it's not, maybe having many normally named heroes follow them
    around mocking them will be enough to get them to "voluntarily" change
    the name.

    /em Point Wulforene
    /em Laugh Wulforene

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    news:rvt331h7a07d3c71avqqigi5hqt6n5ok2u@4ax.com...
    > On 11 Mar 2005 17:22:42 GMT, John Parkinson
    > <jp--usenet--spam--trap@destiny.org.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385
    >>
    >>"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims,
    >>NCsoft
    >>revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
    >>defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."
    >
    > Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    > "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    > manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    > infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    > really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    > protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >
    > I'm still curious as to what claims were left to be heard in court,
    > but it sounds like Marvel doesn't have a strong legal leg to stand on
    > anymore. Hooray for smart judges! The only thing I fear is that this
    > will open the door for names like "Wulforene" to be allowed to remain.

    They're still against the EULA.


    --
    John Trauger,
    Vorlonagent


    "Methane martini.
    Shaken, not stirred."


    Vorlonagent (M), level 21 Blaster (Electric/Energy), Guardian
    Steel Night (M), Level 16 Tanker (Invulnerable/Super-Strength), Virtue
    MC-2 (F), Level 15 Blaster (Force/Fire), Protector
    NightfalI (M), Level 16 Defender (Dark/Dark), Pinnacle
    RolIing Thunder (F), Level 16 Defender (Storm/Electric), Infinity
    lmpact (F), Level 12 Blaster (Gun,Energy), Virtue
    Girl at the Bar (F), Level 10 Controller: Mind/Empathy, Triumph
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:06:04 GMT, "Vorlonagent" <jt@otfresno.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >news:rvt331h7a07d3c71avqqigi5hqt6n5ok2u@4ax.com...
    >> On 11 Mar 2005 17:22:42 GMT, John Parkinson
    >> <jp--usenet--spam--trap@destiny.org.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385
    >>>
    >>>"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims,
    >>>NCsoft
    >>>revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
    >>>defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."
    >>
    >> Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    >> "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >> manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    >> infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >> really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >> protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >>
    >> I'm still curious as to what claims were left to be heard in court,
    >> but it sounds like Marvel doesn't have a strong legal leg to stand on
    >> anymore. Hooray for smart judges! The only thing I fear is that this
    >> will open the door for names like "Wulforene" to be allowed to remain.
    >
    >They're still against the EULA.

    True, but they were made against the rules to protect from legal
    troubles over copyright violations. With it ruled that the company
    running the MMOs has no liability for infringements by its users, the
    major motivation for that rule has been taken away. Even if the rule
    remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    to let them have any name they want. *sigh*

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:06:04 GMT, "Vorlonagent" <jt@otfresno.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >>news:rvt331h7a07d3c71avqqigi5hqt6n5ok2u@4ax.com...
    >>> On 11 Mar 2005 17:22:42 GMT, John Parkinson
    >>> <jp--usenet--spam--trap@destiny.org.uk> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7385
    >>>>
    >>>>"Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed more than half of Marvel's claims,
    >>>>NCsoft
    >>>>revealed in a statement this afternoon, including Marvel's claims that the
    >>>>defendants directly infringed Marvel's registered trademarks."
    >>>
    >>> Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    >>> "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >>> manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    >>> infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >>> really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >>> protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >>>
    >>> I'm still curious as to what claims were left to be heard in court,
    >>> but it sounds like Marvel doesn't have a strong legal leg to stand on
    >>> anymore. Hooray for smart judges! The only thing I fear is that this
    >>> will open the door for names like "Wulforene" to be allowed to remain.
    >>
    >>They're still against the EULA.
    >
    >True, but they were made against the rules to protect from legal
    >troubles over copyright violations. With it ruled that the company
    >running the MMOs has no liability for infringements by its users, the
    >major motivation for that rule has been taken away. Even if the rule
    >remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    >will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    >to let them have any name they want. *sigh*

    Oh please, i'd like to think Cryptic/NCPlay banned copycat characters
    out of good taste not just a fear of being sued.

