Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
>Refresh my memory, here - it's been a LONG time. > >Battlenet does or does not require you to log in, using a unique name/password that guarantees you paid >admission? Doesn't it require the CD key? >Battlenet does or does not require the client checksum itself, verifying it is not hacked?
You are missing the issue. For there to be a circumvention of a protection, you need to either do some copying that the protection prevents or controls, OR you need to access some work that the protection prevents or controls. Now, what such copying or access is going on when a user uses bnetd? None. What happens on battle.net is irellevant since a bnetd user will not be accessing battle.net. The copy protection (it is really an access protection though, no copying is going on) prevents access to battle.net. To circumvent that protection, you need to still access battle.net, while circumventing the protection. Since n one would be accessing battle.net while using bnetd, there can't be any circumvention of the protection either.
>bnetd does or does not fail to implement these [and other features].
So what? Neither do almost any other program in the world. bnetd is a server that allows other programs to connect to it, there is no protection needed to access bnetd, so no circumvention is needed.
>netd copied the battlenet protocol. Which is also blizzard's IP.
What do you mean by "IP"? Are you claiming they hold some patent to it? Some trademark? Copyright? If so please state what you mean instead of tossing out a meaningless "IP" since it doesn't help the discussion at all. To my knowledge there is no patents on the protocol. Trademark would be irellevant and you won't get copyright on a protocol. So what is it you are trying to say?
>I bet they infringed on a copyright, but IANAL.
You bet? So you are basically just guessing? And if you mean copyright? Why not state so instead of using a very vague and confusing "IP"? Laws and how patents work are for example very different to copyright. So lets see what copyright infringement there was, any copying of Blizzard's code? No, any distribution of their code? No. Any piublic performance? No and so on. There is no copyright infringement. So you lost your bet.
>But let's turn this on it's head: if blizzard was selling the battlenet service for $5/month, and >someone wrote bnetd, would anyone be surprised they got shut down?
Yes, if they charge for it is irellevant. This is common market and competition. If someone starts a service (regardless of if they charge for it or not), would you be surprised if someone started a competing service and got shut down just because it was competing? Of course you would.
>As it turns out, blizzard IS selling battlenet. The price is $0/month. That makes it a little more >surprising that they're getting shut down, but the rules are the same.
That is completely irellevant. And no, they don't seel it anyway, but even if they would it would not change anything. From a copyright perspective it would certainly not.
>Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net.
So??? battle.net is irellevant since bnetd doesn't have you play in battle..net. It has nothing to do with copy protection either.
>Yes, it was copy protection,
Of what?
>and yes BNetD circumvented it,
Circuvented what and copying of what? If there is no copying going on, there can't be any circumvention of copy protection. Alternatively there is some access of a protected work that is going on, if not, there is no circumvetion of access control either. So what access are you talking about going on when someone create bnetd, or alternatively, use bnetd??? None.
Re:you're looking in the wrong place...
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
>For that Diablo 3 goodness, try Guild Wars.
I fail to see what GW has to do with Diablo. I assume you might be thinking about persons leaving Blizzard North, but most of the key persons at Blizzard North actually went to Flagship, the ones doing Hellgate:London.
Re:Why is Vivendi/Blizzard worthy of Slashdot?
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 1
>You talk about protection a lot for something that is "not an >issue". That makes me think it is an issue. That and the fact >that you *can* use bnetd to circumvent the copy protection.
WHAT protection and of WHAT work? What work does bnet allows you to copy or access through circumventing any protection? What it do is provide an alternative server for you to connect to. There is nothing copied or accessed that would not be so without bnetd, so I fail to see the circumvention of a protection for any work.
>But they were copying blizzard's IP.
Exactly WHAT did they copy? And what do you mean by IP? Are you talking about any patents copied? Did they copy any trademark? Did they copy any copyright? Or if you want to be a bit loose about "copying IP", did they copy anything that was protected by a patent? A trademark? A copyright? In all cases I would answer no, so what do you mean? Actually the case has nothing about copying anything at all.
