Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' Legacy Server (torrentfreak.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' Legacy Server (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday February 4, 2018 @11:34PM from the war-on-World-of-Warcraft dept.

An anonymous reader calls it "the never-ending stupidity of copyright wars." TorrentFreak reports: Blizzard Entertainment is taking a stand against a popular World of Warcraft legacy server. The fan-operated project allows gamers to experience how the game was played over a decade ago and to revive old battles... In recent years the project has captured the hearts of tens of thousands of die-hard WoW fans. At the time of writing, the most popular realm has more than 6,000 people playing from all over the world... Blizzard, however, sees this as copyright infringement and has asked GitHub to pull the site's code offline.
The article notes the DMCA notice came "just weeks after several organizations and gaming fans asked the US Copyright Office to make a DMCA circumvention exemption for 'abandoned' games."

308 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-04 23:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Q: Are they actually infringing copyright?
If they are, then a DMCA is to be expected.
If they are breaching trademarks then they should also expect a trademark related cease and desist.
1. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Q: Are they actually infringing copyright?
  If they are, then a DMCA is to be expected.
  If they are breaching trademarks then they should also expect a trademark related cease and desist.
  What do you think? If you don't know, you should ask another question. "DId they get permission to copy even partial of the source code and use it?" Regardless monetary result, copyright is still in effect if there is a "copied" activity going on. The copyright owner has the right to take down his/her/its work. Also, watch out for "derivative work" which is misunderstood by most people who don't understand copyright. It meant that you take an original work (in this case, source code) and then make some changes to it. As a result, this "derivative work" is still under copyright by the copyright owner.
  One may argue for fair use; however, I don't really see that it is a fair use case.
2. Re: Are they actually infringing copyright? by Reverend+Green · 2018-02-05 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  This legal-formalist shill post was brought to you thanks to the generous support of idea monopolists.
  "Idea monopolists - we're working hard to make the world a shittier place!"
3. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yes,
  the game World of Warcraft would have copyright protection on elements such as it's characters and plot.
  Unless the went though an renamed all the NPCs, and rewrote all the quest dialogs (which would defeat the stated purpose of their offering) than they most likely are violating copyright.
4. Re: Are they actually infringing copyright? by froggyjojodaddy · 2018-02-05 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  Hi,
  I didn't read the post as a 'shill' - just a statement on the current law and it's enforcement. I didn't detect any opinion from the OP on whether or not the law was fair or whether or not OP was in favor, just a factual statement.
  
  If the law says, "Don't do this" and you do it anyway, can you really reasonably expect to not face prosecution? You may argue that whatever "this" is is fine to do, but that doesn't change the law.
  
  At this point, I think the normal thing to say is something like, "If you don't like it, then vote or write to your " but I fear that might just be naive or overly-optimistic
  
  Sorry, I don't have a positive suggestion here :(
5. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by Cederic · 2018-02-05 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hmm. You're assuming though that the server has or provides the text and names.
  I'd expect all of that to be client-side. Server will send "Quest 044 status 382" and the client will interpret that as "Chief Boyo congratulates you on your successful conquest. Would you like the ring of glowiness or the necklace of pantswetting?"
  If the gamer has an original purchased copy of the game and is merely connecting to a different server then I'm not sure where the copyright violation lies.
6. Re: Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention original WoW isn't even available anymore. The first half of the game is a cakewalk now. Nobody likes that, it just gets skipped but before the changes there was compelling gameplay there. As shown by classic servers having thousands of players. It's not a piracy thing as most players did buy the game. They simply aren't allowed to play the version they bought anymore.
7. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by kfsone · 2018-02-05 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  The Warcraft lore/IP is not public domain and this project was based on a server emulator (MaNGOS) using Blizzard's client. So - the art, the zones, items, npc models, character models, etc, are all Blizzard's. Some of the content, such as NPC dialog, etc, had to be recreated, but since the goal was to recreate the material content of a still-in-development, still-in-operation product - and courts do not accept 'its not what it was' as a legal argument for discontinuity/abandonment - then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW ... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
  
  --
  -- A change is as good as a reboot.
8. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by mysidia · 2018-02-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  There's a very good chance that none of the code on GitHub is anywhere close to being copyright infringement; However,
  the act of using the code to run a server and then encouraging users to modify their clients to connect to your server MIGHT be
  an inducement on end-users to infringe on copyright by connecting to your server in violation of the EULA.
  So it could be non-infringing code. Perhaps even the production server itself is a non-infringement, BUT an argument for Contributory Copyright Infringement against the server operator(s) might be possible --- if the End User has to commit a licensing violation regarding their EULA in order to use the copy of WoW they purchased with Your server.
9. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by mysidia · 2018-02-05 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  then simple things like NPCs that have the same name as in WoW ... is clearly an infringement of copyright.
  NOPE. Not clearly at all. Character Names are not copyrightable --- You can publish lists of names of all the fantasy characters you want within a database... you can use the word "Mickey" in print AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE for most purposes ---- There is just one thing copyright prevents you from doing with the name.... you cannot write and publish your own fictional story, performance, or animation with a similar character, whose name is Mickey and is an anthropomorphic mouse, and use the name Mickey to refer to that character, unless your story is protected by a fair use exception, since now you would be invoking the likeness of a famous creative expression. You could write other stories of a different nature and call as many characters Mickey as you wanted.
  You can also FREELY use "Mickey" or "Mickey Mouse" in referring to the famous character if you aren't publishing a work of fiction.
  Blizzard never published a product called "WoW Server" --- the only published goods in this case are the World of Warcraft game which you had to purchase, AND you STILL have to obtain from Blizzard in order to connect to these servers.
  The server code is Not the game itself and just controlling the operation of a server ----- so there are some things here:
  (1) The server code is Not a published game --- it is one component of a system. Blizzard never published copyrighted server code, so it's extremely unlikely the server code could possibly be an infringement in any case, Because copying it would have been impossible, ONLY re-creation of its functionality within an overall system where users took observations from the Client.
  (2) Does the server enable circumvention of a copy protection system?
  (3) With the WoW packaged product.... are the "Fees to use their server" PURELY a usage fee, Or is part of that payment a licensing charge for the use of content?
  (4) If the content is included with the game.... then the Copyrighted character name appearing in the End User experience might be a performance of Blizzard's copyright, BUT the end user that owns the copy of the game has a right to perform Blizzard's copyrights for their own personal use.
  (5) The vanilla server code is not a "Standalone work", so it can't possibly be described as a published work of fiction on its own, or as any kind of competitor to the WoW Game --- this is not a game or any kind of fictional work on its own - it is repeating data that the client component the end user purchased from Blizzard wants to see: regardless of Blizzard's desires, the end user has the right to attempt to enjoy their purchased game, even re-creating missing data from the now vacant server piece.
10. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by kfsone · 2018-02-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't break down like that.
  I didn't say the npc names are copyright. I said "simple things like NPCs that have the same name as WoW": They are set in the same locations, they have the same lore and back story. No provision whatsoever is made to avoid infringing on any copyright that Blizzard might have; indeed, the exact opposite is true.
  Consider a character called "Wynne Larson" in the city of Stormwind. Firstly, the entire fantasy setting is one created by Blizzard, not coincidentally, not accidentally, but deliberately, specifically leveraging Blizzard's text and binary materiels - that is art, textures, meshes, navmeshes, colliders, props, npcs, animations, rigging, shaders, sound effects, music, triggers, interactables, achievements and all the ip such as lore etc, without permission.
  Secondly, the NPC in every way attempts to recreate the original character designed and created by Blizzard: The name explicitly references a character of that name in the Warcraft IP including accessing the visual model used by Blizzard in World of Warcraft. Not coincidentally or accidentally but explicitly and deliberately. The LightsHope dataset specifically instructs the WoW client to render the exact same model, in the same setting with the same behaviors, same items, same dialog, etc, as that in World of Warcraft.
  Secondly, the fact that the "server" comprises some number of independent works of code has no bearing: it is part of the whole "game system". I could give you countless parallels or analogies, but I'm going with a tounge-in-cheek fun one, ok? If you pay for next-day UPS delivery it does not buy you permission to board the driver's vehicle and find the package for yourself.
  It comes down to some very fine detail, which is basically that Lights Hope is entirely dependent on the use of the WoW client and its data. There are no character models in LH that weren't create in whole by Blizzard Entertainment. Those portions of content that were input by LH authors attempt entirely to duplicate material originally created by Blizzard Entertainment, and specifically does so using tangible assets created by Blizzard.
  
  --
  -- A change is as good as a reboot.
11. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by kfsone · 2018-02-05 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not only is the second secondly not a secondly, there was supposed to be a thirdly in-between 2 and 4: The "character" as perceived by a "player" explicitly uses materiels created by Blizzard for the purpose of representing the "character" identified by that name - the model appearance, etc. LightsHope does not attempt to "recreate" the character, but actually exploits Blizzard's original material to make the character visible.
  LightsHope isn't a MUD that you can log into and play text-only; it's not a wow-clone that provides its own community-contributed models and assets and nor is it a wow-emulator in the sense that you can access it with a 1st or 3rd party client program to play the game. It *explicitly* requires the Blizzard game client for its code AND materiel assets. If you do not have the Blizzard-created assets that comprise the layout of stormwind zone and cultural objects (buildings, etc), then you would not be able to play there in lightshope.
  
  --
  -- A change is as good as a reboot.
12. Re: Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Opening a config file in notepad and typing in an IP is not modifying the client.
13. Re: Are they actually infringing copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  In a MUD the server sends all content to the client. In Warcraft the client already has a legal copy of the content. Resurrecting a MUD would be more of a copyright violation.
14. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by Bert64 · 2018-02-05 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Violating EULA is not an infringement of copyright... In many locations, an EULA is totally unenforceable.
  A service agreement may exist when you are using *their* server, but in this instance you're using a third party server so that doesn't apply.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
15. Re:Are they actually infringing copyright? by mysidia · 2018-02-06 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Violating EULA is not an infringement of copyright... In many locations, an EULA is totally unenforceable.
  
  Are you forgetting that this is Blizzard we are talking about?
  In the landmark case against the developers of BNETD --- that created software allowing people to play Starcraft II in multiplayer (Emulating the BattleNet servers without the Lag, Instability, and General unreliability of BattleNet servers) - BECAUSE they didn't Copy the server - They reverse-engineered the protocol - the EULA clause in the Clickthrough agreement was invoked, and the court ruled in favor of Blizzard regarding the Developers' violation of the software EULA clause against reverse engineering --- resulting in a finding they infringed Blizzard's rights, and thus the Intellectual Property Rights to the previously-GPL'd BNETD software were transferred to Blizzard, and the Takedown of BNETD was made permanent.
Abandoned games... by Rewind · 2018-02-04 23:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Um... I really do think that something needs to be done about classic and abandoned games. We are, unfortunately, losing those parts of history to the obscurity of copyright.
With that said...
"The article notes the DMCA notice came "just weeks after several organizations and gaming fans asked the US Copyright Office to make a DMCA circumvention exemption for 'abandoned' games."
WoW is not even close to an abandoned game. They are working on a subscription right now and maintain and update servers that millions play on right now. In what way is it abandoned? The language in this post is more like the FUD spread by hardcore DRM supporters than someone who wants to preserve software. This is an awful sub EditorDavid...

--
?
1. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-04 23:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They have announced recently a "WoW Classic" so it's hardly an "abandoned game".
2. Re:Abandoned games... by Opportunist · 2018-02-05 00:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  WoW in its "classic", level 50 (or was it 60?) cap form, IS abandoned. Blizzard does not offer the option to play on a server where the old dungeons are the endgame and expansion creep isn't forcing people to play the game in a way they never wanted to.
  If Blizzard offered no-expansion servers, we can talk.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Abandoned games... by Xamindar · 2018-02-05 00:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think the point is that "version" of the game is abandoned. You had to buy the game before you had the opportunity to pay monthly to actually play it. Shouldn't people be able to set up their own servers if they want as they have already bought the game?
4. Re:Abandoned games... by mccalli · 2018-02-05 00:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is an issue though - what is 'abandoned'? Let's take the 8 bit games legacy. When mobile gaming took off, suddenly these games were appearing once again but on mobile phones - things like Lords of Midnight, which by every rationale people previously would have considered abandoned. They turned out to be a viable revenue stream again. Or all the Nintendo ones that found a new life in the 'virtual console' on their newer platforms.
  