    I'm sure the devs and designers of the costume creator have no desire to
    see Paragon City become "City of Knockoff Heroes"

    I don't think the EULA will change at all.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:31:33 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    wrote:

    >Oh please, i'd like to think Cryptic/NCPlay banned copycat characters
    >out of good taste not just a fear of being sued.
    >
    >I'm sure the devs and designers of the costume creator have no desire to
    >see Paragon City become "City of Knockoff Heroes"
    >
    >I don't think the EULA will change at all.

    In the case of CoH, I am sure (and hope) that this is true. Other
    games I wouldn't be too sure about. Notably EQ... It's hard enough to
    get them to change "Legomyegolas" with the rules in place, I don't
    doubt they'd jump at a chance to remove the rule and not have to worry
    about it anymore.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:31:33 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Oh please, i'd like to think Cryptic/NCPlay banned copycat characters
    >>out of good taste not just a fear of being sued.
    >>
    >>I'm sure the devs and designers of the costume creator have no desire to
    >>see Paragon City become "City of Knockoff Heroes"
    >>
    >>I don't think the EULA will change at all.
    >
    >In the case of CoH, I am sure (and hope) that this is true. Other
    >games I wouldn't be too sure about. Notably EQ... It's hard enough to
    >get them to change "Legomyegolas" with the rules in place, I don't
    >doubt they'd jump at a chance to remove the rule and not have to worry
    >about it anymore.

    Except they still have to keep track of all the profane and otherwise
    objectionable names anyway, so there's not much point in removing
    copyrighted names from the list of no-nos.

    Frankly I find the Wulferene's as objectionable as the "Captain Wank
    Stain"'s

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:01:05 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    wrote:

    >Except they still have to keep track of all the profane and otherwise
    >objectionable names anyway, so there's not much point in removing
    >copyrighted names from the list of no-nos.
    >
    >Frankly I find the Wulferene's as objectionable as the "Captain Wank
    >Stain"'s

    Actually, SOE was always good about catching the profane names. THe
    most common "bad names" in any game tend to be ripoffs or titles. Just
    cutting out one of those two would probably cut out a huge chunk of
    volume of name violation reports.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
    news:mku3319r3r6js8l51a4e64622fuk0ndh2q@4ax.com:

    > Even if the rule
    > remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    > will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    > to let them have any name they want. *sigh*

    From my reading, the copyright infingement still exists and is against the
    law if it is found that CRyptic and NCSoft do nothing about it and allow it
    to exist.

    The number of GenericHeroXXXX out there shows that Cryptic/NCSoft is
    fighting it...

    --
    Marcel and Moogli
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On 12 Mar 2005 01:39:53 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    <mbeauINVALID@Sympatic.INVALID.ca> wrote:

    >Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
    >news:mku3319r3r6js8l51a4e64622fuk0ndh2q@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Even if the rule
    >> remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    >> will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    >> to let them have any name they want. *sigh*
    >
    >From my reading, the copyright infingement still exists and is against the
    >law if it is found that CRyptic and NCSoft do nothing about it and allow it
    >to exist.
    >
    >The number of GenericHeroXXXX out there shows that Cryptic/NCSoft is
    >fighting it...

    If Marvel had been concerned with coming up with valid research for
    the case, the would have had one of their people create a ripoff
    character, then had another report the character and see how long it
    took to get the problem addressed. Thing is, if they did that, it
    would've hurt their case. ;)

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >On 12 Mar 2005 01:39:53 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    ><mbeauINVALID@Sympatic.INVALID.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
    >>news:mku3319r3r6js8l51a4e64622fuk0ndh2q@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> Even if the rule
    >>> remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    >>> will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    >>> to let them have any name they want. *sigh*
    >>
    >>From my reading, the copyright infingement still exists and is against the
    >>law if it is found that CRyptic and NCSoft do nothing about it and allow it
    >>to exist.
    >>
    >>The number of GenericHeroXXXX out there shows that Cryptic/NCSoft is
    >>fighting it...
    >
    >If Marvel had been concerned with coming up with valid research for
    >the case, the would have had one of their people create a ripoff
    >character, then had another report the character and see how long it
    >took to get the problem addressed. Thing is, if they did that, it
    >would've hurt their case. ;)

    From the sounds of the decision made by the judge, some of Marvel's
    "evidence" of ripoff characters WERE made by Marvel.
    They just didn't report them - but that too is legitimate since not
    everyone WILL report knockoffs and some people argue extensively against
    it.

