Slashdot Mirror
Are 'Server Emulators' Legal?
Ashran: "I'm one of the lead developers on the EverQuest server emulator at HackersQuest. What I've wondered is, whenever creating an server emulator is legal in the U.S. It is legal here I live, but new team members might be from the U.S. We've received a few 'Cease and Desist' e-mails from the CEO of Verant, but we've ignored them all up to now. Does anyone have any experience in this field?" For those of you curious as to what a "server emulator" is, check out yesterday's article on the recent beta release. Well, at least Hemos gets his wish and now knows what Verant's reaction is.
Emulators, server emulators, and mp3's are all legal.
Using copyrighted material without permission (purchasing it or otherwise) probably isn't. This includes goods, ROMs, music, video, photos and text, although many of these are often not enforced... (which is how people often use tapes, video tapes, hard drives, photo-copy machines...)
In the case of EverQuest, I really don't see what the problem is. People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo. They aren't even copying anything they shouldn't. I mean, what should you care what they do in their own time, and who are you to tell your customers how they should use your product? You should help them, and give them some specs, and they'll like you better, and support you in the future.
In my case, I'm pretty happy with Loki, for example. They produce great games, and they respond to the community. I beta-tested Heroes III, and I bought a copy, too. They added a lot of stuff they said they would, like fullscreen mode for non-root, and I think the map editor is in beta. I just need to ask them if the Expansion Packs will work with Linux, and if I could just get those separately, or if they have plans to port them...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Except in the US, thanks to the infamous DMCA, the EULA are a worthless piece of shit. Most of them are illegal. Case in point, Verant's license agreement for Everquest *IS* illegal in France. It prevents me from reselling the game ... illegal. It does'nt respect privacy laws ... it's illegal and they risk up to 3 years in jail. AND ON TOP OF THAT IT'S FUCKING WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Guess what, I'd be surprise that any French court let them enforce it ... mwaaah ah ah ah.
It's pretty questionable whether DMCA and contractual prohibitions on reverse-engineering will hold up in court, and doubly so when dealing with a fairly transparent, essentially unencrypted protocol. Everquest's EULA does explicitly bind users of the software not to reverse-engineer it, but even beyond the enforceability of this clause, the end user is also prohibited from using the client with non-approved (read: clone) servers.
So even if you developed a clean-room server clone that stood up to legal scrutiny, end users are prohibited from using it. In other words, you might be able to defend the creation of the server, but nobody can play on it with a real Everquest client. The players don't own the software, you know. They just have a revocable license to use it with the official servers under its terms of service.
My approach to defending against this--if the clone server was made in a defensible, double-blind manner--would start by warning users that connecting to a clone server is a violation of their Everquest license agreement and that they (the players) are open to prosecution if they connect to it with the offiicial software.
You may want focus on a (clean-room) clone of the client. Even an incomplete, experimental one. And then distribute it so that it becomes difficult to determine who is connecting to the clone servers with an EULA-violating official client. After all, if there's reasonable probability that a given user on a legal clone server is using a legal clone client, a judge feel that a request to subpoena IP traffic information logging who was connecting to the server and when would be too broad and invasive.
Just some thoughts. Your lawyer's advice may be very different.
From thier EULA
9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators
Which means, if you you didn't agree to this clause (which, I belive only went in with the latest patch), Evergquest are implicity saying that you have the right to make a server emulator. Else why explicetly ban it now?
There is also the DMCA act - I think that a server counts as 'interoperability', don't you?
And lets not forget the strong legal standing affored to EULA - ie bog all [0].
To me, if you can build a playstation emulator, why can you do the same for a server? Your emulating very similar things (a required interface for the software you purchased to work).
Course, whether or not the courst agree with common sense remains to be seen.
[0] UCITA may have changed that
Mildly off-topic -- but this is Ask Slashdot, right? So why doesn't Slashdot have someone on staff who can answer these questions from a legal standpoint? The question is, or seems to be, a simple one. If the EULA for software says that you may only connect up with the authorized server, is it legal for me to connect up to a different server? Is it really legal for them to put an extra requirement on the client piece, that I did not agree to when buying their box with a cd in it? An on-staff legal advisor at /. could give a quick answer, and do further research. I mean, sure the guy (or gal) would quickly become as loved and hated as JKatz ... but would still be a very valuable addition to the /. staff.
Surely Andover can afford it, right? What's the stock at today?
Another question ... say I buy a piece of software, and agree to some restrictions. Is the company on the other end really allowed to just up and change the terms and agreements at any time? That's fairly standard text in EULAs ... but is it legal? If they change the text, say to include new text stating that I can't connect my client software to any server but theirs, then can I demand an instant refund and return the software to them?
IANAL ... so I dunno. But if there was /. lawyer reading over posts, giving quick answers and then digging into precedents a little bit ... we might have a little more solid answer to questions like this, instead of the fairly standard mob-rule FUD answers we get now.
What is happening with server emulators, as well as many other products (DVD, Playstation Emulators, etc.) is that companies are making a product which requires another product. Then they are trying to control where you get that second product.
It's the old razor and razor blade analogy. Let's say a razor company sold razors for around cost, and then designed them so that no one else could make blades for them. Then, when some other company figures out how to make the blades, you hire a bunch of lawyers and sue them to high heaven.
This is simple, blatant, anti-competitiveness. You can argue that the company depends on it for profits, but that doesn't make it legitimate. If you sell a product at a loss to bait the sale of another product, you are taking a risk. The risk is that your customers may buy that other product from a competitor, or even get it for free from someone giving it away. Using legal pressure to force that competitor to "cease and desist" is unethical and anticompetitive, as well as a misuse of the legal system.