  Don't get me wrong - I also agree there should be some solution found. But I really don't think it's simple, because even the definition of 'abandoned' isn't clear cut, and we have a recent example where a technology shifts have rendered viable again things one previously considered abandoned
5. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  WoW ( as it stands may not be abandoned ), but as stated the version / release and content that excited people in droves back then most certainly has been.
  Perhaps software companies would do well to embrace communities like these to enhance player experience vrs kill them off cause they seem to do things better than they currently do. Lets face it the gaming industry is super stagnant right now, almost as bad as Hollywood and movies, any help to a company or genre of game should be welcomed not shutdown using DMCA which really is total B$ of the dubya era.
  Just sayin
6. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  So... a new server for each expansion? sounds reasonable :S
  (Then what about servers for each combination of expansions?)
  Haven't all MMOs been patched through time to ie. raise lvl-caps etc.?
  You'd seriously expect them to keep a server for the old version and split up the player-base?
7. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ultimately the game as it is today is nothing like it was during the 'classic' period (though people who don't play would struggle to appreciate the differences). I won't comment as to whether it's better or worse, and the issue of what, exactly, can be regarded as being 'World of Warcraft' is probably one best left to the philosophers... But the fact remains: some people want to experience it as it was prior the first expansion coming out and there is no legitimate method to do so. This looks to be changing some point in the near future since Blizzard are, apparently, bringing official 'classic' WoW servers back. And it is for this reason I assume they're now pursuing what is, essentially, 'illegal' competition (though this is not the first time it happened).
8. Re:Abandoned games... by PhoenixFlare · 2018-02-05 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  They don't offer it because basically *nobody* (i'm sure you'll find a few exceptions here to try and prove me wrong) running a game of any real size offers it. That's not how MMO's work
  They're not going to run separate servers for every patch level, just to accommodate folks that forgot they signed up for a game that was going to be constantly updated.
9. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  They are doing this, that's why they're fighting everyone else doing it.
10. Re:Abandoned games... by houghi · 2018-02-05 00:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Can you explain to me what the difference is in copyright between an abandoned game, an abandoned book and an abandoned movie? It is called a copyright, not a blocked-right-if-used. I can write a book and not even publish it, just let one person read it and then put it in a closet. I die and somebody finds it. That book will still have my copyrights and the kids will enjoy it for 70 years after I die.
  The fact that I have never published it, means it was abandoned.
  Obviously the period for copyright is WAY too long, but it was never dependent of the usage, just of the moment of creation.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
11. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  So pretty much old versions of any software which aren't identical to the current versions are fair game?
12. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  All of these old dungeons (with the exception of Naxxramas v1.0) are available on the live servers. You can go run them any time you want. You can even disable experience point gains so you don't overlevel them. Only problem might be finding other likeminded individuals who want to disregard everything else the game has to offer.
  Or is that the problem? Are you seriously claiming that other people playing one of the roughly two hundred and fifty dungeons released in the last ten years, rather than the three oldest ones you want to run, is justification enough to play for free?
13. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  How is content that is currently available on live servers and was last updated mere weeks ago "abandoned"? I think we're conflating two entirely different meanings here. One is the unsupported and unavailable meaning found in "abandonware", which is a real issue and is not happening here. The other is the this dungeon is no longer popular and I am having trouble finding people to run it with meaning, which I can see happening with a lot of older content. Yet somehow people, even posters here, try to make it sound like these are the same thing and not having people to play with means you're completely justified in taking proprietary software for free.
14. Re:Abandoned games... by JMJimmy · 2018-02-05 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Either way just move the server/code to Canada.
  We already have "interoperability" exemptions to copyright. This is an ideal example of why they were put in. User demand for a specific version of the product which the original maker refuses to support.
15. Re:Abandoned games... by Maury+Markowitz · 2018-02-05 01:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  > Are you seriously claiming that other people playing one of the roughly two hundred and fifty dungeons released in the last ten years
  If you think that's why people play on these 3rd party servers then you simply haven't talked to any of the people involved.
  They're on those servers to return to the era when the game was played by people who's goal wasn't the collection of stuff and end-game play.
  Returning to an earlier version has the primary effect of selecting those players looking for the original, highly collaborative, user base.
16. Re:Abandoned games... by CriticalYetLazy · 2018-02-05 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They don't offer it because basically *nobody* (i'm sure you'll find a few exceptions here to try and prove me wrong) running a game of any real size offers it. That's not how MMO's work
  They're not going to run separate servers for every patch level, just to accommodate folks that forgot they signed up for a game that was going to be constantly updated.
  Even still, not offering that specific service, however interesting it may be to some, is still their call. I can imagine it may disappoint some people but thus calling it abandoned is pretty silly.
17. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's not even a question of expansions existing. The original content was "replaced" by the Cataclysm expansion. You can't experience it at all. It is content that is abandoned.
18. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  If Blizzard offered no-expansion servers, we can talk.
  uhh...I reckon you missed the memo, although they haven't announced a launch date.
19. Re:Abandoned games... by subanark · 2018-02-05 01:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be clear WoW classic will be a compromise of the old game with probably some more recent features that don't impact the gameplay like cross game chat, security exploits removed etc... However you get into some gray area like multi-loot, or what ui addons they support it gets complex. Add into this how fast new content is released within the original game (there are over 12 content patches), and needing to run it on newer servers, and you can understand why it will take a while to get it out the door.
  I've seen non-Blizzard classic servers pull all kinds of shady tricks like being able to donate for grossly overpowered items (e.g. similar to best items in the game, but with an extra 0 on the end of each stat)
  Also, don't play WoW classic if you didn't play it back in the day. There is no class balance, and death was penalized by having to spend a good 5 minutes or more walking back as a ghost to your body (in harder content areas). This was however a drastic improvement over Ever Quest which had a massive XP loss penality (like 4 or more hours of grinding XP gone).
20. Re:Abandoned games... by bv728 · 2018-02-05 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Blizzard own copyright over things like Quest Text, art design, textures, logos, map designs, and sound/music independently of the game. If they rebuilt their servers without using any of those, the case would be in question, but it's not. Even if purchase of a game gave you the legal rights you're implying (and it does not!), it does not give you free reign to use the remaining copyrighted content.
  The second element is the question of abandonment. If you buy a copy of World of Warcraft off the shelf, and install it, you can still play it. That the specific version you want is not available doesn't mean the game itself is abandoned. Wizards of the Coast can (and do!) go after people who mass print for distribution their own copies of cards that are no longer legal or in print despite those being for a version of the game which is no longer in existence - there's no question that, even if they've effectively abandoned that version of the game, they still can control distribution of those cards.
  TL,DR: Blizzard owns multiple levels of copyright on WoW and it's constituent parts, and even if an out-of-date version of a ongoing, consistently updated game counts as abandoned, they still have a number of claims against people running servers in a even semi-public fashion.
21. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Preferring the way the community was back then is a respectable opinion. There's just two problems with it. First, no, the community never was that way, you just have your nostalgia goggles on extra tight. Second, it's not a legal argument. "I want to play with people who think like I do" is not a magical sentence that turns software piracy into acceptable abandonware usage.
  If you're going to flat out admit you're committing a crime because all the cool kids you like are doing it and you want to hang out with them, then sure, fair enough. Just don't pretend it's somehow legal or even moral because of your preferences.
22. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I would say the Everquest of now is a lot better than the Everquest of yore. Now, if one dies in EQ, they go to a room (guild hall annex), have their body summoned, and one of the NPC priests there give you your exp back. You can easily solo since regardless of class, you can get a mercenary to come with you, while previously, there was 0 way to solo for most classes.
  The Everquest of the early 2000s was a game of frustration. One class (bard, druid, monk) could easily and continuously wipe raids just by running mobs onto the raid and either scooting away, or dropping all agro. Progression early on was part trying to get to mobs, part trying to get the mobs needed for a key (everything was gated in EQ), stuck under the world, so no other guild can progress. Since there was no instancing, guild fighting was common. Exploiting (MQ2, ShowEQ) were common, and most guilds were mainly into "fattening up" characters to eBay, since a raid geared character could sell for tens of thousands. In fact, one expansion had items only were droppable before a raid-triggered event happened (The Sleeper), and guilds would run the pre-sleeper event, not bothering with the fourth warder, then kill it once everyone was geared, just so that their characters, and no others had primals (which made them better for eBay.)
  The average player pretty had 0% chance of seeing all but maybe 1-2 high level zones, and early on, you needed access to those zones to get to max level.
  When WoW came out, Blizzard fixed what was driving people away from Everquest. Raids were instanced, so the cut-throat competition for the one week spawn that dropped one item useful for a single person in a 40 man raid was gone. If someone was a jackass in a dungeon, you kicked them out, and they no longer affected you. Bind on pickup eliminated the ebay sales of items. A death didn't mean 4-6 hours of lost work, and potentially losing all your equipment forever. You didn't need to spend cash on eBay for journeyman's boots or other items to survive for daily level grinding.
  Eventually Verant/SOE/Daybreak finally revamped EQ into something a lot more playable, but the damage was done. EQ became a ghost town because the developers told players to love it or leave it... and they left in droves.
23. Re: Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it should be dependent on usage now. We live in a constantly changing world. I think copyright, trademark and patet law should be rewritten from the ground up.
  Some little things that I would change...
  1. Software should not be patentable. If a language can do something, you did not create a novel invention by calling those lines of code.
  2. You get one trademark for your company. You use it to stamp your products so we know what you make. No more trademarking words or terms or using trademark as a an infinite copyright extension.
  3. Copyrights expire after 20 years from publication, or immediately upon death if not published. No more death + 70 years.
24. Re:Abandoned games... by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ive thought about this too. If something is no longer being sold then the copyright should automatically expire. The point of copyright is to allow a copyright owner to make a profit from the work. However, if they are no longer selling the work, there is no point any more. The copyright should expire. Maybe there should be a provision to allow the copyright to be revived if they do start publishing it again. But, I am also for a 30 year copyright term for a corporate copyright or life of the author for a living person copyright. No more perpetual copyrights
25. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  What's stopping the person who finds it from claiming it as their own? Maybe the person who read it might know the truth, but there are no guarantees in your scenario.
26. Re:Abandoned games... by Kierthos · 2018-02-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the expansions directly build on the previous expansions, though. Like, events at the end of the Mists of Pandaria expansion directly led to the start of the Warlords of Draenor expansion which led to the Legion expansion.
  So, you couldn't have a server that was just "Classic and Legion". It would have to (at a minimum) be "Classic/Mists/Warlords/Legion". That is, if you wanted Legion.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
27. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  As far as I understand US law (IANAL), there is no difference. There's just people who feel that since online games whose servers have been shut down are completely unavailable, there should be a change in copyright status that lets third parties bring the abandoned services online again. Personally I agree, but this is not law and likely will not be as long as MPAA and friends have a stranglehold on the copyright business.
28. Re:Abandoned games... by TheInternet01 · 2018-02-05 02:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But do you have the ability to remove the book from people's hands, update it's content without their permission and desire to do and then go after them if they find a way to read the original copy of the book?
  If they purchase your book, and you charge a subscription to access a book club so they can attend with other book readers, is it right that you can take the book away if they no longer wish to attend the book club? Or go after them if they take their book to another book club that doesn't charge them for attending?
  The biggest flaw is the fact that you have to purchase the game / book and then you're only paying for access to their servers. it shouldn't be illegal in these cases if using a legitimate purchased copy of the game to play on other servers. Or hosting the other servers / book clubs.
  
  --
  Uplink Hosting - Web/email at an affordable price with high performance - https://uplinkhosting.ca/link.php?id=3
29. Re:Abandoned games... by MobyDisk · 2018-02-05 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Companies only started releasing those games in response to the public constantly pirating them. It seems like we need pirates to help the copyright holders find valid business models.
30. Re:Abandoned games... by myth24601 · 2018-02-05 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Everquest has what they call progression servers where they start a server out without any expansions and gradually add the expansion content over time. Perhaps this is what WoW is planning to do. Having played on the most recent progression server, it seems like it has managed to bring back people who hadn't played in years for the nostalgia of how EQ was years ago.
  
  --
  No matter where you go, there you are.
31. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm with you 100%, except for the phrase "committing a crime". If you had said, "infringing copyright", which is almost never criminal, your comment would be perfect.
32. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Because most people don't really understand or know what "copyright" is but rather assume that paying for a product meant to completely be the owner of the product. Also, most people who are arguing on the ownership of the game version are actually talking about "ethical" part which has nothing to do with the "legal" part of the copyright.
33. Re:Abandoned games... by AsylumWraith · 2018-02-05 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  As another poster commented further upthread, that's not what the GP is talking about.
  Since Cataclysm, there are parts of the original game that are literally no longer playable. The entirety of the Barrens and Thousand Needles zones have been completely revamped, for example. Most capital cities have evolved. There's a lot of content that's no longer in the game.
  Now, I don't think that makes a case to call that content "abandoned," and it's damned obvious that Blizzard is doing this now because they are indeed planning on releasing a "Classic" version of WoW; so I see this as a good thing. I'd rather play on a server maintained by Blizz, rather than some no name that could be doing God-knows-what.
34. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  I think the argument is that they aren't distributing the art. Well, at least no in theory. It's that people have already bought it top lay the original game. All they are doing is providing a server to play on.
35. Re:Abandoned games... by PhoenixFlare · 2018-02-05 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, perhaps I was a bit harsh, but that's basically what I was getting at.
  In Blizzard's collective mind, I imagine they don't feel like they've abandoned anything, only improved. Whether it's *actually* an improvement is debatable i'm sure, but their game, their rules.
36. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  There is a difference between adding new features / tweaking balance, and making fundamental changes to the environment and storyline. I never got in to WoW so I couldn't tell you when it changed nor to what extent, but I do have an example from a different MMO. FFXIV. The "A Realm Reborn" expansion altered fundamental aspects of the game, and it is now impossible to officially play vanilla FFXIV.
37. Re:Abandoned games... by subanark · 2018-02-05 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Lets see what do I remember about EQ (got to level 20):
  1. The game was full screen. Any attempt to switch to another app would close EQ
  2. Having to type /con to determine approximately what level an NPC was relative to your own.
  3. Solo play outside of a couple of classes was impossible due to anything granting XP being able to kill you
  4. Having to sit down to slowly regain mana, Also move, sit, wait for mana regen tick, move, repeat.
  5. Unlike WoW multiple characters couldn't occupy the same place.
  6. Massive XP penalization for dying. Clerics could resurrect you to restore some XP, but their 100% XP restore had a 1 day cool down.
  7. Players who volunteered to be in game customer support (they got free subscription).
  8. A high level quest which involved sitting under water for 3 hours +/- 15 minutes for an NPC to show up.
  9. Having to compete with other players on an NPC that spawns once per week for its loot/quest requirement.
  10. No private party only dungeons.
  11. Daylight savings screwed up the servers
  12. If you died you had to get your gear back from your body.
  13. I played after they removed the part where you had to stare at a book in the UI to recover mana
  14. If you got blind, the UI, including chat with other players was black. Although you could hit just fine.
  15. A hack called "Show EQ" pissed off devs and was pretty much undetectable, as you ran it on a proxy server running Linux.
  16 If you carry too much you can go to 0 movement speed. If you got a buff to walk, then even the smallest fall was fatal.
  17, An invisible NPC called "Pain and suffering" which would attack any player lower than 0 hp, but not yet dead (very unlikey at high levels).
  So, No thanks to that. I'm not touching EQ again.
38. Re:Abandoned games... by spire3661 · 2018-02-05 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  If they want continued copyright protection for it, yes. Copyright is a social bargain, it was never intended to let creators remove works.
  
  --
  Good-bye
39. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  There's no real difference. To go back to the hoary chestnut, copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
  If the art in question is abandoned, the author/inventor is no longer making use of that exclusive right. Copyright still grants them exclusivity but it probably shouldn't. It would better promote the progress of science and useful arts to make it clear that when you're done with something and no longer attempt to profit from it, that's the end of your copyright.
40. Re:Abandoned games... by Spamalope · 2018-02-05 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  If the art assets are client side, then there is no copying.
41. Re:Abandoned games... by parkinglot777 · 2018-02-05 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Also, "abandon" doesn't invalidate the copyright ownership of the product. Many people think that "abandoning" gives them the right to copy/use without an explicit statement from the copyright owner. That is completely wrong by the meaning of law. These people are likely thinking and misunderstanding of ethical part, not legal part.
42. Re:Abandoned games... by bv728 · 2018-02-05 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  To play, you have to download a 5.6gb package from them. I very much doubt they're pushing a 5.6gb client package that contains none of that.
43. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  All of these old dungeons (with the exception of Naxxramas v1.0) are available on the live servers. You can go run them any time you want. You can even disable experience point gains so you don't overlevel them. Only problem might be finding other likeminded individuals who want to disregard everything else the game has to offer.
  Or is that the problem? Are you seriously claiming that other people playing one of the roughly two hundred and fifty dungeons released in the last ten years, rather than the three oldest ones you want to run, is justification enough to play for free?
  Well actually no they are not. They are available in name only since all of them have been re-engineered to better fit in the new dungeon system
44. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is a matter of opinion. While copyright law doesn't explicitly state that copying is OK when official purchases aren't possible, the company who owns the copyright cannot be harmed if they offer no opportunities for purchase. Additionally, the whole purpose of copyright is to encourage publishers to create works for the public. If they are withholding said works, the premise of the copyright is no longer valid and as such the copyright should be voided.
45. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  If something has become widely disseminated and published, an argue can be made if it goes out of print, the copyright should expire. If something has made an impact on culture then we should preserve information. Copyright is different from privacy laws for such things as personal information. These are works of fiction, cultural documentation, technical documentation and source code, etc. Its interesting how the US has this really draconian mentality on copyright for works that have been disseminated to millions but refuses to enact sound data retention and right to be forgotten laws for personal, private information. TOTALLY BACKWARDS.
  Copyright was once a much shorter term, thanks to politicians being bought off, they constantly extended it over and over again. The point of copyright is to ensure the copyright holder can make a profit. If they are no longer making a profit off a disseminated work, whats the point? The term should also be shortened back to where it used to be. Such long terms are for those who are producing nothing and just want to milk the cow. Walt Disney is long dead yet they want to continue to instead of making quality new content, continue to extract money from old stuff. Having a shorter copyright term and auto expiration for out of print will encourage more content creation because in order to keep on making money people will have to create new content.
46. Re:Abandoned games... by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-05 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Shorter copyright terms. Trademarks are perpetual: you have to renew them, and protect them; if you fail to renew, eventually it becomes a dead trademark. Copyright shouldn't be hundreds of years, though.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
47. Re:Abandoned games... by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-05 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need separate servers. You just need to have programmed your game in an object-oriented model by which you swap out the components to make the configuration you want, and instantiate separate components for each apparent "server" configuration.
  Granted that takes planning or refactoring.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
48. Re:Abandoned games... by RedK · 2018-02-05 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  They're on those servers to return to the era when the game was played by people who's goal wasn't the collection of stuff and end-game play.
  So basically, they want to play a game that never existed. WoW has always been about collection and end game play. "The game starts at max level" is something that's been a mantra since even the days of Vanilla.
  Don't kid yourself. People who play on those servers just are to cheap for a monthly sub and just want to play for free.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
49. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you never published it makes it the complete opposite of what is being talked about here. Here, your book would have been published and widely sold. But, you lost interest in continuing to sell the book, for whatever reason. Next, there is a small fanbase that wants to keep sharing the book, but it is no longer sold. They don't have rights to the book, so they can't sell it. (They may not be interested in selling it either.) Yet, they want others to be able to get it so they start giving it away for free, claiming that you abandoned the book in the sense that you STOPPED selling it.
50. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  "the community never was that way"
  It was. People who say this forget that they're self-selecting from the company they kept in those times. If one *wanted* this type of interaction, it was there because game mechanics of the time allowed it to be there. It's much harder to "be there" any more because deliberate (but likely un-intended of the consequence) design choices not only failed to encourage but indeed discouraged repeat "collaboration".
  "I want to play with people who think like I do"
  Yeah, that's the problem. Hopefully it'll change. In a country that deifies competition, it is funny to me, this weird way that copyright can be used to stifle competition. These subscription games (and other similar arrangements) are more like services than 'works of art'. You provide the work of art, but as an ongoing, evolving service. If the art is great but the service sucks, why can't there be a competing service with the underlying art? Seems like a nuanced distinction worth trying in the realm of copyright law.
  "you're committing a crime"
  Lol, what crime? Breach of contract? Copyright infringement is hardly a "crime". Blizzard can sue for it in civil court, but no one is going to jail unless they also commit fraud or perjury or something.
  This is a non-trivial distinction since it lands the burden and responsibility for the enforcement and custodianship of the copyright squarely on Blizzard, not the police, or the government.
51. Re: Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  If i were designing the game, inconsequential stuff like quest text will be in the client. Servers can then focus on the things like calculating what the player is in range of (which could easily be a "clean room" implementation). There should be nothing but replaceable algorithms server side (quests and items being represented by id numbers)
52. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  I can write a book and not even publish it, just let one person read it and then put it in a closet. I die and somebody finds it. That book will still have my copyrights and the kids will enjoy it for 70 years after I die.
  Actually no, unless that "one person" was registering the work with the US copyright office, then you have committed an act of fraud and your copyrights to that work are null and void.
  Despite what rip-off-artists like yourself want to parrot and FUD about, having a copyright on a work comes with a COST that you need to pay.
  It isn't a financial cost, it is a cost of ensuring at your own expense and effort that your work will be available to all of the public 70 years after you die.
  If you fail to make that payment, your right is null and void.
  A great many of us feel this should be no different than intentionally and purposely writing a bad check that you know you don't and will not have the funds to cover.
  A great many of us no longer care to accept your bad checks due to your industries history of bouncing them and the very attitude you show here, that is publicly stating for the world to see that you have NO intent to make good on your payment while flaunting your fraud as something you can get away with.
  This is exactly why you have no moral right to complain when things get pirated.
  We the public are simply taking OUR rights back while showing your flaunted criminal fraudulent behavior for what it is.
53. Re:Abandoned games... by retchdog · 2018-02-05 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  "it was never intended to let creators remove works."
  if one has actually looked at the history of copyright and how closely it has hewn to censorship and state control, the irony of this claim is overwhelming. even if it were technically true, copyright was definitely intended to let the licensor remove works. the "creator" is just someone you try to avoid paying...
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
54. Re:Abandoned games... by Cederic · 2018-02-05 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Basically, you're confirming that EQ was hardcore. Sadly that's no longer commercially viable as MMOs rely on network effects, and the networks build around the less punitive games - as you indicate you'd prefer yourself.
  It's a shame though, as EQ did have a tremendous amount of content and did help define a genre. I'm not sure I'd want to play it myself if it was released today (with shiny new graphics, etc) but EQ does have its place in gaming history.
  Incidentally, points 2, 5, 7 and 16 aren't necessarily bad at all. Shit, you could /con something, find that it's pathetic and still get utterly hammered for attacking it. My first death happened that way..
55. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  Vanilla WoW is an abandoned game...
56. Re:Abandoned games... by damnbunni · 2018-02-05 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  A Realm Reborn wasn't an expansion, it was a relaunch of the game because the original version sucked so hard they had to stop selling it and charging subscription fees.
57. Re:Abandoned games... by MoralCharacter · 2018-02-05 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure you can call classic abandoned now that Blizzard has publicly announced new official classic servers at their last convention.
  