    "Judge Klausner also agreed with the defendants that some of Marvel's
    allegations and exhibits should be stricken as "false and sham" because
    they were not actually created by users of the game but by Marvel
    itself."

    So chances are that Huge body, green skin, purple pants, science
    background invlun/SS tanker got made by Marvel as "evidence".

    Stupid on Marvel's part, since there HAVE been plenty of player made
    knockoffs.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    "Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
    news:a1n431pv276fakabc0nbo2qlcu7uqck9g5@4ax.com...
    | Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> looked up from reading the entrails
    | of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    |
    | >On 12 Mar 2005 01:39:53 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    | ><mbeauINVALID@Sympatic.INVALID.ca> wrote:
    | >
    | >>Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
    | >>news:mku3319r3r6js8l51a4e64622fuk0ndh2q@4ax.com:
    | >>
    | >>> Even if the rule
    | >>> remains, the nitwits that like to make ripoff characters who see this
    | >>> will point to it in their whining about there being no good reason not
    | >>> to let them have any name they want. *sigh*
    | >>
    | >>From my reading, the copyright infingement still exists and is against
    the
    | >>law if it is found that CRyptic and NCSoft do nothing about it and allow
    it
    | >>to exist.
    | >>
    | >>The number of GenericHeroXXXX out there shows that Cryptic/NCSoft is
    | >>fighting it...
    | >
    | >If Marvel had been concerned with coming up with valid research for
    | >the case, the would have had one of their people create a ripoff
    | >character, then had another report the character and see how long it
    | >took to get the problem addressed. Thing is, if they did that, it
    | >would've hurt their case. ;)
    |
    | From the sounds of the decision made by the judge, some of Marvel's
    | "evidence" of ripoff characters WERE made by Marvel.
    | They just didn't report them - but that too is legitimate since not
    | everyone WILL report knockoffs and some people argue extensively against
    | it.
    |
    | "Judge Klausner also agreed with the defendants that some of Marvel's
    | allegations and exhibits should be stricken as "false and sham" because
    | they were not actually created by users of the game but by Marvel
    | itself."
    |
    | So chances are that Huge body, green skin, purple pants, science
    | background invlun/SS tanker got made by Marvel as "evidence".
    |
    | Stupid on Marvel's part, since there HAVE been plenty of player made
    | knockoffs.
    |
    | Xocyll
    | --

    Well, there still is the illegal (under Copyright Law) "We Own You"
    clause in the generally illegal COH EULA.

    If a comic book creator or copyright owner decided to make a replica of
    their character in the CITY OF HEROES game, then are they legally yielding
    ownership of copyright in a contractual situation which is illegal (wrong
    type of contract for a legal COPYRIGHT TRANSFER) for both the copyright
    owner and NC-SOFT?

    Granted the only sane aspect of the "We Own You" clause in CITY OF
    HEROES is in preventing one player from duplicating the costume, powers, and
    creating a similar name to another player in-game. Doing so presents a slew
    of tricky issues, but that is why I note to players that they MUST PRINT OUT
    A SCREENSHOT OF THEIR CHARACTER and get it legally notarized (or mailed to
    themselves and left unopened for proof of government postmark and date).
    The problem exists not really in-game, but when the character is created
    again outside the game, copyrighted, trademarked, and their adventures
    packaged for sale. In that the legal aspects are much simpler as legal
    proof of "I got there first" is sufficient to declare an interest in
    maintaining & defending the copyright and trademark. Whom owns what in the
    game of the CITY OF HEROES is a matter for loud yammering, but ultimately
    futile until the disputed character is translated into the legal world of
    copyrights + trademarks.

    The core problem that I see is that the "We Own You" clause in the
    generally illegal COH EULA is not one of concept, but distinctly stinky
    legal wording.

