copyrighted chars and npcs in game

[Troo]

@MunkiLord - it's NCSoft's IP being used to facilitate the action, and thus contributory infringement.

 

@Abraxas - I am hopeful, but realistic. I too enjoy the thought of a post deal COV while continuing to maintain an offline version (if needed).

 

@ShardWarrior - I am hopeful, but realistic.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Troo
added comment to shard

[MunkiLord]

2 minutes ago, Troo said:

@MunkiLord - it's NCSoft's IP being used to facilitate the action, and thus contributory infringement.

 

@Abraxas - I am hopeful, but realistic. I too enjoy the thought of a post deal COV while continuing to maintain an offline version (if needed).

 

 

 

 

 

 

How exactly and specifically is that contributory infringement? NCSoft isn't doing the infringement themselves, and they have not authorized the use of their IP, and have not directly contributed to the unauthorized use of it either. That's a specific accusation you made, certainly you have something more than just claiming it so? What law specifically? What law or case law makes NCSoft liable in such a situation?

[Troo]

oh geez.

 

@MunkiLord - you don't have to believe it. I wasn't looking for a debate. If you google Napster or something similar you're likely to find plenty... dang it now I looked.

 

Here's a possible example (I'm not reading it and providing highlights) " Copyright Infringement and Investor Liability in the Age of User Generated Content "

[MunkiLord]

NCSoft isn't providing the platform for the infringement, the HC team is. And this article is about investing in platform providers, and as of right now NCSoft has done no such thing. Somebody stole their code and is using it without their consent. Simply writing software game software twenty years go is not by itself material contribution, and there is no ruling that states otherwise. 

 

And the Napster ruling is not the same as what is happening here. The courts ruled Napster knowingly and willingly provided the tools for widespread infringement to its users. That is clearly not the same as what is happening here. Plus if the Napster lawsuit is so wide ranging, why haven't more torrent software designers been successfully sued? Why do lawsuits brought against YouTube and Facebook keep getting tossed?

 

You came into a heavily debated thread with a spectacular claim and now you say you weren't looking for debate? Nonsense.

[ShardWarrior]

I tell you Google could make a mint handing out law degrees.

[MunkiLord]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

I tell you Google could make a mint handing out law degrees.

A few months ago at work somebody disagreed with my medical diagnosis of them, so I googled degrees and pasted my name on a fake University to show him I was indeed a doctor and it didn't cost me a dime. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by MunkiLord

[PaxArcana]

2 hours ago, jubakumbi said:

How exactly is NCSoft in any way vulnerable in this situation, to an outside force, to shut down rogue CoH servers?

Let's say I'm a big, mean, corporate IP owner.  People on the HC servers are infringing on my IP, and the HC devs seem unable (or unwilling) to curb this behavior.  Note, i said seem, from my impersonal, me-first-and-screw-all-of-you, capitalist-corporate point of view.

I wish to compel more drastic action ... but the HC devs don't have enough money for my usual tactic of "sue 'em into the ground" to necessarily be very effective.

 

But, wait.  The original code is owned by a large corporation, with tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue.  THEY have enough money for a lawsuit to be effective .... and they know it as well as I do.  They gave permission for the servers to exist .... or at least, have failed to adequately enforce their own IP rights over it.

 

So, I write them a C&D letter, threatening a positively massive legal suit if they do not immediately and decisively move to correct the situation.

 

...

 

NCSoft owes the HC community little or nothing.  A community that has just become a gigantic liability to their bottom line, over something that generates little or no revenue for the company.

 

They, predictably, simply pull the plug and issue C&D letters of their own; if there had been an official agreement, they exercise the escape clause (that I am absolutely certain will be part of any such agreement) to terminate it, at the same time.

 

WE lose the Homecoming servers ... and even if other servers exist, the community fractures and balkanizes, spreading out to a half-dozen or more new servers.  None of which can ever achieve teh population density HC did ... because NCSoft continues to swat any servers it finds, so the entire affair has to go underground, and exist only clandestinely ...

...

I'm sure you'll dismiss that as FUD.

 

But the real FUD would be the atmosphere of paranoia, if the community had to go "underground" with secret, truly pirate servers, always worried about an NCSoft ringer managing to find and report each server to NCSoft, prompting a new flurry of C&D letters t hosting services, personal ISPs, whatever it takes to get those servers offline so they cease to put NCSoft's bottom line at risk due to the copyright-intransigence of people like ... well, like you, Jubakumbi.