  It's coming back, and the plan is "Classic as it was, nothing more". No word on which classic content patches will be included or if these patches will be introduced over time.
58. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's worth making the point that releasing a console game on a mobile app store is not the exact same game.
  If I can't play it with a console controller and have to use a touchscreen, it's not the same game.
59. Re:Abandoned games... by suutar · 2018-02-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  It would perhaps be more accurate to have said "the Constitution's provision allowing copyright has no indication that allowing permanent removal of works is intentional". As you note, what it was used for before that and what it's (in practice) been used for are not quite the same thing as what it's supposedly intended for.
60. Re:Abandoned games... by retchdog · 2018-02-05 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  oh, well sure, and also it's only intended to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", which would, read strictly, invalidate a large proportion of copyrights, depending on what exactly "useful" means.
  but that's mostly irrelevant. for better or worse, the federal government has that power until such point as the Constitution is amended. everything else is fluff and flavor text.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
61. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 05:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Vanilla WoW is indeed an abandoned game. There is nowhere you can play it and it is no longer supported in any way by Blizzard.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
62. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well, to be pedantic, if they DO find any example, then the "nobody," in literal, is false, as it takes a single counter-example to disprove an absolute statement.
63. Re:Abandoned games... by T.E.D. · 2018-02-05 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Time was, copyright required not only registering the copyright, but periodically renewing the registration. That kind of scheme would solve a rather lot of problems.
64. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Don't kid yourself. People who play on those servers just are to cheap for a monthly sub and just want to play for free.
  Some, maybe, but all? for sure.
65. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  as they have already bought the game?
  I play on the server in question and have never bought the game. There is no actual requirement to do so, unlike the official game.
66. Re:Abandoned games... by Toad-san · 2018-02-05 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  And you had to buy each and every one of the "expansions". I'm looking at "Mists of Pandaria", "Warlords of Draenor",
  "Wrath of the Lich King", "Cataclysm", "Burning Crusade", "Legion" right now, sitting up there on my shelf. 45 bucks each. None of them require the original "vanilla" WoW from back in 2004 (which I also bought for $45 as I recall. So why can't I just play the original on a fan server, and NOT buy all the expansions.
  I have to wonder what would happen if I booted up a copy of the original and logged in to the Blizzard server. Would it play at all?
67. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that nearly all end game content: Dire Maul, Maraudon, Stratholme, Naxxramas, AQ 20/40, ZG, Blackwing Lair, Battlegrounds, et all were all patched into vanilla, right?
  The only end game content in Vanilla WoW at release was MC40 and Ony.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
68. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Everything you list here is contained on the client side, which is bought at retail. Everyone playing retro servers bought this and therefore legitimately can play it without copyright violation... The only thing the sever does is authenticate and then send the interaction information back and forth (location, HP/MP, item tracking, etc.) and those same things for the mobs. The mob AI is actually run on the client side from what I understand. The server side load is as minimal as possible by design.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
69. Re:Abandoned games... by kfsone · 2018-02-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Dear Sir/Madam, I forced the lock on your back door this morning to find this house abandoned. I had to force the lock because you did not offer access to the tv or coffee machine and this exclusion creep was forcing me to use the space in a way I never intended to.
  If you offer public access to your rooms, we can talk.
  
  --
  -- A change is as good as a reboot.
70. Re:Abandoned games... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  You are quite disconnected from the game and its history ... players who want to play for fun, hardcore, but not necessarily endgame only, who enjoy the story and love leveling meanwhile moslty quit.
  To cheap to pay the monthly subscription, in a game that is free to play since years? And never was expensive anyway?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
71. Re: Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  So games undergoing active development are now abanoned?
  What kind of bullshit rationalization is that?
72. Re:Abandoned games... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  All what Blizzard 'owns' is client side.
  And the players bought the client ...
  They have no claim at all against people running servers. Perhaps you dont know what copy means in the term copyright?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
73. Re:Abandoned games... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  From or After(not sure) the the third expansion you could have downloaded them for free.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
74. Re:Abandoned games... by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Blizzard own copyright over things like Quest Text, art design, textures, logos, map designs, and sound/music independently of the game."
  Yeah, and I'd bet nearly all of that is baked into the client. Quest text is the only thing I'd suspect could be server-side, and that's a simple change if it's found to be infringing.
  Blizzard sold people the client. These people are just offering a server.
  Where's the infringement on which specific copyright elements?
75. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think the missing part of the equation is that in your example, you never sold your book to anyone. In the realm of software, and games in particular, it is more akin to you writing a book, selling that book to millions of people, then several years later, completely erasing the book and rewriting it from scratch and remotely deleting the original work from all of your customers possession. This is essentially what Blizzard did with the Cataclysm expansion. Now your customers no longer have access to the original book that they paid for because you decided to make it so with no option or recourse on the part of the millions of people who bought the original book...
  When changing the medium to a book, from a game, it becomes much more clearly a violation of customer rights. The sad thing is that it would have been trivial to preserve the old content via a time portal to let players choose if they wanted to play pre or post Cataclysm.
  There was an epidemic of the same kind of shit in the Apple IOS app store a few years back, where there were dozens of apps that had crippleware updates, with averts saying basically, congrats, you bought our app a couple of years ago, now buy our new one that does the same thing with updated UI graphics, because we crippled your old app so it is buggy and slow and took away key functionality, or we crammed in a bunch of adds and made the app you bought free, and now you need to buy our new app to get rid of the adds.... It got so bad I stopped updating my apps altogether and now only update apps that actually require updates.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
76. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  The conflation of data/ideas and concrete items shows no effort or ability to comprehend the copyright issue. This post can safely be ignored.
77. Re:Abandoned games... by kfsone · 2018-02-05 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  This inability to see the drawing of a parallel between data/ideas and concrete items shows now effort or ability to comprehend the copyright issue. The coward can safely be ignored.
  
  --
  -- A change is as good as a reboot.
78. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly that's just pretty silly. Versioning the game at the object model level would add a ridiculous amount of complexity, and maintenance would be a nightmare because instead of supporting the latest release or two, you need to support every release in perpetuity. You could probably just host separate physical servers with old builds for the same price of labor...
79. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  There is no class balance, and death was penalized by having to spend a good 5 minutes or more walking back as a ghost to your body (in harder content areas).
  There was class balance, but the devil is in the details. Like.. which patch from Vanilla will they settle on? The classes changed radically throughout alpha (you could claim that the classes were not finished on release), and my guess is that they'll settle on the Naxxramas release patch.
  Now, I said classes were fairly balanced, but it's worth noting that not all specs for a class were equally viable. IE, in end-game PvE, if you were a priest, druid, shaman, or paladin, you were a healer**. Ret/shadow/feral/etc were not viable until Burning Crusade. So if you really liked playing a DPS druid, yes that's true, you were definitely not viable. And don't bother being a fire mage in Molten Core, etcetc.
  ** Last note about balance, there was one exception where the balance was waaaaaay out of whack -- paladins were much, much better than shaman were. If you wanted real end-game progression, you were Alliance, not Horde. Shaman had nothing, NOTHING on Paladin blessings. That was crazy, and I don't blame Blizzard for making all classes usable by both factions later on.
80. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Basically, you're confirming that EQ was hardcore.
  Was it "hardcore?" Or was it just annoying? Yes, there are a lot of things that you can do to make the game "harder," or more accurately, more tedious without being more fun. There are a ton of things in Warcraft vanilla that are long gone as well (like paying a shit-ton of gold to change specs, manually summoning mana-water two drinks at a time and handing out stacks of 20 of them to dozens of raiders) and the game is better when you're actually playing the game, not going through some unpleasant grunt work like the points I mentioned, or your points of 2,3,4,8,9,13... No one's actually mentioned crafting in EQ yet either, though actually I kindof liked that system. I know lots of people have complained about crafting in WoW Legion (it's harder, and the rewards don't really seem commensurate to the effort needed compared to other sections of the game), but I like a harder, rewarding crafting system.
  Though I kindof like point 7 as well. I know that Blizzard has community MVP who are non-employees, and I never knew if they got any perks or what actually someone might get out of that besides a pat on the back.
81. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  Preferring the way the community was back then is a respectable opinion. There's just two problems with it. First, no, the community never was that way, you just have your nostalgia goggles on extra tight
  That's BS. Maybe that's the way it was on your server, but on mine the community was fairly tight. The people you saw on city chat were often people you knew, many of the big/progressed guilds knew each other, and it was that way because often you had to band together like that to get five-man groups. Once they added cross battlegroup random matchmaking partying, the in-server community faded away because game mechanics no longer forced a local server community. You could party elsewhere, more easily. That's good if you're looking to run dungeons easily, but it had the side effect of killing off server communities.
82. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Lol, what crime? Breach of contract? Copyright infringement is hardly a "crime". Blizzard can sue for it in civil court, but no one is going to jail unless they also commit fraud or perjury or something.
  They could probably make some sort of DMCA type of argument about access controls being broken, but I'm not sure about that since actual Blizzard servers aren't being used.
83. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that nearly all end game content: Dire Maul, Maraudon, Stratholme, Naxxramas, AQ 20/40, ZG, Blackwing Lair, Battlegrounds, et all were all patched into vanilla, right?
  The only end game content in Vanilla WoW at release was MC40 and Ony.
  We're also used to a game now where you can rush through the early levels, but when I started early in Vanilla, I think it took me about four months to reach level 60. The leveling system was a bit more of a grind, but I thought the zones and the quests were a little more interesting back then then they were after the Cataclysm revamp. Except for the Horde. The Barrens were boring. Back then, the game catered more to the Alliance; far more work was done on their earlier zones.
84. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 08:35 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Yeah EQ was hard. That's what made it epic.
  But you're clearly a wuss. Go back to nintendo where everyones a winner and gets a trophy.
85. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Dear Sir/Madam, I forced the lock on your back door this morning to find this house abandoned.
  This immediately falls apart in that there is no Blizzard server/property involved.
  Maybe if I could build a perfect duplicate of the house in my back yard and then forced ITS back door open, we'd have a more apt analogy.
86. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Blizzard own copyright over things like Quest Text, art design, textures, logos, map designs, and sound/music independently of the game. If they rebuilt their servers without using any of those, the case would be in question, but it's not.
  Yes, but all of that comes with the game CLIENT, it is not being sent by the server. Modern WoW servers are able to do some game content streaming, but Vanilla certainly did not. When you create a Vanilla server, the server is simply sending instructions for "display text for quest 14311. Display character with model 15451." That made it possible to (though against the ToS) replace the in-game character models with something else. The actual text and the models and the sound are not sent over the network; the game was originally built (and for the most part, still is) for the client to have basically all the IP, with communication between client and server being low-bandwidth. So the IP infringement here is on the installation of the vanilla client, and I suppose Blizzard could make some sort of DMCA claim on the access controls of the client.
87. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  everquest DEVS and daybreak gave greenlight/and blessings to emu servers and there is many emulated servers pvp pve oldschool remix etc
88. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone playing retro servers bought this and therefore legitimately can play it without copyright violation...
  I'm... guessing that's probably the case, but there doesn't have to be. For instance, I'm pretty sure you can't use the actual WoW client with a legacy server, you have to download a copy of the client that was the version that matches the server. There's no check to tell if you owned the game, so technically anyone who never bought the game could download that client and pay without playing. I think doing that counts as a copyright violation even if the user owns the full retail version of the game with a current subscription.
89. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  From or After(not sure) the the third expansion you could have downloaded them for free.
  Yeah, but it still requires a game subscription. They let you play for free up to level 20.
  Right now, they offer "World of Warcraft" (including every expansion before the current one, 1 - 100) for $10, though you will need to purchase a subscription or game time to actually play the game. The current expansion retails for $30 now.
  They also offer "World of Warcraft: Complete Collection" for $90, and I'm not sure what really is the point of that. I think it comes with Legion and a pre-purchase for the next expansion ($50 value) along with a month of game time ($15 value), so it's basically the $10 bundle and $25 for Legion. So I guess that whole bundle saves you... $5? Maybe worth it if you really want to play NOW, but it'll be more economical a year from now.
90. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Also, "abandon" doesn't invalidate the copyright ownership of the product.
  Certainly not, but it certainly helps me "abandon" any guilt over downloading a ROM, especially if I'd paid for the game already back in the day.
91. Re: Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it should be dependent on usage now. We live in a constantly changing world. I think copyright, trademark and patet law should be rewritten from the ground up.
  I think it should stay the way it is, because in today's environment, if it was ever to be "rewritten," it would be a lot less "free" than it is today. Intellectual property would simply be enshrined as pure property, with copying rights enshrined having no limitation just like physical property. The only pushback against that we ever get today is because the older rules were a little more non-copyright-holder friendly and respected that copyright was supposed to be a balance -- a limitation on someone's rights with the expectation that they get something in return: more works entering the public domain. Yeah, yeah, I know, continuous extension of the already-ridiculous copyright terms have broken this agreement, but I do think that things COULD get a lot worse, and absolutely would in our current overly-friendly environment to corporate copyright interests.
92. Re:Abandoned games... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  4. Having to sit down to slowly regain mana, Also move, sit, wait for mana regen tick, move, repeat.
  And while you are changing the spells on your bar, you are looking at the spell book completely oblivious to your environment.
93. Re:Abandoned games... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-02-05 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  How does the fact that an abandoned property becomes valuable enough to restore affect whether it was abandoned in the first place. Maybe if people worried about the future use of their products, they wouldn't abandon them in the first place.
  We have analogs for abandoning physical things. You don't get to change your mind once the situation changes.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
94. Re:Abandoned games... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-02-05 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think the abandonded use is trying to find a compromise between losing a fight to Disney every time Steamboat Willy is about to enter the public domain and every work having a 95+year copyright.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
95. Re:Abandoned games... by T.E.D. · 2018-02-05 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that "version" of the game is abandoned.
  The release had a bug where only one Paladin could advance their mount quest past a particular mob every server reboot (he didn't respawn right after being killed). By this logic that version is also "abandoned", because they fixed that bug about a week in.
  Those were the days! Relogging your stuck Paladin in a panic the instant the server came back from a crash in hopes you could finally play him again... Paladin's really appreciated their mounts back then. Not like you young whippersnappers that just get given yours.
96. Re:Abandoned games... by Opportunist · 2018-02-05 10:54 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, some MMOs learned the hard way that they released expansions that killed the game. DAoC being my favorite example to be paraded out as a key example showing off how NOT to make expansions.
  Their Trials of Atlantis expansions killed the game. If you're interested, I can go into detail but the tl;dr version is that the game is very heavily realm-vs-realm focused and it became impossible to level new toons to competitive levels after ToA was out for about 6-8 months. Plus it killed crafting.
  It was actually SO bad that they did in the end release "classic" servers that contained only the first (and arguably best, in MMO history) expansion, Shrouded Islands. But the damage was done and players had already left.
  So yes, sometimes MMO makers make "classic" server available. Mostly when the expansion(s) they release kill off the game...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
97. Re:Abandoned games... by Opportunist · 2018-02-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Some MMOs had to offer "classic" server models eventually when they noticed that some expansions didn't meet customer expectations or had a negative impact on player experience. The aforementioned DAoC being one. AO had to remove their "Sloobs" program where you could play the game for 5 bucks a month with only the Shadow Lands expansion, with the intention to hook the "froobs" (free-to-play gamers who got the game with no expansions) on paying and eventually getting the whole package, when they noticed that people dumped their old AO accounts and started new "sloob" accounts because the Alien Invasion expansion wasn't something they actually liked (and frankly, it sucked, SL was one of the best expansions ever, AI was ... well, it killed the original game) and they could play the game they wanted to play for 5 instead of 15 bucks a month.
  That's just two of the better known MMOs out there that tried the "classic" approach. One had to do it, one tried it as a marketing gag and it backfired badly. In both cases, though it was obvious that players actually WANT to have that sort of gameplay and at least in the first case it is also obvious that people are quite willing to pay for that privilege, too, despite having the option to play the "fully expanded" version as well, and for the same price.
  Personally, I'd say a smart company would simply offer the people what they want. Especially if that means that they have to spend less money. I mean, what's easier and cheaper to do than to just change basically nothing?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
98. Re:Abandoned games... by Opportunist · 2018-02-05 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  WoW is free to play now? When did this happen?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
99. Re:Abandoned games... by Chris+Mattern · 2018-02-05 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Blizzard is saying they're going to stand up some Classic servers, which should also provide access to the content that Cataclysm removed. That said, they haven't done it yet.
100. Re:Abandoned games... by Chris+Mattern · 2018-02-05 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  WoW is free to play now? When did this happen?
  Sorta. With Starter Edition, you don't have to pay subsciption fees but you're capped at level 20 (and, I think, one character). People can buy subsciption tokens and sell them in the auction house, as well, providing people with a way to play without spending real money. Both of these have been in place for years.
101. Re:Abandoned games... by Zaelath · 2018-02-05 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is a list of all my favourite things about EQ, including the part where kids that couldn't handle the higher level content never got past LOIO or level 20...
102. Re:Abandoned games... by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  If you consider there are hundreds of servers and a handful of expansions, that doesn't seem unreasonable at all. There's at least enough players on the free servers to keep them populated.
  WoW runs a never-ending treadmill of delivering new items that make the old items obsolete, giving you ways to fast-forward to reach their latest content, and giving you new things to collect. The entire game operates on hoarder instinct and a feeling of progress. In the original game, most of the content was well balanced. There were reasons to collect the things, the collections were a manageable size, and you spent enough time at each level to enjoy the content for that level. I never even made it to the end game content and I didn't really care, because the journey was fun.
  Ever since that original release, each content pack has made the early levels of the game less enjoyable. Now, you rocket through the early levels, 10% of the original items are completely gone, and the other 90% have no purpose beyond 30 minutes of play time, especially if they take longer than 30 minutes to acquire.
  Then on top of that, in the Cataclysm expansion they literally wrecked a majority of the old game world. ('cause "cataclysm", right?) and so the old quest zones are all scarred and burned and look horrible. Blizzard deliberately destroyed all those zones where people might have had fun memories questing around with friends and there is no way to go back. The old dungeons are pointless, the player levels are so spread out (since you only remain at a level for a half hour) that you can't find anyone willing to waste time in the low-level content (or pretty much any content except end-game).
  I knew that back when I was paying monthly for access to the game that they didn't have any obligation to preserve the world for me, and that I was paying for a service rather than a copy of software. But I'm still highly annoyed at them for cutting out and obsoleting all the old content, and I'm more than happy to play on private servers and give the middle finger to their EULA that I clicked through 14 years ago.
  If and when they do re-release the Classic servers, I will probably try to recruit some friends and re-live some of the fun with an official server. And when the new players stop showing up and everyone maxes out at level 60 I will probably quit again, because I have no interest in investing my life in end-game raids, or moving to their current twisted up version of the game.
  (I'm a nostalgic sort of guy, as you might guess from my 14-year-old sig)
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
103. Re:Abandoned games... by subanark · 2018-02-05 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think the reason I left EQ was that I was failing collage, so I moved back home with my folks who didn't have internet (and took classes at an easier school). While I do have a masters now with a good job I was young then; to quote George W Bush, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible".
104. Re:Abandoned games... by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  WoW has always been about collection and end game play. "The game starts at max level" is something that's been a mantra since even the days of Vanilla.
  LOL? I played for 4 years and never did most of the end game content. I walked away with good memories that I'd like to go back to. I know other people who sacrificed their social lives to farm up enough gear and items to raid on a military schedule with people who they didn't necessarily like.
  In the early years there were a lot of both types of players. I think the reason the population fell so much is that the casual adventurers all left after the Nth time that Blizzard destroyed/obsoleted the portions of the game they enjoyed. Especially Cataclysm.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
105. Re:Abandoned games... by Zaelath · 2018-02-05 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Fair dues, there are no bad reasons for quitting an MMO, and I get quietly annoyed at anyone that attempts to get a "friend" to play one now ;)
106. Re:Abandoned games... by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  They don't serve that package, they tell you do "go find it" i.e. from your harddrive backup from 2005. Obviously not many people are doing it that way, but they pass on the copyright infraction to the users.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
107. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a copy of the original discs (which I do, or which you can get on eBay for a few bucks) you do indeed have a legit copy that requires no illicit downloads. Blizzard cannot complain about people who own a copy of the game playing on a private server because those people "might" be using a pirated copy. IF they can prove that, that only gives them means to go after the individual pirate.
  Also, considering that WoW has shed about 14,000,000 players, I am pretty sure that getting a legit copy of Vanilla WoW on disc is not a problem.
  "There's no check to tell if you owned the game, so technically anyone who never bought the game could download that client and pay without playing. I think doing that counts as a copyright violation even if the user owns the full retail version of the game with a current subscription."
  Uhhh, hell no. Every PC game I played for the first 20 plus years had no mechanism to "phone home" to check in and see if the copy I was using was legit... You have been thoroughly brainwashed (or just grown up with fewer rights) than those of us who knew gaming before DRM where game makers went by the motto "Try our game, if you like it send us a check so we can make more." (shareware). It made quite a few games blockbusters and tons of cash back in the day. All without some asshat greedhead MBA fretting that a few 12 year old kids with no money might get to play the game (gasp!) without paying for it...
  These days those kids just torrent a cracked version anyway, but the rest of us now have to put up with all kinds of bullshit DRM so the MBAs can sleep at night with their false sense of vindication...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
108. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 17:08 · Score: 2
  
