Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Deleted]

http://blog.iusmentis.com/2014/04/11...-europese-hof/

hello

I'm not dutch. But it doesnt matter at all what it says. The EU court of law basicly overruled NL. This is why Denmark is voting no to EU btw

[Idoru]

Again you claim a lot, but show no proof. And your example of Holland is exactly the wrong one: in Holland it is legal to download pirated content, it is not legal to upload (distribute) it. Jesus, some people.

So in your own words, show some proof.

[Deleted]

It's illegal in France and it's illegal in the US. That's all that matters.

Indeed in this case, but don't make generalizing statements then.

[Deleted]

So in your own words, show some proof.

A quick google search basicly says: its not legal


Here is another link to the EU court of justice overruling Holland

https://www.rt.com/news/copyright-pi...lms-music-724/

[Kyanion]

A quick google search basicly says: its not legal

color me surprised.

[MMKing]

Downloading pirated movies is not stealing. K. I'm done with you.

If you are the legal owner of a pirates of the Caribbean disc, downloading it is not illegal, you already own the licence to use it for personal use. So if you forget it, go to holiday, you can download it and watch it yourself. Sharing it is illegal, and downloading it without owning it is illegal.

So if you purchase World of Warcraft. You can legally download World of Warcraft, with no regard as to where you actually got the game. Even if Blizzard updates their games, you are still the legal owner of the game. This may be tricky, legally speaking, if you buy world of Warcraft today. If Blizzard removed a feature in 2008, and you bought the game in 2009, you may not be entitled to play a version released in 2007. But if you bought World of Warcraft prior to TBC, you are undeniably well within your right to play on any server you see fit.

As for the legal issue of Hosting a server for a game you own, for people who also own the game. It's a mess. Anyone claiming to know the definitive answer is extremely unlikely to have any background in law. The only comparable case we know, is a case of a private server in the US charging money for in game items. Effectively using Blizzard copyrighted software to turn a profit.

Could Blizzard win in a French court? No idea, but they most certainly could have forced expenses and damage to reputation the server provider was simply not willing to risk.


The whole case is a mess because
1. No comparable case in France

2. Unclear laws regarding server hosing, the French practically invented bureaucracy. Why is Call of Duty 4 server hosting ok, but World of Warcraft server hosting not?

3. Notalrius profiteering over the whole endeavor is in question. Server services cost money, claiming any profit as ''access to server'' service is a legal mess in and of itself. Is Blizzard selling access to play World of Warcraft, or are they selling access to use their servers which contain World of Warcraft?

4. Presumably, everyone on the Nostalrius developer team owned a legal copy of World of Warcraft. Seeing as they chose to use a server provider, the team was presumably not organized as a company.

5. Nostalrius is presumably not registered as anything more than the web page. In a court room, i doubt it has any more legal meaning than your guild name.

[Deleted]

I'm not dutch. But it doesnt matter at all what it says. The EU court of law basicly overruled NL. This is why Denmark is voting no to EU btw

The ruling from the EU court is not binding (it's advisory: the law still has to be changed in the country itself). And this is also what is explained in the article I linked, from THE expert on these issues. Since the law in the Netherlands has not been changed, it's still legal.

[Idoru]

Indeed in this case, but don't make generalizing statements then.

I am only talking about this case.

[Deleted]

If you are the legal owner of a pirates of the Caribbean disc, downloading it is not illegal, you already own the licence to use it for personal use. So if you forget it, go to holiday, you can download it and watch it yourself. Sharing it is illegal, and downloading it without owning it is illegal.

So if you purchase World of Warcraft. You can legally download World of Warcraft, with no regard as to where you actually got the game. Even if Blizzard updates their games, you are still the legal owner of the game. This may be tricky, legally speaking, if you buy world of Warcraft today. If Blizzard removed a feature in 2008, and you bought the game in 2009, you may not be entitled to play a version released in 2007. But if you bought World of Warcraft prior to TBC, you are undeniably well within your right to play on any server you see fit.

As for the legal issue of Hosting a server for a game you own, for people who also own the game. It's a mess. Anyone claiming to know the definitive answer is extremely unlikely to have any background in law. The only comparable case we know, is a case of a private server in the US charging money for in game items. Effectively using Blizzard copyrighted software to turn a profit.

Could Blizzard win in a French court? No idea, but they most certainly could have forced expenses and damage to reputation the server provider was simply not willing to risk.

Do you mind providing proof of that?

A few brief google searches do not agree with downloading pirated stuff even though you own an original copy being legal.

Not saying its not true, but i'd like to see some proof

- - - Updated - - -

The ruling from the EU court is not binding (it's advisory: the law still has to be changed in the country itself). And this is also what is explained in the article I linked, from THE expert on these issues. Since the law in the Netherlands has not been changed, it's still legal.

Yes... yes it is. Its definately binding bro. You can most definately get chraged my the EU court of law for online piracy if you live in Holland.

Literally every single page on google says so. And you have provided 0 proof

[Deleted]

Yes... yes it is. Its definately binding bro. You can most definately get chraged my the EU court of law for online piracy if you live in Holland.

Lol, the expert on these issues explains why it is not and a nobody from Denmark claims different. Secondly, the EU Court of Law doesn't prosecute citizens. Get your knowledge from other places than Google and raiding answers from online forums a like Quora.

