Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Several claims in Marvel vc NCSoft dismissed

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:22:42 PM

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) |
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:22:43 PM

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
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 8:22:44 PM

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
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:06:04 PM

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
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:06:05 PM

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
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:06:06 PM

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
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:06:07 PM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:01:05 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:01:06 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:39:53 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:39:54 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:39:55 AM

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
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 3:44:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 11:09:00 PM

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...

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
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 3:05:21 AM

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
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 11:14:01 AM

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
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:14:41 PM

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
March 14, 2005 3:27:12 PM

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:09:14 PM

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
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 7:11:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:47:22 PM

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
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:54:59 PM

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"
!