  I definitely agree. I was lucky enough to get in on the Vanilla open beta and started playing the minute the official servers launched. The leveling was far more challenging than it is today, the skill trees were very in depth (I miss those). There are some conveniences that I would hate to give up (AOE loot for one), but in Vanilla, the worlds were actually worth exploring and advancement felt meaningful. These days any 6 year old who can mash a few keys and has 40h to play can get a max level toon using the LFG tool without ever leaving their capitol city. Back in the day if you persevered to 60, it really meant something and without cross realm function, if you were an asshole, you got left out in the cold, as was right.
  For me the sweet spot of difficulty, depth and game quality peaked in Burning Crusade and then Lich King. Everything since has been a cash grab and a dumbing down for the kiddies.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
109. Re:Abandoned games... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-06 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  WoW can be played to level 30 or so since nearly a decade for free.
  After wards you can sub or play with in game currency (since about 3 years?) ... no idea if it is "wow gold" or another version, never checked.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
110. Re:Abandoned games... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-06 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well,
  I played till Mist of Pandora. Just a few days to level from 80 to 90 ... most boring expansion ever. Did only visit a part of the world, the stupid kung fu panda simply made me sad. I think I was not even in an instance ... don't remember.
  But hardcore I only played Burning Crusade ... hm, not sure, lets say "first expansion" ;D
  I liked the heroic instances which needed skills and not just gear ...
  PVP never really worked ... except for battle grounds. The classes are simply to unbalanced and most people want to play their "main" in pve and pvp and not two different chars just to "win" in pvp.
  Anyway, after vanilla and then first expansion the game went downhill.
  The developers/designers have no clue. They think attracting new 16 year olds to the game as new players makes more money than keeping the 50 year olds in the game.
  Player base is declining since a decade ...
  Such a great game handled so badly ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
111. Re: Abandoned games... by CyberRacer · 2018-02-06 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  It does raise an interesting possibilty of building versioning into a game from the outset. Normaly in a versioning progression, small revision changes are usually more compatible than the big ones. So the server itself would simply look up the correct environment for the user's choice. Same hardware, just different looks to suit user tastes.
112. Re:Abandoned games... by Geek+On+The+Hill · 2018-02-06 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I think that should apply to abandoned software in general. If a publisher has pulled a title from the market, has no intention of ever marketing it again, and is no longer supporting it, where are the damages if some individual or group decides to maintain it for legacy users who still find it useful?
  The only argument I can think of would be that is provides users of old software a way out of being coerced to buy newer software when the old software still serves their needs -- a rather poor argument if the software was purchased with a perpetual license. I don't think facilitating extortion is a valid justification for DMCA nor part of its stated purpose.
113. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-06 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh, hell no. Every PC game I played for the first 20 plus years had no mechanism to "phone home" to check in and see if the copy I was using was legit... You have been thoroughly brainwashed (or just grown up with fewer rights) than those of us who knew gaming before DRM where game makers went by the motto
  I'm not brainwashed, I'm not talking about what is moral here, only what is legal. I just realize that the way we do things and the way we've always done things has not always been strictly legal. This was my first rationalization of piracy in the 90s, when I realized that the only way to play the game I'd paid for when the original media was scratched/damaged was to pirate. Looking around I found that it wasn't legal, but it wasn't immoral either. I still have my original boxes of King's Quest II and III on their 5.25" floppies, but I doubt that the 24-year-old floppy drive that I'd saved from my college computer could read them, and I wouldn't feel guilty about downloading disk images for them either.
114. Re:Abandoned games... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-06 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but my understanding is that if you own media (game, movie, music), you are entitled to make a backup copy on whatever media you chose. How you make that legal backup copy is automatically legal (i.e. copying your disc, copying a friends disc, etc) as long as you legally own the media.
  Furthermore, what I was talking about back in the day was shareware (more common in the 1980s) which was shared with the blessing of the software developers.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
115. Re:Abandoned games... by toddestan · 2018-02-06 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  The term "abandoned" is often used when there is no clear copyright owner. So if you want to make a copy, you don't even know who to go to ask permission. That's different from your book example, where it's clear who the copyright owner is (you, or your kids), so it's not really abandoned even if the answer is "no".
  Since there's no clear copyright owner, there's no one who can give you permission to make a copy. On the other hand, that also means there's really no one to object to you making copies either. Hence, it's a bit of a grey area, though the most strict interpretation is that the work is still under copyright, and if you can't get permission to make a copy then you can not just start making copies.
  Compared to books, this really is a bigger problem for games. Books are typically written by a person listed as the author who is clearly identified so it's usually pretty clear who to go to find out about the copyrights. Games are typically created by a company, and many of those old companies don't exist any more and it's unclear what happened to them and where the IP ultimately ended up.
  Another difference is a well stored book can outlast even today's absurd copyright lengths, whereas the original digital media for a game has about a zero chance without a copy being made at some point, which is why there is a push to be able to make copies to preserve old games. Some old movies have some of the same problems as games, with defunct studios long gone, no clear owner of the IP, and the few original cellulose film copies left are literally turning into dust.
116. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-07 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I played till Mist of Pandora. Just a few days to level from 80 to 90 ... most boring expansion ever. Did only visit a part of the world, the stupid kung fu panda simply made me sad.
  I'll admit I liked the pandas, but that's fine. Warlords (the next expansion) had a good leveling experience, but the endgame was terrible outside of raiding. Probably their worst expansion. The current expansion, Legion, is probably their best expansion.
  I love BC, but the zone and quest design was pretty bad. They are simply much better at crafting interesting storylines and interesting zone design now than they were back then. BC had killer raids, though. 5-mans were fairly fun.
  Wrath had well-laid out zones and good quests. No problems there. However, they hit a nasty bump at the start of the end game, as the 5-man dungeons were a bit predictable and really really stupidly easy. Naxx-10/25 was ridiculously easy as well. They rebounded nicely with Ulduar, one of the best raids they've ever done, and added a hard mode for those who wanted more challenge. The rest of the expansion was pretty good too. There was a long time gap between the last content patch and the next expansion, though. That started an unpleasant trend.
  Cataclysm started off well, though the zones were a bit buggy. The 5-mans were hard (this is good!) but so much effort went into the 1-60 redesign that there was nothing left for the endgame. This was the first real endgame doldrums, and this expansion sucked because of it, its only saving grace being excellent raid design. But if you weren't raiding, you weren't doing much. At the end of the expansion, they made the decision to make 5-mans super-easy again, and the new 5-mans released towards the end which were bland and trivial. Dragon Soul lasted too long; there was too long a gap until the next expansion.
  Pandaria had very well designed zones and dungeons and raids, and there was a decent amount to do in the endgame. If you didn't like the whole panda thing, then that's unfortunate, but otherwise it was a pretty good expansion.
  Warlords of Draenor. Hooboy. I think most acknowledge that this was Warcraft's worst expansion. Some good questlines, but they had to scrap many things in development, and it threw the whole feel of the continent for a loop. It felt half-finished because it was half-finished. I think much of their design team either left or was fired or reassigned.
  Legion. Excellent, excellent expansion, top to bottom. I honestly do think that the game is in the best state it's been in since the Vanilla/BC days. If you want casual content you have LFR and regular dungeons, if you want the harder content you have the fixed 20-man mythic raids and higher levels of mythic+ five-man dungeons. Plenty of solo content (way more than I can do..)
  
  The developers/designers have no clue. They think attracting new 16 year olds to the game as new players makes more money than keeping the 50 year olds in the game.
  Not that many 50 year olds are going to stay in the game no matter how much you try to make it like the old days.
  Games need -new- players, or they die completely. There is no way to keep all the old players in the game. If it doesn't change/improve, the old players are going to leave anyway because "it's just the same old thing." Keeping it static in an attempt to keep the old player-base who didn't want change is a fool's dream.
  Also, they realized in BC that their raid design philosophy was totally broken. Less than 5% of the Warcraft players ever saw the inside of 40-man Naxx during Vanilla. Similar numbers apply to Sunwell in BC. That's too much effort that was put into the game that very few people ever saw. It was after that where they offered stripped-down versions of the raids so people could at least see the content, if not clear the difficult option. Afterwards they added flex-mode raiding, probably one if not the best post-launch features they ever added to the game, though it had the side effect of killing the fixed 10-man raid, so I'll never see the inside of mythic raids again. :-D
117. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-07 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but my understanding is that if you own media (game, movie, music), you are entitled to make a backup copy on whatever media you chose
  Oh yes, that is absolutely true. But if you can't copy the actual original media, you're going online and downloading pirated copies, and that's where things get murky. It's a bit like a medical cannabis patient buying weed from a guy in a back alley. He might be legally allowed to smoke, but the way he's getting it could get him into trouble.
  
  Furthermore, what I was talking about back in the day was shareware (more common in the 1980s)
  Ah, for the time when you would trade disks on the schoolyard loaded with 20 or so shareware games.
  Sadly, I never had network access in the 80s (mom did not believe in having computer modems which would tie up the lines or cost money we didn't have).
118. Re:Abandoned games... by Rakarra · 2018-02-07 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes, that is absolutely true. But if you can't copy the actual original media, you're going online and downloading pirated copies, and that's where things get murky. It's a bit like a medical cannabis patient buying weed from a guy in a back alley. He might be legally allowed to smoke, but the way he's getting it could get him into trouble.
  And to clarify my own post...
  He's probably still in the clear though, as these days anti-piracy efforts focus on the sharers, not the leechers. It didn't used to be that way, but that's where we're at now.
Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:04 · Score: 1

There is so much murky ground in the computer game industry that I really wish this is contested and taken to court.
The people running legacy servers do so because they wanted to play the game in the state it was when they bought it.
Blizzard have altered the experience after the purchase and presumably they have reserved the right to do so in the EULA.
The question is if they really have the right to alter it so fundamentally that the end user no long enjoys the experience.
Even if the EULA reserves the rights to do pretty much anything, removing the game or replacing it with another game would typically be considered a scam so it is not like the EULA always is enforceable.
Could the players ask for a refund for the initial cost?
What about the monthly fee? Presumably a part of it should have been used for maintenance of the servers, but since the servers were altered in a way that the players found unusable, shouldn't they be able to get back som of that cost too?
This could also have an impact on professional software. It is not uncommon for features to be removed.
Typically the users that needs that feature stays with the older version then, but with too forceful DRM, not all software might support that option.
WoW Classic is a thing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:10 · Score: 1

http://www.wowhead.com/news=275482/world-of-warcraft-classic-servers-what-we-know-so-far
Blizz has every right to do this.
Not Infringing - Bliz fault by mfh · 2018-02-05 00:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

These private servers are interacting with old clients that were released freely by Bliz. They claim the tables are nearly identical; the tables can easily be remapped.
If I was a judge that'd be my ruling: remap the table names and continue supporting ABANDONWARE; yes, private servers are running abandonware services; they designed the server stuff based on how the client expects to be communicated with.
DCMA has a very specific clause that blocks copyright on ABANDONWARE. Old warcraft patches aren't currently available and were unavailable for many years.
The servers are fine if there is an honest judge hearing the case.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
1. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  So software version 1.1 is abandoned and should be free because patch 1.1.2 is out? That's a special way of looking at it.
2. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by mfh · 2018-02-05 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. 2.4.3 vs, 3.3.5...etc.
  Private servers run different EXPANSIONS. Because Bliz took that feeling away from TBC and WOTLK. CATA garbage, MOP garbage.... and everything else pretty much after.
  Even if Bliz starts to do classic mode (which they are) that still can't change the facts.
  Bliz is wrong; they changed MAJOR aspects of the game to the extent that each expansion is like a GAME in and of itself, and not a VERSION of a GAME.
  That is the final crux; Warcraft is many different games each time there is an expansion and the company DENIES PLAYERS the right of playing previous GAMES.
  ie: TBC is warcraft but it is the game TBC. WOTLK is warcraft but it is the GAME WOTLK. When they bring out this next patch, LEGION will be ABANDONWARE.
  I just hate how nobody UNDERSTANDS THIS. Dammit.
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
3. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by RabidStoat · 2018-02-05 01:31 · Score: 2
  
  I think the word "EXPANSION" (the caps really helps by the way!) .. is the key to it. This isn't like Office 2013 vs 2017, try playing the latest _expansion_ without the "game". And as you well know, elements of every expansion exist in the game today, some more than others - yes elements have been changed or removed, but again, so has the original game from the "as released" version. Whether you like or not, the expansions are exactly that, they are not new versions of the "game".
4. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  I just hate how nobody UNDERSTANDS THIS. Dammit.
  And how can you not understand that Blizzard still (rightfully, I might add) owns the assets?
  Although by your own standards: What about significant mid-expansion changes such as dual-spec, or dungeon finder...things I doubt anyone with your mindset (and feel free to call that a strawman) would likely claim had significant impact on the game.
5. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  tough to argue with someone with that low of an id ;-)
  It won't matter what is decided, people will still run the old servers since they know how to do it without Blizzard's help. Life always finds a way.
6. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Holi · 2018-02-05 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Randomly capitalizing abandonware does not change the fact that WOW is still sold and developed. It is the exact opposite of abandonware.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
7. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  That's like saying Windows XP is not abandoned because you can buy and use Windows 10.
8. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Kjella · 2018-02-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  DCMA has a very specific clause that blocks copyright on ABANDONWARE.
  I was about to write that it must be a drug-induced hallucination, because there's absolutely nothing like that in the DMCA itself. But there's a clause in section 1201(a)(1) that lets the Librarian of Congress create exceptions and apparently in 2015 they apparently granted a very narrow exception valid for three years with the possibility for renewal. I'll quote most from the prelude not the actual legalese but you can find both in the final order here:
  
  With respect to gamers, the Register concluded that the record supported granting an exemption for video games that require communication with an authentication server to allow gameplay when the requisite server is taken offline. (...) At the same time, the Register determined that proponents had failed to provide persuasive support for an exemption for online multiplayer play (...) The Register also confirmed that the exemption for gamers should not extend to jailbreaking of console software
  So it's only video games, not copyrighted works in general. It's only single player games, no MMORPGs or alternative match-making. While the quoted text uses the word "online" there's no provision for networked games at all so no private servers and no LAN play. It does not let you break system-level protections like jailbreak consoles. The wording is a bit ambiguous on patches/DLC but since they're in their nature downloads I think it would be fair game to remove activation from those too. There doesn't seem to be any provision for providing those to others though if the update servers have been shut down, you only get to keep what you already have locally. So it's as narrow as possible, if it's a single-player game on a PC requiring a one-time activation you can disable it. Which IMHO all non-dick companies should do anyway before they shut down the activation server. That's all you get, clearly this project is not covered by this exemption at all.
  P.S. You should also be careful to only distribute such a patch within the US. It's a uniquely American law and there's no telling what could happen in other jurisdictions...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by MoralCharacter · 2018-02-05 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I see. So because you feel changes made to a game are 'garbage', people should be free to take the game and run it themselves however they like. The various private servers hosting realms and taking in profits from """donations""" in exchange for in game items and benefits is harmless legally, I'm sure.
  