But again, I'm sure you'll dismiss it as "just FUD", like you do with anything that ever even skirts the possibility of mentioning potential consequences.

[MunkiLord]

A more likely scenario is NCSoft would fight such a ridiculous legal threat as holding a rights holder liable for what someone does with their stolen code would set a terrible precedent. Not only would NCSoft likely fight it, there is a good chance that much larger corporations like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon would back them as there is no way they would be on board with them being held liable for what illegal actions people do with their software. In fact, when have any of these corporations been held liable in a way similar to what you are saying? Have they been successfully sued for what people do with Andriod, iOS, MacOS, Windows, or the Amazon Android fork? Hell, Google won the lawsuit against Viacom when people used YouTube to commit copyright infringement.

 

What law or precendent states NCSoft has to enforce their IP rights to protect the IP rights of others? Especially when their IP was stolen in the first place?

 

Jubakumbi is correct, this is 100% pure FUD. This is nothing more than pure speculation, without anything provided to support the claims. It's a bunch of nonsense.

[Abraxus]

2 hours ago, Troo said:

oh geez.

 

@MunkiLord - you don't have to believe it. I wasn't looking for a debate. If you google Napster or something similar you're likely to find plenty... dang it now I looked.

 

Here's a possible example (I'm not reading it and providing highlights) " Copyright Infringement and Investor Liability in the Age of User Generated Content "

If you remember, while Napster was directly targeted, and ultimately shut-down, it served as the catalyst that changed the face of the music industry.  I suggest that if the web had been as mature then (technology-wise that is) that Napster probably would have found a way to survive.  Anyway, the point is that, once something became an infinite resource, the big guys tried mightily to put the genie back in the bottle, and eventually failed.  So, once they recognized they were clinging to an outmoded business model, they changed. 

So, in this case, since the proverbial genie has again already escaped the bottle, hopefully in the 7 years that have passed since it's closure, they have had time to reflect, and will get to the part where good things happen, rather than resorting to a struggle where they can win the opening battle, but will still ultimately lose the war.  Just like before, folks will just go deeper underground, and have to adapt play-styles, but as you yourself pointed out, servers will go on.  So, from a business perspective, why not play along and see what good can come from it?  They really don't stand to lose anything they haven't already lost.

 

Just my .02 of a dollar's worth.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Abraxus

[Clave Dark 5]

I know the law has nothing to do with common sense, but seems to me that if NCSoft could get sued over people using HC to infringe copyright, then MicroSoft could be as well.  And that makes no sense to me; see the first part of the first sentence again though.

[Troo]

2 hours ago, Abraxus said:

If you remember, while Napster was directly targeted, and ultimately shut-down, it served as the catalyst that changed the face of the music industry.  I suggest that if the web had been as mature then (technology-wise that is) that Napster probably would have found a way to survive.  Anyway, the point is that, once something became an infinite resource, the big guys tried mightily to put the genie back in the bottle, and eventually failed.  So, once they recognized they were clinging to an outmoded business model, they changed. 

So, in this case, since the proverbial genie has again already escaped the bottle, hopefully in the 7 years that have passed since it's closure, they have had time to reflect, and will get to the part where good things happen, rather than resorting to a struggle where they can win the opening battle, but will still ultimately lose the war.  Just like before, folks will just go deeper underground, and have to adapt play-styles, but as you yourself pointed out, servers will go on.  So, from a business perspective, why not play along and see what good can come from it?  They really don't stand to lose anything they haven't already lost.

 

Just my .02 of a dollar's worth.

I'll agree with your premise. I too hope reasonable judgement prevails.

 

While Napster came and went, royalties still get paid to entities that control the intellectual property. If those royalties aren't paid it gets ugly quick.

I'll point to recent music news where an artist I'm embarrassed to name will be re-recording all of their music because someone else has control of the recordings already made.

 

ISPs and services regularly have to pull user generated content that violates copyright or trademarks. It's the deep pockets that are held accountable. Those deep pockets aren't interested in discussion as much as minimizing exposure to risk and liability. - Live long and... have fun.

[Troo]

4 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

You came into a heavily debated thread with a spectacular claim and now you say you weren't looking for debate? Nonsense.

Was the 'claim' spectacular because it contained big words?

[Megajoule]

No, it's that you rolled in an apple of discord and are now claiming your intentions were simple concern, and leaving the burden of investigating/proving your claims on the other party(s).