>BNetD, on the other hand, had no CD key requirement. Surprise! >The DMCA says that you can't bypass anti-circumvention >technique, of which Battle.Net's CD key check qualifies.
Sorry, but the protection has to be for a work, and you have to circumvent it to access the work. What work was accessed and what protection was circumvented? None. WHat they did was make an alternative server you could connect to. Nothing more, nothing less. No protection was circumvent to access or copy anything. The only new work accessed was their own alternative server. Game access (the client) is something the player allread has, with or without either battle.net or bnetd. That is controlled by the CD-key (which you need to install and playe the game to start with) and the CD itself. Bnetd doesn't affect any of this. Sure, to access battle.net there is an additional check on the cd-key, but then bnetd doesn't make you access battle.net at all so that protection is not circumvented, it makes you access their own work, bnetd.
>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up >circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme.
What scheme? What bnetd did was create an alternative to battle.net, nothing else. It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game.
>But in reality there are only two types of copy protection. > >1) CD-KEY
That is not a copy protection, it is an access protection, quite different. You can make a million copies of both the game and the CD-key and the fact that there is CD_key doesn't prevent the making of copies.
>2) A very convuluted method of checking if the disk is in the >drive.
That is also an access check. Although the fact that the CD is created in such a way so that you can't just copy it normally IS a copy protection.
> would bet that, when you install their player, the EULA has a line in it about Sony, or whoever, not >being responsible for and damage caused to your machine. e.g. A general "not our fault" clause. And >once you click "I agree" you've pretty much let them off the hook.
Good thing many civilized countries have consumer protection laws that either forbids or simply voids such terms though.
So you say that people are selling mods for the game? And you also claim and seems to know that those selling it (shop? person) for some strange reason has also agreed to that specific EULA? If not, they can't violate it to start with, and shops for example tend to not go arround agreeing to EULAs just for fun.
>They also happen to be advertising these mods by using The Sims >trademark.
So? Using a trademark is not nessecarilly a trademark infringement. If you make something that works together with a specific game (for example), you can of course say that. Similary if you make for example something that works in a Ford car, you can state that and so on. Since you don't even provide any link or info, it is impossible to tell how they used thew trademark. In the same way we can write The Sims here as we talk about the game, even if we were doing it for profit for some strange reason.
>It only makes it illegal to break copy protection mechanisms.
And note, that as oposed to the DMCA for example, you CAN break acceess protection mechanisms (and many of he protection mechanisms are that, access and not copy, Sure, some countries implemented the directive adding access as well, some, like Sweden, did not.
>What I am claiming is that the gold-selling sites, which use many Vivendi >copyrights, are in fact a derivitive work of Vivendi's existing copyrights.
INteresting idea but one I would say is extremely far fetched. First of all, one have of course to establis that they have created a work to start with, and one that can be said to be covered by copyright. After that, one have to show that that work, is in fact a derative work of, in this case I assume, World of Warcraft or part of it. I really can't see how that happens. They have hardly created a work and hence can't have create a derivative one. They are not even using, in my opinion anything that is covered by copyright. You could argue that pictures are used but on the other hand, showing a picture of something you sell, for example a painting, or a book, is hardly infringement. Also note that the site actually hosting is not nesscearilly the one selling. In any case, I would say that no matter how you look at it, one can't come up with a copyright infringement, even in the most extreme case.
>I would think the work would be World of Warcraft, in its entirety, which is >certainly copyrighted. Obviously its building blocks, orcs, swords, >mountains, are not copyrighted, but the compilation is.
Compilation or databses and such are indeed protected by copyright, not the content though. SInce you do not really take Blizzards own compilation and copy it, there is no such problem.
>sorry, I meant trademark law.
The only tradmark issue would be that of World of Warcraft itself. To use it in stating that the items is indeed from World of Warcraft (which they are no question about it), is hardly a trademark infringement, and not forbidden, on the contrary, it is good to state so so that there is no confusion. I don't see the devaluation though.