  Indie hosting old games that stopped receiving updates or official server support is one thing. It's a whole other thing to do it with a game that has been actively played for the past 14 years with official servers very much alive and well, patches coming out regularly, the company actively promoting and selling the base game (they did still sell it as part of the Warchest bundle, even before Classic was announced) etc. You can't play the game at all without owning 'Classic' WoW.
  
  Things are going to be even less in favor of these private servers now that Blizzard is actively working on classic servers, the 'abandonware' claims are going to go up in smoke regardless of any veracity they may have held. Regardless of how 'trashy' you think the expansions are, there won't be much excuse when you can go back and play it the way it used to be on it's on classic only server.
  
  Personally I've been keeping up with the story and have the events after defeating the Burning Legion to look forward to. I can't see why anyone would want to play an MMO of all things that never changes or gets updated. After you've run the same raids for one year, two years, three... got all the best gear, seen all the sights, killed every monster, what are you playing for after that? Friends? There are lighter applications if you want to chat with people.
10. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Skuld-Chan · 2018-02-05 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the code per se - but the gigabytes of art, music and sound assets these guys are pirating as well (many of which are still in the currently sold game) - which the dmca is well suited for.
  I highly doubt old patches really qualify as abandonware for a game currently for sale.
  I think it's kinda funny how people justify these private servers...
11. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Skuld-Chan · 2018-02-05 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't understand is why you think it's your right to use someone else's property in a way you see fit?
  I mean it may suck, but its not your property (databases, code, art, sound, music etc) and Blizzard - like it or not should still have control over it.
  What your not telling people also - is you can still play all the burning crusade quests, dungeons and raids (same with vanilla, same with wrath, same with cata etc etc) - you can even turn off leveling so you never go past level 70. With the new zone scaling system you can even be a completist - and do every single quest in any given zone to its completion without outleveling it.
  As someone who likes retro games - I think you're abusing the term abandoneware - I think for it to be abandoned it needs to be end of life. Your talking about a game that is actively being developed and sold by a vendor who is still in business. Also ignoring the fact that Blizzard is actively developing a classic mode set of servers - an actual product that does what you want.
12. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  "people should be free to take the game and run it themselves however they like"
  Yes, exactly.
  People bought the game.
  It's theirs now.
  If they want to point it towards a non-Blizzard server, why can't they?
13. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The players who left the game understand that quite well.
  But the game designers .... do they deserve that 'title'? ... don't.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
14. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  The end-users got the assets from Blizzard when they paid money for the game.
  The unofficial servers don't distribute any of that.
  I think it's kinda funny how people justify their lack of justification for these private servers....
15. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Skuld-Chan · 2018-02-05 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  You bought a license to use the art assets with their servers. This is actually in the World of Warcraft EULA:
  http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/c...
  Specifically 2(f).
16. Re: Not Infringing - Bliz fault by liefer · 2018-02-05 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if you CAPITALIZED a few more words people would GET IT You could even WRITE IT on a piece of paper and take a picture of yourself holding said paper for MAXIMUM EFFECT
17. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  The terms of use are applied against your time on Blizzard's servers. They aren't presented prior to the purchase of the client video game and are meaningless against its use.
18. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Completely disagree. I think WoW is just like Office. Office preserves elements of the previous versions, like list of fonts, the hotkeys, print preview, but the appearance and user experience of all of it is drastically different from 14 years ago. I hate the ribbon and I wish I could get the mega-menu and dialog boxes back.
  The first 60 levels experience of WoW today in no way resemble the first 60 levels experience of 2004. Absolutely not comparable other than some similar artwork, but even that was changed drastically in Cataclysm. In fact, Cataclysm is very much like the Office 2007 ribbon! You've drawn an excellent parallel.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
19. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Can't play the Thousant needles quests. I'm sure there are many other examples. I haven't played more than a few times since Cataclysm. Zone scaling sounds interesting. A shame they didn't have it 9 years ago.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
20. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  What I don't understand is why you defend such practices. It isn't their property. I paid for it. It's mine.
21. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by RabidStoat · 2018-02-05 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  note quite the point I was making .. take Office 2017 and you can install it without 2013. Install/Run the Cataclysm expansion without the original game ? oh you can't.
  Although the leveling experience has changed significantly, I challenge your "in no way resemble", there are lots of resemblances, there are still plenty of quests that were present in the original, the original zones are largely unchanged - of course other than the Cataclysm changes, Stranglethorn and Barrens splits as well. And the most important thing of course .. the backpack! Anyway, that's all largely splitting hairs. My point remains, one is an expansion to a product you need to already have, the other is a product independent of other, older versions.
22. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by mfh · 2018-02-05 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  And how can you not understand that Blizzard still (rightfully, I might add) owns the assets?
  I do understand it. However here is the real problem for Bliz in that regard: the private servers don't touch the assets. They are swarmed over a torrent and these are the same clients that BLIZ released to everyone already.
  So the issue of private servers is NOT COPYRIGHT. The server only talks to the clients. YOU CANNOT REGULATE TALKING. :D
  Bliz is trying to be ANTI-COMPETITIVE also. They started doing this stuff when players would leave the game to try other games when the content got boring. Then it just became a thing.
  But really... Bliz are just being dicks about it. They should have originally just LISTENED to players and created PATCH SERVERS. We begged. We pleaded.
  Now we get CLASSIC. Will it only be vanilla? Will it have some features that are great now but weren't in the game back then?
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
23. Re: Not Infringing - Bliz fault by mfh · 2018-02-06 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Or... maybe you exist in the multiverse where people who make fun of those who apply CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS must serve fries to those of us with a healthier outlook on what it takes to exist within civilized society?
  But maybe you're right and MAYBE it's the other way around. Either way, I'll promise to be nice to you from now on if you agree to do the same! :)
  I'll even friend u with mah 2digits of THOR'S HAMMER!!! :D
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
24. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by silverdirk · 2018-02-06 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  I want to emphasize The first 60-levels experience, where I used to be spending a few days out in Desolace, and had friends who were working on alts and had one about my same level and put them in Desolace as well, and then any time we both happened to be online we could start a party and do a few quests together. We both advance to the point where we have several Mauradon quests, and then we go look for 3 more people (two who we could probably find right there in Desolace) and run the dungeon. There were random other players running around in these zones and if I happened to run into a tough quest (either because I was under-leveled, or playing something odd like a disc priest) I would just look around and invite someone to a party and we'd do the quest together. People cared about the simple world quests because they might reward items which you might then use for a week or more, so there was a reason to spend some effort on them.
  Everything in that paragraph is gone on current Blizzard servers (or at least, the last time I logged into one). There are new zones where it can still happen, but a majority of the old content has decayed into essentially a single-player game. This is why I say the experience is completely different.
  I can still get that experience on a private server. If I want to play a single player game for nostalgia I'll go play Thief or Final Fantasy.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
25. Re:Not Infringing - Bliz fault by silverdirk · 2018-02-06 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's also worth emphasizing that WoW is by far the most money I've ever spent on a single game (4 years of subscription) and yet it has the least long-term replay value of any I've played, if not for private servers. Starcraft will never cease to be fun. I also go back and replay story-based games like Final Fantasy or Deus Ex every decade or so. MMOs are hard to re-create, and it annoys me that nobody at Blizzard cares. (yes I know they're finally doing something about it, but only because of community pressure)
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
26. Re: Not Infringing - Bliz fault by liefer · 2018-02-11 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Im a fry cook with a unhealthy outlook on society? Thats what you got from my comment? lol... Grats on having a low UUID on slashdot as your highest achievement in life, good job, im proud of you Im sure you will read too much into this as well, and come up with another projection
and more by fyngyrz · 2018-02-05 00:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I really do think that something needs to be done about classic and abandoned games
I see it as even more than that. Abandoned applications of every type: operating systems, drivers, vertical applications, etc.
Frankly, if software is unsupported, I see no reason it should continue to enjoy the protection of copyright, patent, or anything else, frankly.
I don't draw a distinction as to why. If the developer is gone or no longer willing, if the "upgrade" no longer supports the operating system or hardware you've been using (or vice-versa... operating systems should be treated the same), basically if the thing no longer is "live", then it's abandonware. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who steals it, reverses it, copies it or, as here, supports it from a third-party position should be blameless.
And yes, I am a developer, and yes, I still think this should be the case. If you aren't going to support your customers, then there's no particular reason to expect your now ex-customers to support you. From my POV, that most certainly includes no longer honoring the legal protections you are awarded in trade for producing something useful. As soon as you, as a developer or large entity (Adobe, Apple, etc.) decide to abandon, compromise or outright destroy that usefulness, you are the one that has broken the compact.
Let the chips fall where they may.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:and more by Joe_Dragon · 2018-02-05 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  vertical applications, etc.
  At one time I was looking for some older m68k ver of an mac app and corp that made it no longer had for sale but was still selling old PPC ver.
2. Re:and more by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  And yes, I am a developer, and yes, I still think this should be the case. If you aren't going to support your customers, then there's no particular reason to expect your now ex-customers to support you. From my POV, that most certainly includes no longer honoring the legal protections you are awarded in trade for producing something useful. As soon as you, as a developer or large entity (Adobe, Apple, etc.) decide to abandon, compromise or outright destroy that usefulness, you are the one that has broken the compact.
  Did you get a degree in computer science or similar? If so, how could you complete a degree without knowing the difference between ethic and legal? You are talking purely on ethical of the issue, and at the same time demonstrate no understanding of copyright (legal). I understand that the company (Blizzard) would have a much better reputation if they actually let go of this, but they still have the legal right in their product as long as the law still gives them the legal right to do so.
How much Blizzard code ... by Rip!ey · 2018-02-05 00:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

How much Blizzard code exactly, has been copied, to produce the non-Blizzard server?
1. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Server software itself is mostly likely completely original, produced via reverse engineering. "Private" servers tend to have a host of bugs which retail servers do not - I'm not saying retail servers are perfect, just that since the bugs are completely different it's likely it's not the same software.
  The client, though, is 100% Blizzard's.
  I'm not sure where creating a program that interfaces with proprietary software, with no API or documentation, going purely via trial and error, stands in the copyright arena.
2. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  What I want to know exactly. How would they have acquired the code? Did Blizzard ever share anything? Probably not. So my guess is they copied no code at all.
  I was surprised to see that the repo is now unavailable. So we can temporarily disable every github repo we don't like? Seems to be shoot first, ask questions later. Revive in case of innocence.
3. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by marcansoft · 2018-02-05 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you actually read the DMCA request, you'll see it's about data, not code. A game server needs data to know the allowed actions in the game, the entities in the game, the rules for interaction, the locations, etc, in order to maintain a common understanding of the world with the clients. It is this data that was copied from the WoW client and incorporated as a SQL database (into otherwise presumably bespoke server code).
  You could make your own completely new game data (and somehow insert it into the Blizzard client too), but then the game wouldn't be WoW any more, just something else built on the same engine and with the same graphical assets.
4. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by RabidStoat · 2018-02-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  graphic assets are data as well
5. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by KingRatMass · 2018-02-05 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure where creating a program that interfaces with proprietary software, with no API or documentation, going purely via trial and error, stands in the copyright arena.
  Such a technique is called a "Chinese Wall", the concept was used by Phoenix Technologies when the cloned the IBM PC XT BIOS. Two teams work in parallel. One develops the technical specifications by reverse engineering the code to be copied, the second uses the resulting specification to make the new, duplicate code. That way the developers never have a chance to copy the original code. Periodically, the first team would review the second's work for accuracy and steer them in the right direction if they got it wrong.
  Phoenix was so cautious in this respect, the engineer they hired to write their BIOS code had never worked with the Intel 8088 or 8080 and had never seen any of IBM's codee or their technical specifications. All they worked from was the distilled version that the reverse engineering team fed them. Phoenix audited the whole process very closely to insure that any claims of infringement could be thwarted..
  As a result, IBM was never able to successfully sue Phoenix for copyright infringement. Because no matter how similar the two final products were, they were derived completely independently.
6. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by MoralCharacter · 2018-02-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  in 2012, Blizzard sold the legacy servers off as part of a charity auction. I'm not entirely sure if that includes things like old storage media or not, but if it did they may have had the game server installed on them.
7. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  What's your point?
  Nobody's distributing graphic assets.
8. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that be covered under the exemption where it's required for inter-operation?
  I seem to remember one of the consoles wouldn't work unless it found a specific string in the BIOS, and anybody that copied that string wasn't guilty of a violation because it was a technical requirement to include it.
9. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because no matter how similar the two final products were, they were derived completely independently.
  How do come to that braindead conclusion when the rest part of your post explains to us clearly how it was done by reverse engineering the original? Just because two teams worked together does not shield the second team from the reverse engineering, or copying a copyrighted work.
  They simlply had luck in court, that is all.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
10. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by marcansoft · 2018-02-05 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but as far as I know there is no such "exemption". You're probably thinking of Sega v. Accolade, where Sega used a trademark system to require games to have the string "SEGA" in them. That was chiefly about trademarks, not copyright. You're probably also thinking about the DMCA exemption for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes, but that is about anti-circumvention, it doesn't mean you get to distribute copyrighted data/code.
11. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Reverse engineering is not copying any bytes from source to destination. Reverse engineering is not illegal. It isn't covered by copyright if no bytes were copied.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
12. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-06 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  The topic we talked about was not "reverse engineering" it was "looking at the original code", that is not reverse engineering.
  Copy right infringement is not illegal either ... it is civil law ;D
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by silverdirk · 2018-02-06 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if I agree with your terminology. Copyright infringement is not criminal but it violates a law, therefore I would say it is illegal. Do you have a reference for your definition?
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
14. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-06 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  Copyright infringement is not criminal but it violates a law, therefore I would say it is illegal.
  Copyright violation can lead to criminal prosecution, depending on which laws you violate.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States
15. Re:How much Blizzard code ... by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-07 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement can only be 'prosecuted' by the copyright holder.
  Usually infringers are only liable for damage. There is no punishment.
  However that changed in reasend years with DMCA etc. where criminal accusions can be added that are beyond copyright e.g. intruding into compuer systems, conspiracy and other things, or criminal attempt to support/help copyright infringers to do their 'business' and help them to be undetected (King Dot Com).
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' Leg by zifn4b · 2018-02-05 00:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' Leg
No. They issued the DMCA notice to GITHUB. Terrible summary.

Blizzard has asked GitHub to pull the site's code offline.
Blizzard asked Github to take down ONE file. Github complied because they are located in the United States. Light's Hope on the other hand is run outside of the United States so there is absolutely no jurisdiction for Blizzard to take it down and they can't really stop the code from being disseminated. Blizzard is just quite frankly wasting their time and money.

--
We'll make great pets
To be expected by TheSanAdmin · 2018-02-05 00:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Blizzard recently announced they were bringing back the classic version so it only makes sense they would start clearing out any "competition". These servers have been around for years and Blizzard didn't care until now.
1. Re:To be expected by Nick · 2018-02-05 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  not entirely. They submitted a C&D to Nostraulius project who promptly shuttered their game servers even though they are in the EU. I suspect others have gotten same treatment but just ignored Blizzard.
  