[justicebeliever]

17 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

I mentioned this earlier the thread but I think it needs to be repeated, judging people for infringement when playing on a pirate server is pure hypocrisy.

 

17 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

No, it's not.  This isn't (strictly speaking) a pirate server.

 

If NCSoft wanted these servers shut down, they would have been.  Months ago.  Their decision not to do so, represents a state of tacit permission for them to operate. 

This is getting silly.  @MunkiLordhit it on the head.

 

This is a pirate server with pirated code.  NCSoft's lack of action or choice to engage, doesn't abrogate their rights to enforce action later...Why?  Because it's still a pirate server.

 

However, if we are going to take the argument that NCSoft's lack of enforcement is somehow legal acceptance, then DC and Marvel's lack of pursuing fan-art and cosplay is also somehow legal acceptance, because they are also not enforcing action against those artists and costumers.

 

I'm always down for a good legal debate on IP Infringement, it's a fascinating subject, but there is no room for moral high ground here from anybody on this forum.

 

We can spin all sorts of coulda, woulda, shoulda, arguments and who knows, as I sit here writing this, my roof could cave in.  But it's unlikely.  And based on the current landscape, there seems to be no appetite from comic book companies to pursue fan artists and cosplayers.  Could they?  Sure.  Would they?  Maybe.  Should they?  That's murky law at best right now.  But here's the fact - have they?  They have not, and it appears they don't wish to pursue it because it's a.) murky law when it comes to fair use, and b.) the PR backlash could be absolutely staggering - "DC goes to war with it's biggest fans" is a pretty bad headline.

 

So we can debate what could happen all day, but at the end of the day, let's keep these 4 things in mind:

1.) Nobody is the moral leader here...it ain't happening as long as you are playing.  I'm not saying if you stop playing you are the moral leader.  But you most certainly are not as long as you are playing pirated software

 

2.) No action is likely forthcoming.  I can't say for absolutely, but we can be pretty sure that if DC/Marvel/Whoever wants to start enforcing their IP privileges, they probably won't start here.  This is a small niche.  There are other far more appetizing targets (DeviantArt?) then a pirate server where the fan creations are limited to only in-game.

 

3.) If, in the extreme chance, someone takes action, it'll be a simple C&D letter asking for HC to stop the behavior of copying IP.  At that point, HC will either have the resources and abilities to comply, or they won't.  And no amount of hand wringing is going to change that.  It's out of our control

 

4.) Finally, is this where you want volunteer GM's to spend their time, right now?  "I'm stuck in a mission, why won't the GM's respond?"."Well, there is only a few of them, and they are having to scan, every single character to see if they might be a copyright violation....they'll get back to you in a few months".  

"Now justicebeliever, that's silly, we can just go back to the way it worked during live," you say?  Well, then I point you back to #3.  Let's cross the bridge when we come to it, same as it happened on Live.

[ShardWarrior]

3 hours ago, justicebeliever said:

This is a pirate server with pirated code.  NCSoft's lack of action or choice to engage, doesn't abrogate their rights to enforce action later...Why?  Because it's still a pirate server.

But it's ok because NCSoft is evil and we hate them! 

 

3 hours ago, justicebeliever said:

We can spin all sorts of coulda, woulda, shoulda, arguments and who knows, as I sit here writing this, my roof could cave in.  But it's unlikely.  And based on the current landscape, there seems to be no appetite from comic book companies to pursue fan artists and cosplayers.  Could they?  Sure.  Would they?  Maybe.  Should they?  That's murky law at best right now.  But here's the fact - have they?  They have not, and it appears they don't wish to pursue it because it's a.) murky law when it comes to fair use, and b.) the PR backlash could be absolutely staggering - "DC goes to war with it's biggest fans" is a pretty bad headline.

^ This right here.   I would also add -

 

c.) They permit it so long as no one tries to profit off of, market themselves as to the owner of or deliberately intend to harm and or damage their property because it helps keep interest in their IP.  See CBS and Trek fan films.

Edited September 13, 2019 by ShardWarrior

[ed fray]

 

No one remembers Freedom Force?

[Williwaw]

5 minutes ago, ed fray said:

 

No one remembers Freedom Force?

 

... I remember something called Freedom Force, but it's probably not whatever it is you're thinking of.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Williwaw

[subbacultchas]

49 minutes ago, ed fray said:

 

No one remembers Freedom Force?

Absolutely, I think I mentioned it in another thread last week. That was a hella-fun game, although very very campy which eventually wore on me.

What's the matter of contention with it? I played it and the sequel IIRC.