>I could see copyright infringement in this case under the >theory of derivitive works infringement -that is the selling of >gold on the internet under the WOW copyright could be a >legitimate derivitive use of copyrights that Vivendi owns.
Ehh, a derivative WORK (there is no such thing as derivative use) requires that you create a new work derived of some other. Which such work are you claiming is created here? In addition, there is no problem in creating any such work, it has to do with who gets the copyright on it and so on. For there to be a problem, there still has to be some sort of infringment done. So in this case, since there is none with the "original" work, it would not matter if you create a new derivative work then. Also note that there need to be a work to start with. You won't typically get copyright on pure data, so the data for a "sword" is not in itself something you get copyright on. And as I said, even if you did, there need to be some infringing act done with it.
>Also, A weaker claim could be made by Vivendi that hte gold- >sellers are "devaluing" the WOW copyright through selling >gold . .
So? Since when was that illegal, especially from a copyright point of view?
>An additional consideration is that many of these companies do >not exist within the jusrisdiciton of US courts . . .
>There, I have just made $1000 selling someone else's IP right?
No, you have not sold any "IP". Unless you claim by doing so, Blizzard would no longer hold, for example the copyright to the game any longer if you sell a copy of their game. This is of course not true. Ownership of the copyright to a work is separated from ownership of copies of a work. You have sold copies of a work and that is perfectly legal in most cases. It is codified in various ways in different countries. In US I believe it is known as first sale doctrine for example.
No, it is not. You reply with something completely irellevant. Sure, it is there you are not allowed to "sell". But that has nothing to do with IP as I said. The fact that their ToS is mixing up things doesn't make that any more or less right. So yes, it is there you can not sell, it is there they want to terminate your account if they find out, but again, it is because you agree to not do it, not because of anything remotedly related to IP.
>You would also most likely be in breach of contract.
Not "also". That IS the very reason you could not do it, nothing else. Otherwise they would not have had to put anything into the ToS to start with, just as I said.
>They own the intellectual property behind the items, and have not licensed you to sell them.
Would you care to tell WHAT "intellectual property"? And stop using generic terminology like that which only make it hard to understand what you mean. Are you claiming they hold some patents to items? Or trademarks on "an axe"? If not, why use the terminology you use. Do you refer to the copyright on "an axe"? And so on. I suspect you mean copyright, but then say so or it is hoplessly to discuss it, especially since they all are quite different. Please also note that you will typically not get copyright on plain data, for example to "an axe". I can't see any "IP" at all here but please enlighten us.
Even if there were, lets say a copyright. Would you care to tell what type of copyright infringement a "seller" is commiting? Same if you mean patents or trademarks by the way. I really can see none either.
As for licensing to sell, you are mixig up things. That would be usefull if I sold copies of the game and such to others or needed to reproduce something they hold the copyright to, that is, make new copies and such. Nothing such is going on here. There is in fact no transfer of ownership really at all (feel free to tell me what if you see any, that is, what becomes owned by the buyer and thus no longer by, for exampke Blizzard).
You are actually also mixing up the selling and transfer of ownership to something with possession of something in a game. It is no more strange than me, playing Monopoly, would pay real money for someone giving me a street in a game we play. It could very well be against the rule of our gamne of Monopoly, but the copyright holder to Monopoly has nothing to do with it, nor can they prevent it. Neither can the owner of the copy of Monopoly game.
To sumarize it, the reason you can't do it has nothing to do with anything related to IP but is all about a contract on how to play the game, the rules if you want it. That is it.
>Most MMOG companies explicitly state in their EULA/TOS that they can terminate an account at any >time for any reason,
Thus it is a good thing most civilized countries has sensible consumer protection law that forbids such termination of services at will for no reason (regardless what your agreement may say).
>I fix them occasionally and don't hold Ford accountable since things wear down.