  --
  Fuck Ajit Pai
You can never please (any) of the people .. by RabidStoat · 2018-02-05 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

All these people, here and elsewhere that are claiming they should be able to play the game as released by Blizzard. Sure, go on then ! Having played since the early Betas, i remember what the game was like when it was first released and my account history shows how much free time there was when it was _released_. Oh and of course, next you'll have people claiming "oh no, we didn't mean when it was released, we mean when it was stable", or "oh no, we didn't mean when it was released we meant at the end of the expansion". Copyright is copyright. Like it or not, dislike the period or not , get over it.
So what version are we talking about when they say its been "abandoned", as someone else pointed out that means they should be keeping servers running for every patch "I want to play the second Burning Crusade patch please - you've abandoned that Blizzard, I'm not entitling myself to create my own server and copy all your material". Reductio ad absurdum - I want to have my own server running the patch the day before yesterday, 'cause you've abandoned that version Blizzard.
1. Re:You can never please (any) of the people .. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? If someone want to spend their own effort and energy into creating their own custom server for a specific patch, why stop them? If they try to monetise it, yeah, sue them to hell. However there doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with people using your product in the way they want.
2. Re:You can never please (any) of the people .. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  What's being copied if there is a reverse engineered effort? They were really reaching in saying that the database structure is similar (which it has to be to interact with the client) and same database entries contain the same ID? Are we really counting IDs in a database as copyright now?
3. Re:You can never please (any) of the people .. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  You're exactly right! Every previous patch IS ABANDONED!!! You win a fucking cookie!
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by lucasnate1 · 2018-02-05 01:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Someone in Blizzard needed to show he is working.

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lest you forget, Kim Dotcom's case should remind you that the US has jurisdiction wherever it wants.
Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by bradley13 · 2018-02-05 01:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Blizzard is really reaching here. AFAIK, this is a pure reverse-engineering effort. No code was copied. There's basically almost no case for claiming any sort of copyright infringement. In desperation, Blizzard claims, for example:
"Blizzard’s notice targets several SQL databases stating that the layout and structure is nearly identical to the early WoW databases."
Given the data to be stored, and the rules of normalization, of course the structure of the databases is similar. All that shows is that whoever designed the database was competent.
They complain that the code includes direct references to - get this - another fan-run WoW server (Nostalrius). Whose copyrights Blizzard does not own, ahem.
Some files have names that reference fantasy elements in WoW - they don't specify, but I assume things like town names. Which would make sense for the server-side implementations of these elements. Whether they can legitimately claim copyright on those names?
Lastly, they point out that "some" database record IDs are the same. Not all, but some. How many, they don't indicate. Statistically speaking, of course some of them match, though it should be very many. Of course, Blizzard does not specify a number.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  It does not sound like a valid copyright case to me. Copyright does not cover names and tables in a database are such. Its particularly egregious because it contains no proprietary WoW code, a clean room effort.
2. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, this seems a strange claim. (I'd like to hope it will end up in the nice try, but no cigar category.)
  The source of the conflict might be that there are two intended purposes of the game.
  The user wants to play the game he bought, but the game company wants to use it to bring the player to their services and newer games.
  The game company broke the first to help the second.
  Feels like bait and switch?
  This server reverses this.
  Does it do so by using something that the user's have not bought the right to use?
  The game company created, and have Copyright on their game, and their server code, but that should not necessarily mean this server code.
  This is interesting because their code is only visible to them, but this sever code is published for all to see.
  That says that they can see all the cards and should be able to see clearly if this is their internal server code or a re-engineered functional equivalent.
  They did not appear to (but still could) claim that it is their code.
  I wonder if this makes this a provable case of DMCA abuse?
3. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by bradley13 · 2018-02-05 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  To answer my own question: A brief search yields that names cannot be copyrighted. So really, Blizzard seems to have no basis at all for a DMCA takedown request.
  Really, it seems to me (IANAL) that their own case is against individual players, if the EULA says that the clients can only be used with a Blizzard-approved server.
  I hope the owner of the GitHub repo files a counterclaim, rather that just giving up.
  
  --
  Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
4. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anubis+IV · 2018-02-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. This, from the sounds of things, is no different than when any other open source group has reverse engineered a proprietary document format or proprietary protocol and released their own tools and services that operate on or over it. Provided they haven’t copied Blizzard’s code—which it sounds like they haven’t—and provided they haven’t copied Blizzard’s art or music assets—which I suspect they didn’t have a need to, given that the client app that Blizzard itself provided is the part that holds those—I don’t see how this can be a valid copyright claim on Blizzard’s part.
  I’m actually sympathetic to Blizzard, but it sounds like they don’t have a leg to stand on, other than taking advantage of the fact that with a large service, there will be a handful of coincidences that are going enough for an initial DMCA takedown notice, even though they won’t hold up under appeal.
5. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by sn0wflake · 2018-02-05 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't tried playing the legacy server but if things like quest texts are used, then it is copyright infringement because those texts have been copied without permission from Blizzard. Even using the game engine to draw/create the world is copyright infringement because people are using code developed by Blizzard.
6. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by GuB-42 · 2018-02-05 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bit more complex than that. It implies trademarks, derivative works, etc... It is the kind of situation where IANAL doesn't cut it.
  I suppose Bilzzard has the right to take on individual players, but they probably won't. They know better than to attack paying customers. Bans are usually limited to highly disruptive players. As using the legal system against players for just playing pirated games is not very effective.
7. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  This is actually somewhat interesting. The argument can be made "who cares if the code is different." If it renders the same visual imagery on a screen then wouldn't the things like town names, character appearance. map layout and all those other things be protected. A musical score is not void if instrumentation is changed. Why should a game be unprotected if code is altered when that code is producing the same experience as the original code.
  In other reverse engineering efforts, the people creating the new work are often separated from the original work as much as possible. This is to make sure no argument can be made that simple copying with obfuscation is what is really happening. I don't see how a team can create a copy of a map then claim reverse engineering. It is certainly a very expansive definition of reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is usually creating a new way to achieve some easily describable former tech. I really don't see how clean room technique can be claimed when a map is copied. It's like taking an oil painting and copying it in acrylic then claiming reverse engineering. Have these maps not been created and distributed in the original work? I really don't see that as reverse engineering and would have to agree with Blizzard. I don't necessarily agree with their DMCA complaint as a business strategy, but if one can copy visual imagery and just change the code behind it then essentially there is no copyright for digital visual images.
8. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by MobyDisk · 2018-02-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Are there no assets on the server that were copied? Maps, images, sounds...?
9. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Spamalope · 2018-02-05 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the client references those names server side, then they're required for interoperability. That's an affirmative defense.
10. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  It's a stretch to assume it's even Blizzard at all that submitted the DMCA claims, given how poorly written it is.
11. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by KeithIrwin · 2018-02-05 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but you could have made the exact same arguments in the bnet.d case and they won that case. So I agree, but that doesn't mean that the courts will.
12. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Solandri · 2018-02-05 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Some files have names that reference fantasy elements in WoW - they don't specify, but I assume things like town names. Which would make sense for the server-side implementations of these elements. Whether they can legitimately claim copyright on those names?
  If I remember right, when Phoenix reverse engineered the IBM BIOS, they had to put "Copyright IBM" in their BIOS because IBM had put it in the original and required it to operate. The judge ruled that since it was required for the reverse-engineered copy to work, that was a purely functional constraint and thus had no creative element, meaning it couldn't be copyright infringement - copyright infringement being when you have the freedom to do it differently, but you make it the same as the thing you're copying. If IBM had included "Copyright IBM" but not made it required for the BIOS to function, and the reverse-engineered copy also had "Copyright IBM" in it, then that would be a clear copyright violation. It's one of those "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" situations.
  
  So if their client requires those specific names for the server to function, copyright law doesn't apply and the private servers can use the same names. If it doesn't require those specific names, then Blizzard can claim copyright on the names (assuming they're unique to WoW) and force private servers to come up with different names for their towns and such.
13. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright does not cover names and tables in a database are such.
  Yes, it does. The data generally cannot be covered by copyright, but the structure of the database certainly can be.
14. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-05 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Um, hate to burst the bubble in this thread, but copyright infringement isn't the problem here.
  It's the DMCA. DMCA says reverse engineering copy-protection or proprietary protocols is prohibited.
  If this was just an infringement issue, the server might have a chance, but there's no chance. The entire third-party server is a violation of DMCA reverse-engineering prohibition. The software itself is a violation of DMCA, don't even have to look at the fact they're using it to run a server. They don't have a leg to stand on here. Blizzard is 100% within their right to shut this down.
15. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  There are only so many ways to lay out a database.
  If we assume some constraints are placed on the data by how the client is expecting it, then I wouldn't be surprised if the number of sane ways to lay out the data hovered around "one".
16. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-05 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  No it can't.
  There are hundrets of cases about his, and modern cooy right law usually makes it explicit that data 'layout', can not be copy righted.
  Stored procedures, triggers and even constraints might be different, table names and column names are clearly not under copyright. How would you able to write a bill if the names of the columns would be under copy right protection?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
17. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  The server isn't drawing on your screen.
  People purchased their copies of the client, or were otherwise legally provided them directly from Blizzard.
18. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not.
  Why would you send out that data every time somebody logs in when you can just include it in the initial client download?
19. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  "DMCA says reverse engineering copy-protection or proprietary protocols is prohibited."
  But that's not what they're complaining about.
  They're complaining about similar database entries.
20. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by sn0wflake · 2018-02-05 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, but legally obtaining a client still doesn't give people ownership of the franchise. Imagine if I bought a Mickey Mouse DVD. That wouldn't suddenly make it legal for me to use Mickey Mouse however I wanted to, and I'm certain that a bunch of Disney lawyers would be knocking on my door telling me to stop. Another thing I keep reading is that people are "only" reverse engineering. That argument just doesn't have any bearing because the closer they get to the real thing, the better reason Blizzard has to send out a DMCA notice.
21. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  You got things backwards there, I think
22. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the EULA is only enforceable if you are actually using a Blizzard server, since the client side purchases were made at retail with no EULA visible on the outside of the packaging... The EULA that software companies pop up when you go to use their software is totally unenforceable, and usually abusive, and routinely gets thrown out in court. Blizzard used to pop up a giant EULA wall of text every time they released an update (I remember) but eventually they stopped doing it altogether because that shit is totally pointless, annoying and not worth the electrons used to display it. No one reads it and the courts don't give a shit what you think you can force customers to agree to after the customer already bought your product 18 months ago.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
23. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-05 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, I didn't. Information (the classic example being the contents of a telephone book) is not subject to copyright. Designing a database schema, which typically requires creative effort (where "creative" has a legal definition), can be protected by copyright.
24. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Why be sympathetic to Blizzard, they chose to wreck all of the Vanilla WoW content with the Cataclysm expansion, they made (20M subs x first 4 expansions x $40 retail purchase)= $3,200,000,000 plus (20M subs x $15/month x first 10 years of WoW)= $36,000,000,000 for a grand total of at least $40 billion dollars... Granted they had costs, but lets be honest, their costs for all the servers and support for 10 years was probably under $5,000,000,000. Their development costs were also under that amount for the original game and all expansions. So yeah, they have made a cool $30 billion off of WoW, don't feel sorry for them.
  Their two problems are they pissed away a shit ton of money developing the Overlord MMO (what got chopped down and became
  the FPS Overwatch because the MMO just wasn't fun) and they are owned by a bunch of asshat MBAs at Vivendi who have been sucking down all the profits from WoW and only investing the bare minimum to develop new content as well as killing promising titles like Starcraft Ghost.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
25. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  That is all on the client side. The server deals primarily with identifiers, locations are handled with coordinates not maps, and all images and sounds are on the client side.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
26. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "certainly". Independently coming up with a similar database structure because it's the most reasonable and functional structure would not be copyright infringement, most notably because you didn't copy the original (as the name implies, copyright only protects material from being copied). If table and column names are the same across a dozen different tables, though, it becomes much more difficult to argue that you created the structure independently. It becomes even more difficult to make that argument if it can be shown that you had access to the original database in some way.
  
  In this case, it looks like, based on my reading just the summary and comments, they did intentionally copy the structure of the database, so they can't argue that it was independently created. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other arguments that they can make.
27. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  No it can't. There are hundrets of cases about his, and modern cooy right law usually makes it explicit that data 'layout', can not be copy righted. Stored procedures, triggers and even constraints might be different, table names and column names are clearly not under copyright. How would you able to write a bill if the names of the columns would be under copy right protection?
  The copyright lawyers that I've spoken with disagree with you. Would you like to cite any cases in the United States that ruled that database structure is not protected by copyright?
28. Re: Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you and your copyright lawyer friends. They can all eat a dick. You fucking pawn.
29. Re: Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  The copyright lawyers I've spoken to think you are wrong.
  Check..mate.
30. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  The structure can only be copyrighted if there was artistic design in its creation.
31. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-05 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  The structure can only be copyrighted if there was artistic design in its creation.
  It's a matter of human creative effort, which isn't exactly the same thing as artistic (e.g. musical or visual) design. Database structure can be protected by copyright just as source code can be.
32. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by silverdirk · 2018-02-05 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Vanilla WoW was playable in 2004 on dial-up. It played smoothly, too, up to hundreds of simultaneous players in the same zone. The server protocol couldn't have been much more than a fancy binary form of IRC with some bots written in C++.
  
  --
  Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
33. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-06 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  No,
  I'm not living in the USA.
  If the lawyers you talked to disagree, they are idiots.
  What happened to your google fu? http://www.iusmentis.com/datab...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
34. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-06 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
35. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by MobyDisk · 2018-02-06 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  How about the maps? Surely the server holds those to prevent users from going to unintended locations. What about the data used to determine drop locations and rates, stuff like that? I wonder if that is copyrightable. (I don't play WOW so sorry if my questions are lame.)
36. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-06 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, both of your links talk about copyright protection for the information in a database, not for the schema of a relational database. The schema of a database is protected by copyright, even if the information stored in the database is not.
37. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-06 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, the server just tracks the player/MOBs position. Map keep outs are enforced by invisible walls by the client (as evidenced by some players finding holes and glitching through (google WoW hidden areas).
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
38. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-07 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  No it is not ... I guess with your skills find easy links to convince yourself.
  On the old iPad it is difficcult to search with multiple taps as the tap I'm typing thisin is reloading all the time.
  But think about it, how an I buy your database (schema) and drop all data, put in my own data, without infringing copyright, if the schema would be copyrighted?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
39. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-07 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Finding clear information about it on the Internet is surprisingly difficult, so I'm mostly speaking from personal experience of working on cases that involved copyright infringement of the structure of a database. So if I'm wrong, the lawyers whom I worked for, and the judges who didn't immediately dismiss the cases, are also wrong. It's possible that some ruling has changed things in the past couple years, but I haven't heard anything.
  
  EU Directive 96/9/EC says that database structure can be protected by copyright (clauses 15, 35, 58). The US Copyright Office's report refers to the EU directive, but doesn't explicitly say anything about adopting the same policy.
  
  But think about it, how an I buy your database (schema) and drop all data, put in my own data, without infringing copyright, if the schema would be copyrighted?
  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you purchase a database from someone, how you can legally use that database depends entirely on the agreement you made to purchase it. If you copy and reuse the schema in some way that is not allowed by the agreement, then yes, you can be liable for copyright infringement. If you only do things that are explicitly allowed by the agreement, then of course you aren't liable for infringement, since you were given permission to do those things. This situation isn't specific to databases, though; it would apply to any protected work that you purchase.
40. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-11 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you purchase a database from someone, how you can legally use that database depends entirely on the agreement you made to purchase it.
  No it does not.
  The agreement is bound to copyright laws. Any agreement restricting me from what is allowed by the law is void: in sane countries.
  Anyway. The directive is not about database schemas. It is about "databases", but unfortunately it is not clear from the text you linked, what actually a data base is.
  The debate about such "databases" started from the fact that "pure data" aka "facts" are not under copyright.
  This extends to a CD containing the yellow pages of a phone company. E.g. if the text can easy be extracted, you are allowed to reorganize the data, and resell it. The "organization" of that data is a database ... even if it is just a single big text file.
  Traditionally database schemas (and that was the discussion) are not copyright able. Otherwise it would be impossible to write your own software that accesses that data base via e.g. SQL.
  So: we can not copyright schemas and the data can not be copyrighted, too ...
  Here comes the EU directive, originally only intending to harmonize slightly different ideas about how to handle that topic in different states.
  The EU directive now proposes that "schema plus data" together can be under copyright under certain reasons: e.g. huge financial investment, high intellectual effort etc. And this they call "database".
  Nevertheless raw data as in facts and the schema alone are not under copyright. So: what would be under copyright? E.g. a street map (raw data that you can retrieve or buy somewhere), with annotations that you contribute your own. A database with images of stone masonry, because you have the copyright on the images. A database with a few hundred thousand microbes and the experimental results you made on them. However one would still be free to extract from that database the names of the microbes and other public available knowledge and redistribute those "facts".
  With database in this case we always mean "something" that you can put on your computer and "access" it. It mights get more complicated e.g. if you need a custom retrieval program. That is e.g. usually the case for a yellow pages CD, it most of the time comes with a small program to search and retrieve the data. Decrypting such data then again would fall under DMCS etc.
  Or running such a database "online" via a web interface would put ordinary visitors behind the end user license agreement what they can do with he data, e.g. no scrapping.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
41. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-11 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  The agreement is bound to copyright laws. Any agreement restricting me from what is allowed by the law is void: in sane countries.
  That's only true for certain laws/rights. For an obvious example, a confidentiality agreement restricts you from speaking about certain things, even in countries with free speech rights. Anyway, that doesn't apply to this situation, because, as I've said multiple times, the current law in the United States does not allow you to copy database schemas.
  
  Anyway. The directive is not about database schemas. It is about "databases", but unfortunately it is not clear from the text you linked, what actually a data base is.
  Yes, it is clear, because it's explicitly defined: "For the purposes of this Directive, ‘database’ shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means." (Article 1, Section 2)
  
  Traditionally database schemas (and that was the discussion) are not copyright able. Otherwise it would be impossible to write your own software that accesses that data base via e.g. SQL.
  That doesn't logically follow. Querying a database does not involve copying and reusing the schema. And even if you make the twisted argument that writing a query that selects all of the fields from one or more tables is copying the schema, fair use exemptions (such as interoperability) would come into play.
  