[MunkiLord]

6 hours ago, Troo said:

Was the 'claim' spectacular because it contained big words?

Interesting response lol

[subbacultchas]

Wait a minute, you're talking about Marvel shutting down the site that made skins for Freedom Force, aren't you @ed fray?

For those that didn't play it or don't remember, Marvel did go after a site that made skins for Freedom Force, and I think they won that suit. The reason it doesn't apply here at all though is, the company at the time was *selling and distributing* said skins. Marvel sued them for making a profit of their IP, and rightfully so in my mind. This is not akin to what's going on here though, and didn't really impact Freedom Force itself, just the third party skin creation site. I mean, you can purchase and play Freedom Force on Steam today, and if you haven't I'd suggest you give it a shot if you've got the time and money.

[jubakumbi]

10 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

I'm sure you'll dismiss that as FUD.

 

But the real FUD would be the atmosphere of paranoia, if the community had to go "underground" with secret, truly pirate servers, always worried about an NCSoft ringer managing to find and report each server to NCSoft, prompting a new flurry of C&D letters t hosting services, personal ISPs, whatever it takes to get those servers offline so they cease to put NCSoft's bottom line at risk due to the copyright-intransigence of people like ... well, like you, Jubakumbi.

But again, I'm sure you'll dismiss it as "just FUD", like you do with anything that ever even skirts the possibility of mentioning potential consequences.

The basis for creating the theory comes from FUD...the fear of losing the game, the uncertainty of it's longevity, and the deep doubt and mistrust some players have for NCSoft and IP holders.

 

The theory itself holds little water.

A legal precedent that backs up the theory would be a good start, I have not been able to find one.

 

Where has a company sued another company for a third party using their IP in similar situation, not-for-profit group propping up a defunct service, that allows creative expression?

As others have said, this would open the door for so many lawsuits against Microsoft alone, all of the lawyers would have all the money.

You don't think the hackers with farms of PCs pay for the licences do you?

 

This is why I think the basic theory is so outlandish.

None of the lawyers I know that I have asked would touch it.

 

There is no legal lever by which a third party can force NCSoft to take action against the HC team, much less the consumers using the 'defunct' service.

If there is, I would love for someone to present it.

Even frivolous lawsuits try to have some basis in legal precedent or law.

 

Show me.

Show me an example precedent where this has occurred.

Beyond that, it is just an outlandish idea, based from a position of fear and uncertainty, created to sow doubt among the players to in turn get them to Obey a directive that does not exist.

Edited September 13, 2019 by jubakumbi

[Frostbiter]

2 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

The basis for creating the theory comes from FUD...the fear of losing the game, the uncertainty of it's longevity, and the deep doubt and mistrust some players have for NCSoft and IP holders.

 

The theory itself holds little water.

A legal precedent that backs up the theory would be a good start, I have not been able to find one.

 

Where has a company sued another company for a third party using their IP in similar situation, not-for-profit group propping up a defunct service, that allows creative expression?

As others have said, this would open the door for so many lawsuits against Microsoft alone, all of the lawyers would have all the money.

You don't think the hackers with farms of PCs pay for the licences do you?

 

This is why I think the basic theory is so outlandish.

None of the lawyers I know that I have asked would touch it.

 

There is no legal lever by which a third party can force NCSoft to take action against the HC team, much less the consumers using the 'defunct' service.

If there is, I would love for someone to present it.

Even frivolous lawsuits try to have some basis in legal precedent or law.

 

Show me.

Show me an example precedent where this has occurred.

Beyond that, it is just an outlandish idea, based from a position of fear and uncertainty, created to sow doubt among the players to in turn get them to Obey a directive that does not exist.

Dinsey has a really bad habit of sueing the families of dead children for putting Marvel and Disney characters on their tombstones.

[jubakumbi]

Just now, Frostbiter said:

Dinsey has a really bad habit of sueing the families of dead children for putting Marvel and Disney characters on their tombstones.

Not a third party.

[Frostbiter]

Just now, jubakumbi said:

Not a third party.

They certainly didn't make the tombstones themselves.

[ShardWarrior]

Just now, Frostbiter said:

Dinsey has a really bad habit of sueing the families of dead children for putting Marvel and Disney characters on their tombstones.

Ah but what was Disney's reason for this?  That's key.  Did they do it because they don't want other people using their stuff because they lose money?  Or did they do it because they felt it would associate their character with something as tragic and unhappy as the death of a small child?

 

Specifics matter.