    Replacing that illegal "We Own You" clause with something legally akin
    to:
    "NC-SOFT is glad to assist in your character creation, but to simplify
    legal matters no character created by the player will be considered the
    absolute property of the player inside of the CITY OF HEROES game. Doing so
    would create the groundwork for players suing players without pause for
    character design duplication. That would spoil the game and be unfair to
    you, our customers. A reminder, remember that NC-SOFT & CRYPTIC STUDIOS
    owns the exclusive legal rights to all non-player characters in the CITY OF
    HEROES game as well as the storylines existing inside of the CITY OF HEROES
    game. The player has no implicit or explicit rights to utilize these items
    for their own creations should the player seek profit with their creations
    outside of the CITY OF HEROES game. Copyright & trademark lawsuits
    resulting real world utilization of characters created by our customers &
    ex-customers are not our legal problem (unless the customers & ex-customers
    are attempting to copyright products derived directly from NC-SOFT & CRYPTIC
    STUDIOS copyrights & trademarks).

    The player has the right to recreate their characters outside of the
    CITY OF HEROES game excluding the direct utilization of the 3D models,
    backstories, descriptions, and textures contained within the CITY OF HEROES
    game files. The player has no exclusive or implicit right to demand a copy
    of the files which describe their characters on NC-SOFT's servers during the
    subscription period for playing or thereafter if the player chooses to end
    their subscription.

    We also remind our customers that duplication of the intellectual
    property of existing copyrighted character inside of the CITY OF HEROES
    game, while legally improper, is a violation of this EULA. Violation of
    this rule will result in the character being force-renamed into "GENERIC
    HERO####" (#### = a number). Utilizing our servers for copyright and
    trademark infringement can result in cancellation of your player account."

    The illegal (under Copyright Law) "We Own You" clause in the NC-SOFT
    contract will be a sticking point in the MARVEL VERSUS NC-SOFT lawsuit.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:44:28 -0500, George Johnson
    <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote:

    > The illegal (under Copyright Law) "We Own You" clause in the
    > NC-SOFT contract will be a sticking point in the MARVEL VERSUS
    > NC-SOFT lawsuit.

    I would be very surprised if it were. Of course, I've been surprised
    in the past.

    Incidentally, a while back I emailed copyright-law maven Lawrence
    Lessig--remember him, the fellow who argued a copyright case before
    the Supreme Court?--asking about that matter and this is what he had
    to say:

    | Thanks for the email. This is a vastly complex question that I
    | wouldn't have the time to address in a public forum adequately. The
    | short answer is that the EULA isn't really trying to preempt
    | intellectual property law. It is instead conditioning access to you
    | waiving or licensing your intellectual property. So, like a museum
    | that says you have to pay $50 to enter, they're saying you have to
    | pay with your IP rights to enter. Some jurisdictions would not
    | fully enforce such agreements. But most, I think, would.

    Also, note this article from another lawyer about the legality of
    click-through EULAs...

    | http://www.okratas.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

    You can rant all you want about the "illegality" (and again, that's
    the wrong term...if it were "illegal" then they'd have the police
    busting down their door to arrest them for putting out such an EULA,
    and I just don't see that) of EULAs...but I think I'm gonna believe
    the expert lawyers here.

    --
    Chris Meadows aka | Homepage: http://www.terrania.us
    Robotech_Master |
    robotech@eyrie.org | Earn a free iPod and a free Mac Mini!
    | http://www.terrania.us/conga.html
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:44:28 -0500, "George Johnson"
    <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote:

    > Well, there still is the illegal (under Copyright Law) "We Own You"
    >clause in the generally illegal COH EULA.

    The clause isn't "We own -YOU-". It's "We own what you create using
    our IP". This, in fact, is not illegal in the slightest. In fact, it's
    -WELL- within their rights.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:14:52 -0500, "George Johnson"
    <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote:

    >"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
    >news:h0t731h4irpgh2sf8d8rg5cjmqetcj6h4m@4ax.com...
    >| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:44:28 -0500, "George Johnson"
    >| <matrix29@voyager.net> wrote:
    >|
    >| > Well, there still is the illegal (under Copyright Law) "We Own You"
    >| >clause in the generally illegal COH EULA.
    >|
    >| The clause isn't "We own -YOU-". It's "We own what you create using
    >| our IP". This, in fact, is not illegal in the slightest. In fact, it's
    >| -WELL- within their rights.
    >|
    >| --
    >
    > It is to a vague degree, but it does not fall within the proper legality
    >of both Trademark & Copyright contractual law.