  So: we can not copyright schemas
  The United States courts disagree with you. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you believe me. I'm speaking from direct personal experience, so unless you can point to specific case law that says otherwise, I have no idea why you keep arguing about this.
42. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-13 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  because, as I've said multiple times, the current law in the United States does not allow you to copy database schemas.
  Yes, you said that. And you are wrong.
  No idea why that is so hard to google for you or to grasp from my explanaitions.
  I have no idea why you keep arguing about this.
  Because I like to argue :D
  fair use exemptions (such as interoperability) would come into play.
  Exactly, and that extents to the "schema".
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
43. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-13 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  You've provided no evidence that I'm wrong, and I'm speaking from direct personal experience of working on a lawsuit in which the copyright of a database schema was at issue. So if I'm wrong, then so were the lawyers and judge in that case. I think they are far more credible than you are.
  
  If you choose not believe me, fine, that's your problem. I'm done trying to convince someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
44. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-14 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Then give some evidence.
  Sorry, I'm 100% certain that the copyright situation regarding data base schema in the USA is the same as in Europe. While it strictly speaking is under "copyright", everyone who payed for it is free to use it as he sees fit (because of interoperability exceptions) And everyone who invents by accident the exact same schema ist free to to use it as well. Because in the end the "copyright" does not prevent him in this special case to do so.
  And the law situation is like this since over 50 years, it hard has changed recently, and then in the US only, that would be astonishing.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
45. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by Dragonslicer · 2018-02-15 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Then give some evidence.
  I already cited the EU directive.
  
  everyone who payed for it is free to use it as he sees fit (because of interoperability exceptions)
  If you paid for it, using it according to the agreement that you made when you purchased it isn't infringement. That's true of all protected works.
  
  And everyone who invents by accident the exact same schema ist free to to use it as well. Because in the end the "copyright" does not prevent him in this special case to do so.
  That isn't copying, so of course it isn't infringement. Copyright and patents do not work the same way.
46. Re:Reverse engineering != copyright infringement by angel'o'sphere · 2018-02-17 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  You did not cite any EU evidence.
  I explained to you that your understanding of the EU directive is wrong.
  Believe it or not, up to you.
  You misunderstand eliberatly the point about payment: if I pay for a database, I'm close to free to do what evver I want, regardless of agreement. Copyright law allows me to interact with the data, the schema etc. and copy/transfer what evver I need to keep my systems running, without any chance for you to claim copyright infringement.
  Simple case: you deliver me a database and software to access it and a raw set of data in it in an Oracle installation.
  I copy that into a Postgres database and change the connection ulrs and credentials to connect the software to 'my new database' ... that is completely legal, because: neither the bootstrap data nor the schema is protected from being copied or redistributed. And you can try to force agreements on my as long as you want. In the EU they would be void.
  Anyway, as you are obviously not distributing schemas but concernned about your schemas being distributed ... up to you :) Good luck.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The last dollar I gave Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 01:47 · Score: 0

Will end up being the last dollar I ever give Blizzard. I'm voting with my wallet, and I'm voting against smallness, pettiness, and shittiness of a big, stupid corporation shitting all over people whose only "crime" is loving something they once made before they got to be totally shitty assholes. Blizzard just joined my shitlist of shitty companies along with the likes of Microsoft and AT&T. Fuck Blizzard.

(P.S. for all those who say, "it's just business," and "they have a right to make money and a responsibility to maximize shareholder profit," that's fine, and as a consumer, *** I *** have a right to refuse to help them to maximize their shareholders' return on investment when they seek to do so by behavior that I find abhorrent. If more people had the guts, the backbone, the "cajones" if you will, to do the same, there'd be a lot less corporate malfeasance. If a company knew that they might make a lot of money doing things that piss people off, but if they pass a certain threshold, the money they make would drop WAY off as people decided, "fuck those assholes!" they'd be a lot more hesitant to act like a bunch of assholes. I won't reward asshole behavior, and if YOU want to, that's up to you, but just know that you then deserve to get treated how they treat you because you rewarded them rather than punishing them when they deserved it to correct their assholish behavoir.)
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 01:51 · Score: 1

Why not host it outside the US then? its not like the only code hosting services are in the US.
Easy solution by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 02:18 · Score: 1

The solution is obvious. Move the repository to many other source hosting services outside of the US. Post the tar of repository on the various file sharing services. If the database contains data from WoW, then delete the database from GitHub and put the code back up on GitHub. Not that hard to figure out. Then people can get the database from the file sharing services or the non-US source repositories.
1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  You understand that US jurisdiction applies wherever the US feels like?
Where did fans get a server? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:37 · Score: 0

Did they steal the server code from Blizzard? How did fans get a private server to handle WoW?
to bad the virtual console is messing stuff fr emu by Joe_Dragon · 2018-02-05 02:42 · Score: 1

to bad the virtual console and other pay emulators is messing stuff from other free emulators and can't do stuff you can do on the real hardware.
I want to be able to just buy the roms and use the emulator of my choice.
Debatable by DrYak · 2018-02-05 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative

If you look in the URL linked in the summary (Yeah I know, /. and actual article reading) :
it might seem debatable.
The complains hinge around 2-3 sql file using names and having a few data that looks like the data used in wow (spells have the same characteristic as old versions of wow, same old trademarked names are used, etc.).

Fantasy Names – “Script” files and folders are named after and reference WoW fantasy names.
They're not complaining about game assets being lifted of blizzard's own software (e.g.: bitmaps, etc.)
They are complaining about the code using official Blizzard trademarked name to designate Blizzard's said trademarked characters.
(Note: e.g. it's not a trademark violation when you use microsoft's trademarked "Microsoft Windows" name to speak about Microsoft Windows itself).
They're complaining that the datamodel is very close to how it used to be in old servers :

The LightsHope spell table has identical layout and typically identical field names as the table from early WoW. We use database tables to represent game data, like spells, in WoW. In our code, we use .sql files to represent the data layout of each table (i.e. the fields of each specific table, like a spell name or the magnitude of its effect). MaNGOS, the platform off of which Light’s Hope appears to be built, uses a similar structure. The LightsHope spell_template table matches almost exactly the layout and field names of early WoW client database tables.
(Looks like the devs made their "Classic" recreation by using old dumps / backups as a referrence).

Matching Record IDs – There are “scripts” that reference database records directly by ID; there are cases where these IDs directly match the ID from WoW’s content.
"Hey, their serial numbers looks suspiciously close to our serial numbers !"
Oh, come one.
(Numbers aren't copyrightable in the US. That's basically Intel complaining that competitor's 386-compatible chip also use numbers like 386)
None of the complain is anything that looks like : "these huges chunks of code are actually a un-licensed copy of the network code of our server".
Overall : Some of the complain could almost fell under the "but these old numbers are necessary to get interoperation" exemption that exists to copyright in some jurisdiction (other /.ers have mentioned Canada as an example).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Debatable by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-05 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Using DMCA for a trademark case or other not-really-copyright case will get you fined pretty badly. It's an explicit provision of the DMCA and has gotten a few companies nuked out of existence.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:Debatable by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't Google win the Oracle Java API case?
3. Re:Debatable by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  I really hope the developers/site operators fight this. Blizzard pulled almost exactly the same shit a few years back, and the person responsible basically did not respond so they got a default judgement. If these people are even a little bit smart, they will get a gofundme page going (I'd send them $30) and hire some EFF lawyers.
  The Blizzard claims are baseless (as you said, enforcing illegitimate copyright using the DMCA) and they are counting on having more lawyers and intimidation to do their dirty work for them. If the retro server operator can get a judgement against the assholes at Vivendi (the owners of Blizzard, Activision, Ubisoft and others, founded by none other than Napoleon III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) sue them for punitive damages, show that it is a pattern of abuse of the DMCA and then take 50% of their profits for the year as punishment, and revoke their right to use DMCA permanently...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
4. Re:Debatable by psycho12345 · 2018-02-05 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Small correction. Vivendi has nothing to do with Blizzard or Activision, Activision bought themselves out from Vivendi and are a standalone company.
5. Re:Debatable by mysidia · 2018-02-05 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  The complains hinge around 2-3 sql file using names and having a few data that looks like the data used in wow
  Database data falls under factual records; similar to polling data.... Databases of information, such as the statistics on an object are non-copyrightable.
  They are complaining about the code using official Blizzard trademarked name to designate Blizzard's said trademarked characters.
  Trademark is a whole other branch of law.... referencing a trademark is not copyright infringement.
  Lists of names are not copyrightable.
  They're complaining that the datamodel is very close to how it used to be in old servers :
  Data models are non-copyrightable. A creative representation of a data model May be copyrightable in regards to that expression,
  BUT other expressions of the data model in other systems such as SQL are not.
  Unless the actual SQL DDL code is similar to Blizzard's SQL code, then the SQL code is not capable of being a copyright infringement.
  Matching Record IDs –
  Since a directory of Names, People, Places, or Things is not copyrightable; it doesn't really matter if the Order of your list and Unique numbers match theirs or not --- adding a Unique number doesn't make something copyrightable, unless it's a creative expression (Which it's not --- they're just serialized numbers; there's not an artistic or aesthetic reason for the Order these numbers are assigned to things in)
6. Re: Debatable by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Just because it is a database doesn't mean it falls under that provision. For instance, just because you store Game of Thrones in Postgres doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright by sharing that database.
7. Re:Debatable by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, I guess I missed that tidbit, though how you buy yourself out when you are owned by another company so technically it is their money? Not sure how that works, but I guess it's just the asshat MBAs at Blizzard/Activision that need a new corn hole ripped then!
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
NO by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 02:57 · Score: 0

We don't recognize DMCA.
Many people will view this as an attack on their freedom, and think Blizzard should come under attack.
Personally, I hope everybody remains peaceful and finds social, economic and political means to solve issues. If you think outside the box, you can accomplish great things.
"Classic" WoW is NOT abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 03:21 · Score: 0

Blizzard has announced it will be releasing a "classic" (pre-expansions) version of its WoW game to be supported alongside the modern version. It makes complete sense that they are going after the fan-run server at this time, precisely because of this.
There is nothing to see here. Just FUD and misinformation.
Re:Good for Blizzard by MikeDataLink · 2018-02-05 03:36 · Score: 1

move to the failing EU.
So unions are bad? You do realize that America is a union called The United Sates right? ;-)
That being said, many European countries are doing far better that America, and their people are generally happier. You should travel abroad and ask the locals if they think America is the greatest country in the world. You might not like what you hear. Tribalism is going to implode the USA.
We should be pro Planet Earth. Pro Humans. Not Pro American and Anti-everyone else.

--
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by zifn4b · 2018-02-05 03:43 · Score: 1

Lest you forget, Kim Dotcom's case should remind you that the US has jurisdiction wherever it wants.
Kim Dotcom = German, Light's Hope = Russian. Good luck convincing Vladimir Putin to agree to extradite the folks running Light's Hope. They couldn't shut down Sci-Hub or have Alexandra Elbakyan extradited either. The United States doesn't run the world and it can't force other countries to bend to its will. It may be able to negotiate that with Germany but not with the Russians. The United States does not dictate world policy.

--
We'll make great pets
Copy Right isn't a Right by FeelGood314 · 2018-02-05 03:47 · Score: 1

It's a privileged society chooses to grant in order to encourage people to make creations available to everyone. I think we have really lost track of the idea that copy right is something that is supposed to benefit society first. The game is abandoned the moment most people can't play it. Further there should be an requirement for copy right holders to make available to society their creation when the copy right expires. The BBC should not have the copy right for lost Dr. Who episodes, all those 8 bit games, if it wasn't ported to a new platform in a reasonable amount of time, the source code should have been made available.

Further I can't see how a copy right longer than 10 years could possibly change a content creators motivation to create a game, song, movie or book.
1. Re:Copy Right isn't a Right by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-05 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think this makes sense because these are expressions rather than tangible objects. if I borrow a book from the library and make photocopies of it, than return it to the library, my copy of the book was not *materially* stolen from the library. Only the ideas were copied.
WoW Classic... by mchall · 2018-02-05 03:48 · Score: 0

...was announced at the most recent Blizzcon. Blizzard has not abandoned legacy versions of the game. They are actively working on bringing several iterations of the game back so that players can play the era of the game they most enjoyed. The fan-run servers would be in direct competition with that effort. Blizzard is protecting their business and their IP.

Of course the OP mentions none of this. Stoking outrage is the pastime du jour.
This happened before with older MMOs by sinij · 2018-02-05 03:49 · Score: 1

While WoW is old, it isn't the first MMO. UO, for example, had many classic private servers. For decades EA cared and went after these. They all were shut down only to have new ones spin up.
1. Re:This happened before with older MMOs by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think the early UO servers were actually copied code though, something about the code actually being released to the public at some point.
  The WoW situation should be different in that the fan-server code is all original.
Legal != right by fyngyrz · 2018-02-05 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I understand the legal issues just fine.
However, my mindset was best expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas:

in so far as [law] deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.
There are obvious examples: Slavery was legal; and in no case was it reasonable to follow the law. Forbidding women's right to vote was legal, and in no case was it reasonable to follow the law. And so on.
The law, unfortunately, is not a golden chalice of right and reason, and there are definitely times when extremely bad law should be ignored until/unless it can be repaired. In my personal estimation, this is one of those areas.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 04:09 · Score: 0

Blizzard has asked GitHub to pull the site's code offline.
Blizzard asked Github to take down ONE file.
They may have asked Github to take down ONE file, but instead ONE repo has been nuked:
https://github.com/LightsHope/server
Shorten term and bring back option to renew by Cajun+Hell · 2018-02-05 04:40 · Score: 1

I also agree there should be some solution found. But I really don't think it's simple, because even the definition of 'abandoned' isn't clear cut, and we have a recent example where a technology shifts have rendered viable again things one previously considered abandoned
I wonder if the solution got discovered a couple hundred years ago. A shorter copyright (e.g. 14 years) with option to renew would fit perfectly. Think your old copyrighted work whose copyright is about to run out, might have a second wind? Renew it.
I'm curious how people would have explained the old system was broken. It seems like it was a better fit for our modern world, than the newer system that replaced it. We should have gone from 95 year copyrights without renewal option to 14 year copyright with renewal option. Maybe the best thing to do, is acknowledge the corruption of the 1970s (nobody in power today needs to lose face) and undo it.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The classic, "I don't care so neither should you" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:02 · Score: 0

Why waste your time here, shouldn't you be trolling the official Blizzard WoW Classic forums?
Rev engineering requires lawful copy to work with by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:19 · Score: 0

Blizzard is really reaching here. AFAIK, this is a pure reverse-engineering effort.
One of the things that's easy to overlook, is that Blizzard has a breathtaking precedent in their 2006 case, which defies all common sense. Everything that everyone thinks they know, is probably wrong if they don't remember that case.
According to Blizzard and their judge, Blizzard has never sold a single copy of WoW.
Did you catch that? Did it sink in? Not a single customer ever bought WoW. Every single person who thinks they bought a copy of WoW, didn't experience what they thought they experienced. "Title was not transferred." Unlike what happens when you buy a book or a music album or movie on disc, or most other software, when you "buy" a copy of a Blizzard game, you only own it until you try to install it. When you install it, it shows you some screen where you "agree" to a contract, and the contract causes you to retroactively never have bought it (even though at time of purchase, you bought it the same way as you buy anything else, and there were no special terms of the sale) and you only get to do certain things (install it and play it) by the grace of a license. And you don't own the copy. You own a copy of books, music, movies and even other software, but not Blizzard products. They are special and can't be compared to any other type of commerce.
They did not include reverse engineering in the things that they graciously allow you to do, and yes, you're dealing with a whitelist of permitted activities.
Most things that you reverse engineer, you're able to do so because you lawfully own a copy. But Blizzard's time-travel license made it so that you retroactively never lawfully own a copy. That means you can't legally reverse engineer it, because you never have a lawful copy to work with.
How can you possibly test a WoW server, if you don't have the WoW client to interact with it? How can you RE the protocol when you don't have the right to have the client send requests? You can't. There isn't any way a WoW server can be used, without the user violating the license, and violating the license results in a copyright violation, because it makes it so that you lost the previously-acquired right to install and play the game.
In my opinion, all of Blizzard's customers should sue them for fraud. They got a judge to sign off on their assertion that they don't sell copies of games. If that's not a certified admission of criminal activity, I don't know what is. The instant the judge agreed with them, they should have been sued into absolute destruction, and anything left after they paid back their customers should have been taken punitively. They appear to sell copies of software like everyone else, and all their customers think they were buying copies of software like they do for all other software, but it's deception.
You can make a damn good case that criminals have rights too, but we also have a tradition that criminals shouldn't be allowed to profit from their crimes. The most reasonable and fair thing to do would be to strip them of their copyright (and also imprison them). But until the government catches up, vigilante solutions are probably the best way to mitigate the effects of their criminal fraud. And if I were a Blizzard exec, I think I would vastly prefer there being a bunch of pirates out there, over the better solution of me having to spend the rest of my life in prison.
I don't know why this company wants to call attention to themselves. They should be afraid of courts knowing they're still in the "business" of not-selling software.
Software Owner's Bill of Rights by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 05:38 · Score: 2