Huh? Who is talking about things "wearing down"? We are talking errors and bugs existing in the software from the start, Similary, if the car has errors in it when I buy it, Ford (or their resellers) have to fix it. Why on earth are you starting to talk about errors form "wearing down"?
And the next time you buy a car, they simply give you the blue prints for it, and suddenly when it breaks down they can just say, tough luck, fix it yourself. Right.
>His main argument, and it is a vaild one, is that they continue to provide >support for the game after release. That means if you buy it second hand >they still provide support for it. Support costs money.
So? If they feel it cost them too much, they can stop. If my toaster maker suddenly started to have support for it after sold, would that mean I could no longer resell it?
Re:P2P Now and Then in a nutshell
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 1
>Now: stealing stuff >Then: stealing stuff > >Feal free to replace stealing with infriging if >it will help you get through the day. And don't >give me no "linux ISO" bullshit.
No idea about linux, but appearantly I just stole the latest patch to World of Warcraft. Wonder who is a patch short now.....
>Sounds like a pretty obvious step in created a >web-based email system to me...!
Perhaps, but this is about trademarks and then it is quite irellevant if you also register a domain name, that is not a requirement for registering a trademark you know.
>But they never bother spending the $10 to >register gmail.com?
What does that have anything to do with the issue? Are you claiming that one must register any trademark as a domain name as well?
Besdies, since trademarks can both exist for different markets/products and also for different geographical regions, there can due to both of that be multiple registrations for the same name as a trademark, who should then get it?
In addition, people would have access to a whole lot more work since they would be possible to get much more cheap and even free. I mean, it really doesn't matter if there is a billion of different music CDs if you can only afford to get a few each year. Would much rather prefer to be able to get the "only" a million (or whatever less there would be) available for a fraction of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
>Refresh my memory, here - it's been a LONG time.
>
>Battlenet does or does not require you to log in, using a unique name/password that guarantees you paid
>admission? Doesn't it require the CD key?
>Battlenet does or does not require the client checksum itself, verifying it is not hacked?
You are missing the issue. For there to be a circumvention of a protection, you need to either do some copying that the protection prevents or controls, OR you need to access some work that the protection prevents or controls. Now, what such copying or access is going on when a user uses bnetd? None. What happens on battle.net is irellevant since a bnetd user will not be accessing battle.net. The copy protection (it is really an access protection though, no copying is going on) prevents access to battle.net. To circumvent that protection, you need to still access battle.net, while circumventing the protection. Since n one would be accessing battle.net while using bnetd, there can't be any circumvention of the protection either.
>bnetd does or does not fail to implement these [and other features].
So what? Neither do almost any other program in the world. bnetd is a server that allows other programs to connect to it, there is no protection needed to access bnetd, so no circumvention is needed.
>netd copied the battlenet protocol. Which is also blizzard's IP.
What do you mean by "IP"? Are you claiming they hold some patent to it? Some trademark? Copyright? If so please state what you mean instead of tossing out a meaningless "IP" since it doesn't help the discussion at all. To my knowledge there is no patents on the protocol. Trademark would be irellevant and you won't get copyright on a protocol. So what is it you are trying to say?
>I bet they infringed on a copyright, but IANAL.
You bet? So you are basically just guessing? And if you mean copyright? Why not state so instead of using a very vague and confusing "IP"? Laws and how patents work are for example very different to copyright. So lets see what copyright infringement there was, any copying of Blizzard's code? No, any distribution of their code? No. Any piublic performance? No and so on. There is no copyright infringement. So you lost your bet.
>But let's turn this on it's head: if blizzard was selling the battlenet service for $5/month, and
>someone wrote bnetd, would anyone be surprised they got shut down?
Yes, if they charge for it is irellevant. This is common market and competition. If someone starts a service (regardless of if they charge for it or not), would you be surprised if someone started a competing service and got shut down just because it was competing? Of course you would.
>As it turns out, blizzard IS selling battlenet. The price is $0/month. That makes it a little more
>surprising that they're getting shut down, but the rules are the same.