However, in today's society, certain companies seem to be getting away with it anyway.....
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
For EthernalQuest yes. It is specifically stated in the EULA that every user has to "agree" too that you not reverse engineer any part of the application or its communication protocol for the purposes of cheating or creating a server emulator or anything along those lines.
Verant took a cue from Ultima Online and hoped to squash the thousands of private servers before they started.
However I'm fairly certain the enormous hardware requirements to run a decent private server as well as the lack of the semi-refined mob AI will keep the private servers to a minimum.
Now the question of server emulators in general? IANAL but unless it is word for word prohibited in the EULA that you agree to when you purchase and or launch the software in question I'd say it may fall under the "acceptable reverse-engineering for compatability" umbrella of protection.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
The easy way is, of course, to put an entry in your HOSTS file to change the IP address of patch.everquest.com, but if Verant simply makes the client go to a specific IP address instead of a fqdn, then the only way to connect to the Server Emulator is to modify the client and NOW they've got you. You may be able to get away with putting up a server, but the legalities of modifying their client (which, of course, you are licensed to use but do not own, grrr!) is much easier to convince a court to prohibit.
Or are you doing it with a small program running on the client machine that intercepts and reroutes packets (a man-in-the-middle attack)?
If you can do some like this, why not create your own game and forget about duplicating these people's server.
Take the best features, dump the worst, add new things you wish it had.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You have lawyers going after you...
Talk to a lawyer! ASAP!
Get together with a lawyer that specializes in this type of law, and get them to consult and advise you on the issue. Knowing what your rights are is critical to your business and your personal welfare right now, do not act on the advice of a bunch of computer hackers. Some of the comments here appear to be informative, but I am not qualified to judge their merits, and neither are you. Don't fuck around with your legal rights and liabilities; bring in the professionals and do it right.
If you choose to go with the legal opinions of anonymous kernel programmers, you do so at your own peril.
IANAL, and Ask Slashdot most certainly is not either.
Which flavor of IP? Copyright, trademark, patent or trade secret?
switch (IP) {
case ("copyright") :
It is not a violation of copyright to
reverse engineer computer code. If it is
done in a double-blind fashion,
copyright is moot.
case ("trademark") :
Don't use the Everquest name to market
the product, or explicitly and
consistently disclaim that Verant/Sony
has no affiliation and does not condone
the product.
case ("patent") :
Well if it is patented, you're up a
creek. I don't think it's patented,
though, because I don't think it's
patentable. I'd be happy to be
demonstrated wrong.
case ("trade secret") :
It isn't a secret if you published it.
Even with a no reverse-engineering
clause in the EULA, because that's a
legally weak argument (and that's an
understatement.)
}
(what happens if someone downloads the emulator, gets hold of a load of Nazi content and creates "Holocaust Everquest"? Shouldn't the owners have the right to prevent that?)
Only in that the product would clearly be a misappropriation of their trademark. Call it GEORGE-3D and you're off the hook.
I take the Perl source code to Slashdot, port it to Python (this would be a good idea anyway) and don't release the source.
If you ported it, you own the copyright, you've got control of the code. This can be challenged by Andover, perhaps by saying that a translation of their work violates their copyright like a translation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into Icelandic would be, and they may win, but only because you didn't do it in a double-blind fashion. Let's just say you wouldn't necessarily lose.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
EULAs are of questionable legal standing outside a couple of states here, and reverse engineering a protocol could in no way be viewd as bypassing any sort of copy protection so you should be clear of any DMCA nastiness that's found its way outside the US. Check with your friendly EU/WIPO representative to be sure. Personally I'd tell the guys at Verant to blow you and merrily post their E-Mails on your web site.
However
Why not use your formidable programming talents to help the WorldForge project instead, providing a completely unencumbered and free client and server? Users of your EverQuest server software are going to invalidate their license and Verant might get nasty and start cancelling their accounts. They apparently don't seem to think that they can compete in terms of creativity, world design or game balance or they'd just be ignoring you.
Editorial/Opinion/Rant/Flame
Of course, I have Linux and Only Linux on my system, and there never was a Linux port of EverQuest, so the guys at Verant can blow me, too. I did have UO for a while, until they stopped maintaining the Linux client after which I dropped my account, so the guys at Origin can blow me too. And while we're on the subject of blowing me, the guys at the RIAA and the MPAA can blow me, too. And all the congress people who've been allowing the corporate erosion of the Bill of Rights can also blow me. And the WIPO and the ICANN can blow me too. There needs to be a lot of blowing going on, yessir...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is one of the reasons that double blind reverse engineering is a huge deal.
IANAL:
Way back to the IBM PC days people wondered how to clone something that had restrictive licenses and not get sued (Or at least win in the event). The solution is creating a double blind.
The proccess is simple, but needs two very seperate parts. This is basically how IBM BIOS was originally reverse engineered.
Person A owns the product in question. This person is charged with writing a specification. "When XXXX is sent to the computer YYYYY should respond back based on ZZZZ" This person isn't writing any code. They are simply documenting a specification.
Person A hands the spec to Person B. Person B is a programmer. They create a program based on the Spec that Person A has created. Person B should not touch the product at all. They shouldn't interact. If they need testeding then they need Person C to test the product.
The main goal to all of this is to isolate the programmer from the product you are reverse engineering. This avoids both copyright and License issues at bay.
In this case I think you're screwed. Even if you had a legal chance there hasn't been much throught about how to isolate programmers from liability.
On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool. So even if you cease and disist someone could pick up the code and continue working on it.