It gets a little tricky there, because people still own a copy of vanilla WoW. I am pretty sure that companies like Blizzard could actually be sued for selling a retail software package that they remotely disable and prevent from operating. EULA that you agree to when you sign in to their servers have very little if any actual legal weight, and I know I didn't sign anything when I bought my copy at retail, which the courts have ruled is where that has to take place to be at any level enforceable.
Furthermore, if you develop software that interacts with your copy of vanilla WoW and lets it run without Blizzard servers, there is not a damn thing they can do about it, as long as you didn't copy their code on the server side. They are alleging that here, but their evidence seems thin to the point of losing all credibility (almost the same is not the same).
It is far and away time to counterbalance the DMCA with a software/users bill of rights, defeating once and for all all of the abusive EULAs and attempts to use the DMCA to enforce shit copyright claims.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The only reason Blizzard even cares by nehumanuscrede · 2018-02-05 05:47 · Score: 1

is because they see a monetary possibility in resurrecting the Classic Game vs the modern day version of it.
This isn't about DMCA, Copyright, et. al.
It's about fan run servers taking away a future potential business angle and the profits it would provide.
Emulation is violation of DMCA by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-05 05:52 · Score: 2

Whomever is running that server is pretty much boned. Reverse-engineering the WOW protocol is a violation of DMCA all by itself, so naturally running the software to provide a server is also a violation of DMCA. The question of some spell system or files being the sore point is moot.
Emulation has always been a gray area that people have operated in. It's not legally permitted, but for the most part, companies have turned a blind-eye toward this.
Sadly, Blizzard isn't one of those companies. At the end of the day, the legacy server doesn't have a leg to stand on here. If Blizzard wants them gone, they have little-to-none recourse.
My suggestion? Don't play MMO's that are closed up like WoW. Move to an MMO that's more open. Like ARK Survival, Minecraft or Space Engineers, or any of the other open-world type offerings out there that include a server for you to run as you see fit.
1. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by Wulf2k · 2018-02-05 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Reverse-engineering the WOW protocol is a violation of DMCA all by itself, "
  Care to highlight that line of the DMCA for us?
2. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-05 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Care to highlight that line of the DMCA for us?
  Sure. This straight from Wikipedia:
  
  The second portion (17 U.S.C. 1201) is often known as the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions changed the remedies for the circumvention of copy-prevention systems (also called "technical protection measures") and required that all analog video recorders have support for a specific form of copy prevention created by Macrovision (now Rovi Corporation) built in, giving Macrovision an effective monopoly on the analog video-recording copy-prevention market. The section contains a number of specific limitations and exemptions, for such things as government research and reverse engineering in specified situations. Although, section 1201(c) of the title stated that the section does not change the underlying substantive copyright infringement rights, remedies, or defenses, it did not make those defenses available in circumvention actions. The section does not include a fair use exemption from criminality nor a scienter requirement, so criminal liability could attach to even unintended circumvention for legitimate purposes.[3]
  Reverse-engineering WoW protocol counts as circumvention of copy protection (Blizzard will definitely argue it to be true.) Done. Have fun!
3. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't matter. The DMCA notice wasn't about emulation, it was specifically about a few database files.
4. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-05 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter. The DMCA notice wasn't about emulation, it was specifically about a few database files.
  Does matter. It shows they are going after a different aspect of the server, first. Perhaps their legal team sees it as easier to win in court. Doesn't make my case any less relevant, Blizzard can definitely fall back on DMCA anti-circumvention rules if the copyright infringement on files and/or database structure fails.
  I'm a little surprised this is the avenue they decided to pursue. The anti-circumvention seems like a much easier win.
5. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Reverse-engineering WoW protocol counts as circumvention of copy protection (Blizzard will definitely argue it to be true.)
  It would be trivial to argue as well. Without private servers, a Blizzard subscription is the only way to play the game. Add private servers, and a subscription is no longer required.
6. Re:Emulation is violation of DMCA by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-06 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  Reverse-engineering the WOW protocol is a violation of DMCA all by itself, so naturally running the software to provide a server is also a violation of DMCA.
  Like any Act of Congress, the DMCA has zero legal authority when it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land. As the Bill of Rights is open-ended, and a number of fundamental rights such as the right to ethical government and the right to ethical practice of law are among the rights protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments, the DMCA is in conflict with the Bill of Rights on many levels.
  Any precedent to the contrary, by any court, is an illegal precedant, and hence a violation of the judge(s) oath(s) to uphold the Bill of Rights as the highest law in the land - superseding everything in the pre-Bill of Constitution, and all other legal codes in the land. Illegal precedents are also a violation of the Constitutional requirement of good behaviour.
  Further, in practice, the current copyright system represents rent-seeking behaviour by special interest groups (not the least of which being the US legal profession), and any law implementing such as an illegal law that violates fundamental rights "under the colour of law". A massive revision of the copyright system - including the DMCA - is required by the Bill of Rights for this reason alone.
  In short, what does it take to get government to obey the law? Why is this so difficult?
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 05:53 · Score: 0

Ah yes, freedom fighter Kimble who spent a life time ripping people off. Credit card fraud, securities fraud, a truly good man. All hail the king of Slashdot because he ran some shitty file locker service and willingly profited from piracy.
Maybe Not Abandoned At All? by Toad-san · 2018-02-05 05:55 · Score: 2

https://wccftech.com/wow-class...
"
Gaming
Blizzard VP Talks WoW Classic: Original Graphics the Starting Place; Mentions Nostalgia and Rose-Colored Glasses
Author Photo
By Aernout
Feb 4
15Shares
Share Tweet Submit
world of warcraft classic
Blizzard’s Vice President and production director on World of Warcraft, J. Allen Brack, talks about re-recreating the original World of Warcraft experience in WoW Classic.
In an interview with Forbes, Brack and senior game designer Jeremy Feasel talked about the upcoming World of Warcraft vanilla server option, which was announced at BlizzCon 2017.
Brack was asked whether Classic would be using the original 2004 graphics or the high-definition character models used in the recent World of Warcraft expansions, after which he replied that re-creating the original 2004 experience is the starting place and that the Warcraft community might help them decide."
Blizzard owns the Warcraft IP, they own WoW... by kfsone · 2018-02-05 06:24 · Score: 1

LightsHope is a derivative of MaNGOS, a server emulator. This isn't a fan-recreation, you need Blizzard's client software and data to be able to play.
All the actual original creative and engineering work, creating and designing the zones, building the systems to support it, server, client and client/server, was done by Blizzard.
This is *very much* a direct violation of Blizzard's IP, copyright, trademark and etc rights.
As for Blizzard, they continue to actively develop the product, they've engaged the community in discussions about legacy and vanilla servers.
Contrary to the way "my chalice of leaving mom's basement" posts like this represent things, Blizzard are actually receptive to mimicry and fan works. Take a look at "Dungeons 3" sometime, and bear in mind that's #3.
There is a point at which Blizzard have to take action if they want to protect their ability to continue operating their business and having the ability to develop Blizzard quality games ... like WoW.

--
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
How does this promote progress? by tepples · 2018-02-05 06:41 · Score: 1

I can write a book and not even publish it, just let one person read it and then put it in a closet. I die and somebody finds it. That book will still have my copyrights and the kids will enjoy it for 70 years after I die.
In what way does state recognition of this right "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

The fact that I have never published it, means it was abandoned.
The practical (not legal) difference here is that a company published a work and then unpublished it.
Dumb Tactic by Fieryphoenix · 2018-02-05 06:56 · Score: 2

Copy right needs to be defended or it is lost. Blizzard does have to do something. But I always wonder why in the world companies don't simply negotiate carefully worded licenses with fan projects to both protect their rights AND promote fandom. Just draw up a license that allows them to continue specifically running the server but not to charge money, but not to use the IP in novel ways.
1. Re:Dumb Tactic by Fieryphoenix · 2018-02-05 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Correction, it does not need to be defended, but can impact damages awarded when a suit is won.
Total Rewrite of Corrupt Copyright Laws by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Copyright needs a total revamp after the tampering by the music and movie industry in the 1976 for their exclusive benefit that completely destroyed the original intent of copyright laws in the first palce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Copyright term for movies and TV shows should be limited to 14 years on the original work.
Copyright on software and games should be limited to 7 years with a 7 year purchasable extension requiring that the software/game still be in use and for sale to the general public at market price in good faith.
All software should be covered exclusively by copyright and all software patents summarily invalidated.
Notwithstanding the above, all commercial copyright material (TV, Movies, corporate developed software and games) automatically enters public domain if unavailable for good faith purchase or un-aired for a period of 1 year in the US after initially released anywhere in the world.
Books should be covered for 25 years with an automatic extension of 15 years if they are still in print.
Music should be covered for 14 years with a 7 year purchasable extension.
All books and music (and other small/single author content that requires a publisher) should be limited to a maximum of 3 year contract, after which the rights are reverted to the author(s) to be re-negotiated in a new contract of their choosing.
Once an item leaves "commercial" copyright, a second stage should engage (call it distribution copyright), where only the rights holder can sell the copyrighted material, but it is free for anyone to share/distribute in a nonprofit maner. This period lasts an additional 20 years, at which point the work enters the public domain.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Totally Revamp US Copyright Laws... by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 07:13 · Score: 2

Copyright needs a total revamp after the tampering by the music and movie industry in 1976 for their exclusive benefit that completely destroyed the original intent of copyright laws in the first palce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Copyright term for movies and TV shows should be limited to 14 years on the original work.
Copyright on software and games should be limited to 7 years with a 7 year purchasable extension requiring that the software/game still be in use and for sale to the general public at market price in good faith.
All software should be covered exclusively by copyright and all software patents summarily invalidated.
Notwithstanding the above, all commercial copyright material (TV, Movies, corporate developed software and games) automatically enters copyright stage two (described below) if unavailable for good faith purchase or un-aired for a period of 1 year in the US after initially released anywhere in the world.
Books should be covered for 25 years with an automatic extension of 15 years if they are still in print.
Music should be covered for 14 years with a 7 year purchasable extension.
All books and music (and other small/single author content that requires a publisher) should be limited to a maximum of 3 year contract, after which the rights are reverted to the author(s) to be re-negotiated in a new contract of their choosing.
Once an item leaves "commercial" copyright, a second stage should engage (call it distribution copyright), where only the rights holder can sell the copyrighted material, but it is free for anyone to share/distribute in a nonprofit manner. This period lasts an additional 20 years, at which point the work enters the public domain.
Further, consumer purchases of copyrighted materials should have clearly described rights set in the law, rather than the current mess of EULA "heads we win, tails you loose" bullshit. Rights like right to resell for both physical copies and digital copies, right to switch format (disc, digital, streaming, whatever), right to un-adulterated use (updates cannot remove features, function or content from a purchase, nor can updates add undesirable features, like malware, adware, tracking or telemetry), etc. as well as penalties for any company violating these rights [something like $1000 per violation, in 2018 dollars (inflation corrected), per customer, paid to the customers injured, or 5x the purchase price, whichever is greater, and they still have to fix their underlying violation].

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
It's Blizzard's Fault by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 07:54 · Score: 0

This server exists because Blizzard degraded their product and are not providing for the demand that exists. Yes they announced WoW classic, but there is no reason to trust that they won't shareholders above actual players again. Just look at Starcraft Remastered to see how soon after release/preorder sales promises started being broken. The community is pissed to say the least. Should they take down this server too without delivering a better service to replace it, it's just further grave digging on their part.
Re:Good for Blizzard by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-02-05 08:05 · Score: 1

Many Europeans THINK they are happier and doing better than Americans. (FTFY)
We're doing just fine here, and it has nothing to do with tribalism, it has to do with not letting ourselves be raped anymore by foreign interests. No European country has ever tolerated being treated the way the US has been treated around the world in the last 40 years with respect to trade imbalances, and those days are ending.
When any European country becomes a military or economic super power, let me know, otherwise, well, yeah, you know where you can shove your smug European sense of superiority.
You don't like or think you need the US? Fine, lose our number and don't call us when Russia invades the next European country, and the next, and the next...

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Software as a service sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 08:40 · Score: 0

The problem is capitalism. Games used to be shareable like ideas. Somehow someone decided that they should continue getting payment everytime someone plays their game or uses their idea.
I no longer own things I purchase and am instead borrowing them.
1. Re:Software as a service sucks by _Sharp'r_ · 2018-02-05 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is capitalism. Games used to be shareable like ideas.
  This is the part where capitalism, AKA a free market system was in effect. This is what we call it when people make agreements with each other to exchange things like games and then can do what they want with what they each get.
  
  Somehow someone decided that they should continue getting payment everytime someone plays their game or uses their idea. I no longer own things I purchase and am instead borrowing them.
  This is the part where you're complaining about how some people decided to get together and force other people to do stuff they didn't want to by virtue of their numbers and force of arms. In common parlance, that's your local monopoly government in action, paying off their supporters/friends. This has nothing to do with capitalism, nor with free markets. Instead, it's what happens when people allow a government to take over so many parts of life that the people who want power and wealth switch their efforts to persuading the politicians and the bureaucrats to force people to do what they want in the form of laws and regulations rather than needing to convince other people to make mutually beneficial voluntary agreements with them. As outlined in Hayek's book, this is the inevitable result of allowing a government more and more economic power.
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Java and WoW and SCO Unix by DrYak · 2018-02-05 09:08 · Score: 1

Also similarly, SCO Unix' arguments against Linux about content of *system header files* comes to mind.
If indeed there were no Blizzard copyrighted assets (think giant maps, artwork) but only general look-alike-ness of a couple of structures and a few numbers - as seems to be indicated by the cited DMCA takedown notice, this classic server emulator show have a solid case, even in the US.
- you need to replicate functionality in order to emulate in a compatible way.
- you can't copyright numbers
(- and you can't copy right a collection such as a database *by itself* (i.e.: without any further creative work) , e.g.: a phone book's content isn't copyrightable, though a nice illustration on its cover could be. the SQL designated in the DMCA take-down notice border on being a "phone book (-like) of objects".)

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Phonebooks by DrYak · 2018-02-05 09:10 · Score: 1

Feist Publication vs Rural Telephone Service seems a relevant comparison.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No artworks or other assets by DrYak · 2018-02-05 09:17 · Score: 1

For instance, just because you store Game of Thrones in Postgres doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright by sharing that database.
In your example, the art assets (video content) is what is copyrighted (the Postgres is irrelevant. It's just a container, functionally equivalent to storing the stream in Matroska).
The DCMA takedown notice mentionned in the article doesn't list any copyrightable asset (no artworks, etc.)
Duplicating a collection of factoids isn't copyrightable.
And all the arguments of the notice are similar to "Waaah! Their table of spells looks just like ours back then!"
NOTE: Not the artwork of the spells (which is on the game disk legally bought by the players, not on the servers). Just the numbers giving the strength of the spells and maybe a few of their serial numbers.
Basically, what is reported to be duplicated looks like a "phone book of spells". And you definitely can't copyright a phone book in the US.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:26 · Score: 0

Irrelevant in the extreme. Even if Kim dotcom was guilty he should have been afforded the rule of law. As it happens the NZ authorities and the FBI made any case that there might have been against him impossible to prosecute due to extreme misconduct.
Re: Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:27 · Score: 0

You sound bitter sweet tits. Did you own rapidgator?
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 09:36 · Score: 0

They might not be able to dictate policy with the Russians, but there are always chips for bargaining. I doubt they'd ever worry about something as inconsequential as Light's Hope, but if the US offered to remove some names from the Magnitsky Act then I'm sure old Vlad would be fairly receptive to any number of requests.
Vanilla by kenwd0elq · 2018-02-05 10:05 · Score: 1

Blizzard recognizes the appeal of the original "Vanilla" version of World of Warcraft, and said back in November that the "Vanilla" version would be restored. So from that standpoint, a DMCA takedown is to be expected; the Vanilla fansite is directly competing against Blizzard's own new/old product.
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 11:10 · Score: 0

Wasnt Kim Dotcom in New Zealand?
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Rakarra · 2018-02-05 11:59 · Score: 1

The United States does not dictate world policy.
When it spends as much money on its military as the next ten nations combined, the United States can do whatever it damned well pleases. Might makes right.
Yet Russia is more than capable of standing up to the United States. They are more than willing to operate without the blessing of the UN or NATO, and they don't particularly care about sovereignty rights or human rights which started hamstringing US military operations in Vietnam.
The total amount of money spent doesn't matter -- at some point you only need to reach a certain threshold of nuclear weapons. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing in a room awash with gasoline. One side has five matches, the other side has fifty. Each is concerned who has more matches. The amount of weapons that are available to either side are so bloated, so grossly in excess of what's needed dissuade the other.
Dropped SW Services for anything else too? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-05 13:51 · Score: 0

Quicken 2001 stopped updating stock quotes, so we bought Quicken 2005. Eventually that stopped updating stock quotes, so we bought 2011. Eventually that stopped updating stock quotes, so ...
See the issue? Yesterday, Quick 2018 was released with a 5 yrs "online subscription" included.
I understand many people like to sync their online banking accounts which their local Quicken. I do not. I just want the stock quotes updated and I'd be just as happy running Quicken 1998 still. There isn't anything new that I need since then. It is a forced upgrade for no additional functionality.
Quicken 2001 has been abandoned. We should be allowed to run appropriate servers to provide stock quotes, IMHO.
Re:Blizzard Issues DMCA Notice to a Fan-Run 'WoW' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-06 12:41 · Score: 0

Last I heard Kim Dotcom was still in NZ
Learn from this Blizzard by sad_ · 2018-02-07 00:05 · Score: 1

It means a lot of people are interested in playing the old WoW, give them what they want.
Then again, you don't really need even more cash, do you.

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.