That is completely irellevant. And no, they don't seel it anyway, but even if they would it would not change anything. From a copyright perspective it would certainly not.
>Blizzard blacklisted pirated keys so they couldn't be used on Battle Net.
So??? battle.net is irellevant since bnetd doesn't have you play in battle..net. It has nothing to do with copy protection either.
>Yes, it was copy protection,
Of what?
>and yes BNetD circumvented it,
Circuvented what and copying of what? If there is no copying going on, there can't be any circumvention of copy protection. Alternatively there is some access of a protected work that is going on, if not, there is no circumvetion of access control either. So what access are you talking about going on when someone create bnetd, or alternatively, use bnetd??? None.
>For that Diablo 3 goodness, try Guild Wars.
I fail to see what GW has to do with Diablo. I assume you might be thinking about persons leaving Blizzard North, but most of the key persons at Blizzard North actually went to Flagship, the ones doing Hellgate:London.
>You talk about protection a lot for something that is "not an
>issue". That makes me think it is an issue. That and the fact
>that you *can* use bnetd to circumvent the copy protection.
WHAT protection and of WHAT work? What work does bnet allows you to copy or access through circumventing any protection? What it do is provide an alternative server for you to connect to. There is nothing copied or accessed that would not be so without bnetd, so I fail to see the circumvention of a protection for any work.
>But they were copying blizzard's IP.
Exactly WHAT did they copy? And what do you mean by IP? Are you talking about any patents copied? Did they copy any trademark? Did they copy any copyright? Or if you want to be a bit loose about "copying IP", did they copy anything that was protected by a patent? A trademark? A copyright? In all cases I would answer no, so what do you mean? Actually the case has nothing about copying anything at all.
>BNetD, on the other hand, had no CD key requirement. Surprise!
>The DMCA says that you can't bypass anti-circumvention
>technique, of which Battle.Net's CD key check qualifies.
Sorry, but the protection has to be for a work, and you have to circumvent it to access the work. What work was accessed and what protection was circumvented? None. WHat they did was make an alternative server you could connect to. Nothing more, nothing less. No protection was circumvent to access or copy anything. The only new work accessed was their own alternative server. Game access (the client) is something the player allread has, with or without either battle.net or bnetd. That is controlled by the CD-key (which you need to install and playe the game to start with) and the CD itself. Bnetd doesn't affect any of this. Sure, to access battle.net there is an additional check on the cd-key, but then bnetd doesn't make you access battle.net at all so that protection is not circumvented, it makes you access their own work, bnetd.
>Your summary should include the bit where BNetD ended up
>circumventing Blizzard's copy protection scheme.
What scheme? What bnetd did was create an alternative to battle.net, nothing else. It doesn't affect the ability to copy any game (or play it) nor does it affect anything that controls the copying or access of the game.
>But in reality there are only two types of copy protection.
>
>1) CD-KEY
That is not a copy protection, it is an access protection, quite different. You can make a million copies of both the game and the CD-key and the fact that there is CD_key doesn't prevent the making of copies.
>2) A very convuluted method of checking if the disk is in the
>drive.
That is also an access check. Although the fact that the CD is created in such a way so that you can't just copy it normally IS a copy protection.
> would bet that, when you install their player, the EULA has a line in it about Sony, or whoever, not
>being responsible for and damage caused to your machine. e.g. A general "not our fault" clause. And
>once you click "I agree" you've pretty much let them off the hook.
Good thing many civilized countries have consumer protection laws that either forbids or simply voids such terms though.
>Uhhh, it's a violation of the EULA to sell mods.
So you say that people are selling mods for the game? And you also claim and seems to know that those selling it (shop? person) for some strange reason has also agreed to that specific EULA? If not, they can't violate it to start with, and shops for example tend to not go arround agreeing to EULAs just for fun.
>They also happen to be advertising these mods by using The Sims
>trademark.