    *sigh*

    You WILLINGLY sign over your rights to anything you create. You're not
    being forced. You have the option to not use their service if you
    don't wish to sign them over. This makes it 100% legal for them to
    have you do so in their EULA. Just like it's 100% legal for an
    employer to have its employees sign over IP rights to anything they
    create on the job.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    On 13 Mar 2005 16:56:48 -0800, "The Black Guardian" <blakgard@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >> Continuing... the "We Own You" clause in CITY OF HEROES simply is a
    >fiat
    >> over existing Copyright law on INSTANT COPYRIGHT.
    >> It is a violation of a number of secondary laws, but this is the most
    >> obvious.
    >
    >Again, there is no such clause. What NCSoft owns is what you create,
    >using their copyrighted material (ie, the graphics they have created,
    >etc.). This is quite legally enforceable.

    I'd go as far as to say that the clause doesn't even need to be in the
    contract. Unless expressively given permission and rights, anything
    you create that uses another copyrighted work is, at least, partially
    property of the owner of the rights to that copyright work. Without
    the clause, you'd have only partial rights to your creations within
    CoH. The clause is a voluntary signing away of that partial claim.
    Just because you're required to do so to use their software doesn't
    mean they're violating any laws. You always have the option of keeping
    the rights to any creative works you come up with, just don't "sign"
    the contract. Of course, that means you won't be using CoH, but that's
    the breaks. Part of the price of admission is your claim to characters
    created in their world.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

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

    "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote

    <snip>

    > Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    > "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    > manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    > infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    > really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    > protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    <snippage>

    Actually, I thought this reasoning should have been used in the case against
    Napster.

    While it WAS being used by their customers in a way that violated
    copywright, a distributed file-share system obviously has "a substantial
    non-infringing use".

    FirePlug
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    "Ingot" <cleahy@spamstinks.iglou.com> looked up from reading the
    entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    say:

    >
    >"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    >> "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >> manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    >> infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >> really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >> protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >
    ><snippage>
    >
    >Actually, I thought this reasoning should have been used in the case against
    >Napster.
    >
    >While it WAS being used by their customers in a way that violated
    >copywright, a distributed file-share system obviously has "a substantial
    >non-infringing use".

    One of the main differences is that Napster could tell if something was
    a violation.
    File titles, descriptions etc make it pretty hard for Napster to not
    know that they were being used for infringement.

    Sure someone could rip all the songs from Metallica's "St. Anger", and
    then rename them, cram them in zip files and Napster would have
    reasonable grounds to "not know".

    But no-one else but ones the person specifically told would know either.

    When on the other hand that person rips the songs to .mp3 and makes them
    available as .mp3s from St. Anger, Napster *KNOWS* what they are -
    because he told them.

    In Cryptic/NCSoft's case though, you have copycat names that aren't a
    violation unless they're matched up with copycat _images_.

    It's pretty easy to machine parse a list for '.mp3' and/or 'metallica,
    and flag hits to be checked by a human; but it's impossible to machine
    parse a list of hero names AND crossmatch that with images to see if
    there's a trademark violation, that's something that needs a human.

    In both cases you have an infringement, but Napster had to know there
    was an infringement, while Cryptic/NCPlay _can't_ know unless a GM sees
    a clone or someone reports one.

    As an example given up thread. "Wulferene" isn't a
    copyrighted/trademarked name, but when combined with an X-man Wolverine
    style costume, it's a violation.

    The only way Cryptic could check everything would be to have a human
    "approving" all costume choices before you could use them.
    Create character (or go to ICON to change a costume) and then be unable
    to play until it got approved.

    That would be a substantial impediment to play, so it's not a
    _reasonable_ action to expect them to take.

