Codewalker

Shrug.

We tried goodwill. They told us where to stuff it.

They can't really complain if people take their advice.

It was supposed to release on the 23rd.

However the contact was never placed in Steel Canyon, so it's impossible to access.

It works on the beta server though, and is well worth the trip over. Epic finish to the SSA.

Then why are you still here? Take your own advice and "Move on".

And I'm not convinced that the one who posted about it on Facebook was really banned, or if they were that it was because of FB posts. Smells like a stunt to try and get publicity / sympathy to me.

I have no doubt that the person who initiated a chargeback got banned though. But they were at least up front about exactly what they did, even if they didn't seem to understand why it was a problem.

The glass is half full side is that you know they won't be wiping the beta server in the next month, so from now until close, the beta server might as well be considered 'live'.

Seems very Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to me.

Except that's complete bunk.

17 U.S.C. § 103 states that the copyright of a derivative work -- at least the portion of the work that was uniquely created by you -- rests with the creator of the derived work. This happens automatically.

17 U.S.C. § 204(a) states that a transfer of copyright ownership requires a written and signed contract to be valid. Click-throughs may not apply, better luck next time.

17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(1) states that "A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant."

Translation: If they grant you a license to use their IP like backstory and costume pieces in order to create your character, which they have to do either explicitly or implicitly for you to be able to play the game at all, then even once those rights are terminated you may continue to use them in the context of the character that you created. You can't create any NEW characters with that IP should they explicitly revoke the license, which also requires written notification, but they can't stop you from using your existing ones.

And they know it, too. If you really could sign away IP by clicking a button, then there would be no need for the lines AFTER that part:

i.e. "In case the above text is preempted by actual law, you grant us a license to use your IP."

EULAs are all about throwing as much BS as you can at somebody to see what sticks. Half the stuff in there is unenforceable and they know it, hence the contingency after contingency:

Actually, the IP license might have to be modified in any event. I'll have to double check but I'm fairly sure that you can't actually grant an irrevocable license.

Yes, 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3) codifies in law a termination option 35 years after the publication of the work. Sure it's 35 years, but it's yet another part of the EULA that is illegal. So everybody make sure to mark your calendars to send NCSoft an official letter if they're still around in 35 years.

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. It's "Make new a game that feels kind of like COH, with some homages, but nothing that infringes on any copyrighted material."

I'm still a bit skeptical, since the effort thus far is a lot of ideas, some of them really BIG ideas that would have to be cut or scaled back to be realistic. There's some real potential and talent lurking though (seriously, check out some of the concept art), so if the right leadership stepped up and focused all the brainstorming in the right direction, it might could actually work.

... just so long as they don't go overboard with the "these are our version of the Rikti" stuff that keeps popping up. I'm okay with homages, but there should be SOME original content that isn't an obvious ripoff.

That can work both ways. NCSoft has a lot of resources, true, but if B&S isn't a mega hit and they take another loss, their financial viability is in question.

And Starsman is absolutely right. It comes down to the content, as that's the part that would run afoul of copyright law. That's one of the subjects of debate behind the scenes. If the COH IP can't be legally acquired, then given the ability to replicate the game engine (and if it happened it WOULD be from scratch), is it worth it to spend the time to develop new content, or would those resources be better utilized for something like Plan Z?

That is something that is very much hotly disputed right now. Google right of first sale. The license agreement may say that, but that doesn't make it legal or true. If it said that NCSoft owns your firstborn child, don't you think that might run afoul of a few laws?

Content companies are lobbying very hard to make this a reality, but it wasn't always so and doesn't have to be. The big media players want you to be a good little consumer that has no rights and keeps coming back for more. The EFF is fighting to prevent it. They've lost some battles, but they've also won some.

There are also certain protections in place due to the risk of companies using DRM and then shutting down the server that lets you access it in order to force you to buy new things. Look up the DMCA exceptions for bypassing technical copy-protection measures in order to access legally purchased works that no longer function due to the manufacturer discontinuing support or no longer making it available.

TL;DR, depending on which jurisdiction you live in, you may own your copy (subject to the usual restrictions on unauthorized duplication/distribution), or you may merely own a license subject to the whims of a corporation. If you're in one where it's still contested, DO NOT SIMPLY LAY DOWN AND GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, or you're part of the problem.

Edit: Some relevant court cases:

Supporting "software is licensed":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Ind...Entm%27t,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

Supporting "transaction is a sale, you own it":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftMan...e_Systems_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...oup_v._Augusto

Also, NCSoft themselves are currently involved in a lawsuit over Lineage II addiction. The court denied their motion to dismiss that was based on the EULA's disclaimer of liability, on the grounds that a license agreement cannot override liability for gross negligence.

1. Titan is not working on an emulator.

2. I'm not working on an emulator. At the moment I'm working on a costume creator, which while slightly EULA-breaking, isn't really much more so than any of our existing tools.

3. A couple people might be discussing the idea, but it's not something that is extremely popular due to the legal risks involved. They might do it anyway, we certainly have a headstart on the information someone would need in order to do it, but I can't say for sure. If they did, they certainly wouldn't be working on Plan Z at the same time. There's no way a single person could do both even if they wanted to.

4. If you're that paranoid about the EULA (which is mostly bogus, if you read it you'll find that it's quite difficult to actually play the game without violating it in some way), then why were you on Titan to begin with? Where did you think all the data for Mids, City of Data, *the Wiki*, Sentinel, etc. came from?

Updating the Korean creator is pretty much impossible due to how many changes have been made in the game engine and data formats since then. You might be able to port some pieces manually, but it would be almost like re-creating them, and they wouldn't look the same.

Fortunately there is a better way.

Is this enough info?

I'm not sure why Studio 55 gets so dark in there, but it looks like a collision wall in the plaques layer.

Or to quote Tony Stark, "I'm sorry Nick, what were you lying?"

Exactly. Going lawsuit happy didn't even put a dent in music piracy. What finally killed it was the music industry waking up and deciding to actually give people what they wanted. Granted it took Apple poking them with a sharp stick repeatedly to force the issue and point them in the right direction (music company execs are a little slow), but it worked.

Sure, a few people still do it, but the majority just buy it on iTunes or Amazon. They weren't pirating music because they're cheapskates, they were doing it because it was more convenient and closer to what they actually wanted than the music industry was offering. They wanted the ability to download just the tracks they want for a reasonable price, and play them back on any device they want.

I underlined that because it's an important part of the equation, and is a big part of why the industry's early attempts at digital distribution failed -- people just didn't want DRM-laden crap that could stop working because they got a new computer or because some company pulled a kill switch.