So? Using a trademark is not nessecarilly a trademark infringement. If you make something that works together with a specific game (for example), you can of course say that. Similary if you make for example something that works in a Ford car, you can state that and so on. Since you don't even provide any link or info, it is impossible to tell how they used thew trademark. In the same way we can write The Sims here as we talk about the game, even if we were doing it for profit for some strange reason.
>It only makes it illegal to break copy protection mechanisms.
And note, that as oposed to the DMCA for example, you CAN break acceess protection mechanisms (and many of he protection mechanisms are that, access and not copy, Sure, some countries implemented the directive adding access as well, some, like Sweden, did not.
>What I am claiming is that the gold-selling sites, which use many Vivendi
>copyrights, are in fact a derivitive work of Vivendi's existing copyrights.
INteresting idea but one I would say is extremely far fetched. First of all, one have of course to establis that they have created a work to start with, and one that can be said to be covered by copyright. After that, one have to show that that work, is in fact a derative work of, in this case I assume, World of Warcraft or part of it. I really can't see how that happens. They have hardly created a work and hence can't have create a derivative one. They are not even using, in my opinion anything that is covered by copyright. You could argue that pictures are used but on the other hand, showing a picture of something you sell, for example a painting, or a book, is hardly infringement. Also note that the site actually hosting is not nesscearilly the one selling. In any case, I would say that no matter how you look at it, one can't come up with a copyright infringement, even in the most extreme case.
>I would think the work would be World of Warcraft, in its entirety, which is
>certainly copyrighted. Obviously its building blocks, orcs, swords,
>mountains, are not copyrighted, but the compilation is.
Compilation or databses and such are indeed protected by copyright, not the content though. SInce you do not really take Blizzards own compilation and copy it, there is no such problem.
>sorry, I meant trademark law.
The only tradmark issue would be that of World of Warcraft itself. To use it in stating that the items is indeed from World of Warcraft (which they are no question about it), is hardly a trademark infringement, and not forbidden, on the contrary, it is good to state so so that there is no confusion. I don't see the devaluation though.
>I could see copyright infringement in this case under the
>theory of derivitive works infringement -that is the selling of
>gold on the internet under the WOW copyright could be a
>legitimate derivitive use of copyrights that Vivendi owns.
Ehh, a derivative WORK (there is no such thing as derivative use) requires that you create a new work derived of some other. Which such work are you claiming is created here? In addition, there is no problem in creating any such work, it has to do with who gets the copyright on it and so on. For there to be a problem, there still has to be some sort of infringment done. So in this case, since there is none with the "original" work, it would not matter if you create a new derivative work then. Also note that there need to be a work to start with. You won't typically get copyright on pure data, so the data for a "sword" is not in itself something you get copyright on. And as I said, even if you did, there need to be some infringing act done with it.
>Also, A weaker claim could be made by Vivendi that hte gold-
>sellers are "devaluing" the WOW copyright through selling
>gold . .
So? Since when was that illegal, especially from a copyright point of view?
>An additional consideration is that many of these companies do
>not exist within the jusrisdiciton of US courts . . .
And that makes it a copyright issue how??
>There, I have just made $1000 selling someone else's IP right?
No, you have not sold any "IP". Unless you claim by doing so, Blizzard would no longer hold, for example the copyright to the game any longer if you sell a copy of their game. This is of course not true. Ownership of the copyright to a work is separated from ownership of copies of a work. You have sold copies of a work and that is perfectly legal in most cases. It is codified in various ways in different countries. In US I believe it is known as first sale doctrine for example.
>Whether they need to or not, it's there.
No, it is not. You reply with something completely irellevant. Sure, it is there you are not allowed to "sell". But that has nothing to do with IP as I said. The fact that their ToS is mixing up things doesn't make that any more or less right. So yes, it is there you can not sell, it is there they want to terminate your account if they find out, but again, it is because you agree to not do it, not because of anything remotedly related to IP.
>You would also most likely be in breach of contract.
Not "also". That IS the very reason you could not do it, nothing else. Otherwise they would not have had to put anything into the ToS to start with, just as I said.