    Parsing filenames for copyrighted names on the other hand IS a
    _reasonable_ action that doesn't impede the legitimate use of the
    service - so Napster got nailed.


    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    Xocyll wrote:
    > Ingot wrote:
    >> Dark Tyger wrote:
    >>> Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game
    having
    >>> "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >>> manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory
    copyright
    >>> infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >>> really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >>> protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >>
    >> <snippage>
    >>
    >> Actually, I thought this reasoning should have been used in the case
    against
    >> Napster.
    >>
    >> While it WAS being used by their customers in a way that violated
    >> copywright, a distributed file-share system obviously has "a
    substantial
    >> non-infringing use".
    >
    > One of the main differences is that Napster could tell if something
    was
    > a violation.
    > File titles, descriptions etc make it pretty hard for Napster to not
    > know that they were being used for infringement.
    >
    > Sure someone could rip all the songs from Metallica's "St. Anger",
    and
    > then rename them, cram them in zip files and Napster would have
    > reasonable grounds to "not know".
    >
    > But no-one else but ones the person specifically told would know
    either.
    >
    > When on the other hand that person rips the songs to .mp3 and makes
    them
    > available as .mp3s from St. Anger, Napster *KNOWS* what they are -
    > because he told them.
    >
    > In Cryptic/NCSoft's case though, you have copycat names that aren't a
    > violation unless they're matched up with copycat _images_.
    >
    > It's pretty easy to machine parse a list for '.mp3' and/or
    'metallica,
    > and flag hits to be checked by a human; but it's impossible to
    machine
    > parse a list of hero names AND crossmatch that with images to see if
    > there's a trademark violation, that's something that needs a human.
    >
    > In both cases you have an infringement, but Napster had to know there
    > was an infringement, while Cryptic/NCPlay _can't_ know unless a GM
    sees
    > a clone or someone reports one.
    >
    > As an example given up thread. "Wulferene" isn't a
    > copyrighted/trademarked name, but when combined with an X-man
    Wolverine
    > style costume, it's a violation.
    >
    > The only way Cryptic could check everything would be to have a human
    > "approving" all costume choices before you could use them.
    > Create character (or go to ICON to change a costume) and then be
    unable
    > to play until it got approved.
    >
    > That would be a substantial impediment to play, so it's not a
    > _reasonable_ action to expect them to take.
    >
    > Parsing filenames for copyrighted names on the other hand IS a
    > _reasonable_ action that doesn't impede the legitimate use of the
    > service - so Napster got nailed.

    Here's hoping you, or someone like you at least, is on the jury. Given
    the ignorance rampant amongst jurors, I won't hold my breath.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    In article <4235c9a4$1_1@news.iglou.com>, Ingot wrote:
    >
    > "Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> Liked a few of the rulings. Specifically ones such as the game having
    >> "a substantial non-infringing use", thus meaning that, like VCR
    >> manufacturers, Cryptic isn't responsible for "contributory copyright
    >> infringement". Also dismissing claims by Marvel that MMOs weren't
    >> really an online service, which would offer them a degree of
    >> protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
    >
    ><snippage>
    >
    > Actually, I thought this reasoning should have been used in the
    > case against Napster.
    >
    > While it WAS being used by their customers in a way that
    > violated copywright, a distributed file-share system obviously
    > has "a substantial non-infringing use".

    The infringing uses were far mor substantial, at the time.

    At least, I don't remember downloading anything else.

    --
    Neil Cerutti
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.coh (More info?)

    Ingot wrote:

    > Actually, I thought this reasoning should have been used in the case against
    > Napster.
    >
    > While it WAS being used by their customers in a way that violated
    > copywright, a distributed file-share system obviously has "a substantial
    > non-infringing use".

    It was, it was rejected.

    Napster was specifically designed to trade music/MP3 files. It built
    centralized databases of which users had which MP3s. That made it hard to
    argue that it was "just" a filesharing system.

    --
    Dennis F. Heffernan CoH: Venture (Virtue) hefferman@comcast.net
    #include <disclaim.h> MS Messenger: Venture

    "And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days
    when Victoria reigned!" -- T.S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games