>They own the intellectual property behind the items, and have not licensed you to sell them.
Would you care to tell WHAT "intellectual property"? And stop using generic terminology like that which only make it hard to understand what you mean. Are you claiming they hold some patents to items? Or trademarks on "an axe"? If not, why use the terminology you use. Do you refer to the copyright on "an axe"? And so on. I suspect you mean copyright, but then say so or it is hoplessly to discuss it, especially since they all are quite different. Please also note that you will typically not get copyright on plain data, for example to "an axe". I can't see any "IP" at all here but please enlighten us.
Even if there were, lets say a copyright. Would you care to tell what type of copyright infringement a "seller" is commiting? Same if you mean patents or trademarks by the way. I really can see none either.
As for licensing to sell, you are mixig up things. That would be usefull if I sold copies of the game and such to others or needed to reproduce something they hold the copyright to, that is, make new copies and such. Nothing such is going on here. There is in fact no transfer of ownership really at all (feel free to tell me what if you see any, that is, what becomes owned by the buyer and thus no longer by, for exampke Blizzard).
You are actually also mixing up the selling and transfer of ownership to something with possession of something in a game. It is no more strange than me, playing Monopoly, would pay real money for someone giving me a street in a game we play. It could very well be against the rule of our gamne of Monopoly, but the copyright holder to Monopoly has nothing to do with it, nor can they prevent it. Neither can the owner of the copy of Monopoly game.
To sumarize it, the reason you can't do it has nothing to do with anything related to IP but is all about a contract on how to play the game, the rules if you want it. That is it.
>Most MMOG companies explicitly state in their EULA/TOS that they can terminate an account at any
>time for any reason,
Thus it is a good thing most civilized countries has sensible consumer protection law that forbids such termination of services at will for no reason (regardless what your agreement may say).
>Most MMORPG makers include a clause in their EULA prohibiting the sale of in-game items or coin for
>real-world money, since they own the IP.
What does IP have anything to do with it? And if it did in some way, why would they need the EULA?
>I fix them occasionally and don't hold Ford accountable since things wear down.
Huh? Who is talking about things "wearing down"? We are talking errors and bugs existing in the software from the start, Similary, if the car has errors in it when I buy it, Ford (or their resellers) have to fix it. Why on earth are you starting to talk about errors form "wearing down"?
What does the quality have to do with anything? I commented on your post which had nothing to do with quality but were a show is aired.
And the next time you buy a car, they simply give you the blue prints for it, and suddenly when it breaks down they can just say, tough luck, fix it yourself. Right.
Were a show for example has been aired has quite little to do with if swedish law consider it legal for someone in sweden to do something or not.
>His main argument, and it is a vaild one, is that they continue to provide
>support for the game after release. That means if you buy it second hand
>they still provide support for it. Support costs money.
So? If they feel it cost them too much, they can stop. If my toaster maker suddenly started to have support for it after sold, would that mean I could no longer resell it?
>Now: stealing stuff
>Then: stealing stuff
>
>Feal free to replace stealing with infriging if
>it will help you get through the day. And don't
>give me no "linux ISO" bullshit.
No idea about linux, but appearantly I just stole the latest patch to World of Warcraft. Wonder who is a patch short now.....
>Sounds like a pretty obvious step in created a
>web-based email system to me...!
Perhaps, but this is about trademarks and then it is quite irellevant if you also register a domain name, that is not a requirement for registering a trademark you know.
>But they never bother spending the $10 to
>register gmail.com?
What does that have anything to do with the issue? Are you claiming that one must register any trademark as a domain name as well?
Besdies, since trademarks can both exist for different markets/products and also for different geographical regions, there can due to both of that be multiple registrations for the same name as a trademark, who should then get it?
In addition, people would have access to a whole lot more work since they would be possible to get much more cheap and even free. I mean, it really doesn't matter if there is a billion of different music CDs if you can only afford to get a few each year. Would much rather prefer to be able to get the "only" a million (or whatever less there would be) available for a fraction of the cost.