[Deleted]

Lol, the expert on these issues explains why it is not and a nobody from Denmark claims different. Secondly, the EU Court of Law doesn't prosecute citizens. Get your knowledge from other places than Google and raiding answers from online forums a like Quora.

What expert?
And where do you get yours?

Also i like how you started this discussion being butthurt that people where being demeaning towards you and now look at you go :P

Coutnry shaming and flaming :P

[Deleted]

What expert?
And where do you get yours?

You could put the article I linked in Google Translate, you could do some background checking on the author of the article. THAT expert.
Also, you could read up on what the EU Court of Law is, instead of making ridiculous claims

-edit- See, so easy it is to link valid information. Not some Q&A from a random forum on the internet found using Google.

[Deleted]

Steal? How is it stealing?

They're not taking money for anything, how is this any different than Fair use?

So with that logic I can steal something from you but as long as I'm not making any money from it than its all good?

[Deleted]

You could put the article I linked in Google Translate, you could do some background checking on the author of the article. THAT expert.
Also, you could read up on what the EU Court of Law is, instead of making ridiculous claims

-edit- See, so easy it is to link valid information. Not some Q&A from a random forum on the internet found using Google.

"enforcing the law (infringement proceedings) – this type of case is taken against a national government for failing to comply with EU law. Can be started by the European Commission or another EU country. If the country is found to be at fault, it must put things right at once, or risk a second case being brought, which may result in a fine."

"ensuring the EU takes action (actions for failure to act) – the Parliament, Council and Commission must make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If they don't, EU governments, other EU institutions or (under certain conditions) individuals or companies can complain to the Court."

Thank you for prooving me right

Putting an entire aricle through a google translate(that sucks) plus doing background check on a percieved expert is to much work.

[Deleted]

So with that logic I can steal something from you but as long as I'm not making any money from it than its all good?

The problem is that this case has several issues: Copyright infringement is one. When they started to ask money for services delivered (basically they did by asking the hosting provider to be paid), it is another issue. The people using the service provided is still another. An lastly the hosting provider offering "illegal" services is one too. This all got swept into one generalized statement of everybody being "thieves".

- - - Updated - - -

"enforcing the law (infringement proceedings) – this type of case is taken against a national government for failing to comply with EU law. Can be started by the European Commission or another EU country. If the country is found to be at fault, it must put things right at once, or risk a second case being brought, which may result in a fine."

"ensuring the EU takes action (actions for failure to act) – the Parliament, Council and Commission must make certain decisions under certain circumstances. If they don't, EU governments, other EU institutions or (under certain conditions) individuals or companies can complain to the Court."

Thank you for prooving me right

Putting an entire aricle through a google translate(that sucks) plus doing background check on a percieved expert is to much work.

You did not read the article, so don't know the "problem". The law still has not been changed in Holland. So basically we are waiting for the CJEU to do the right thing: "enforcing the law". Again, you proved yourself to be wrong by just linking irrelevant information about how the CJEU works. It's informational, but not what the discussion is about and certainly no proof.

BTW. Can you also provide some text about the CJEU prosecuting citizens for online piracy, which you claimed?

[Deleted]

The problem is that this case has several issues: Copyright infringement is one. When they started to ask money for services delivered (basically they did by asking the hosting provider to be paid), it is another issue. The people using the service provided is still another. An lastly the hosting provider offering "illegal" services is one too. This all got swept into one generalized statement of everybody being "thieves".

- - - Updated - - -



You did not read the article, so don't know the "problem". The law still has not been changed in Holland. So basically we are waiting for the CJEU to do the second thing: "actions for failure to act". Again, you proved yourself to be wrong by just linking irrelevant information about how the CJEU works. It's informational, but not what the discussion is about.

BTW. Can you also provide some text about the CJEU prosecuting citizens for online piracy?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/21423...therlands.html

http://mashable.com/2014/04/10/downl.../#jR2tpGvdjmqM

All i can find in english says that following that court ruling they changes the rules as is what this posts says.

If you can translate an article from your governent that says differently i'd be happy to read it.

[Deleted]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/21423...therlands.html

http://mashable.com/2014/04/10/downl.../#jR2tpGvdjmqM

All i can find in english says that following that court ruling they changes the rules as is what this posts says.

If you can translate an article from your governent that says differently i'd be happy to read it.

There is no "article" from the Dutch government about it (the law has not been changed, so why publish anything about it). And this is exactly what the expert is talking about: as long as the Dutch government doesn't change the law (and comply to what the CJEU has said) downloading pirated software/movies is still legal. You can link a thousand articles about how what the CJEU has mandated is now in effect in Holland too, as long as the law is not changed it's legal to download.

The right step for the CJEU to take is exactly what you posted: "enforce the law".

-edit- From the article: "The Dutch government will now have to modify the private copying levy rules, Alkema said." And this has not been done! That's what I have been saying all the time.

[Logwyn]

If you are the legal owner of a pirates of the Caribbean disc, downloading it is not illegal, you already own the licence to use it for personal use. So if you forget it, go to holiday, you can download it and watch it yourself. Sharing it is illegal, and downloading it without owning it is illegal.

So if you purchase World of Warcraft. You can legally download World of Warcraft, with no regard as to where you actually got the game. Even if Blizzard updates their games, you are still the legal owner of the game. This may be tricky, legally speaking, if you buy world of Warcraft today. If Blizzard removed a feature in 2008, and you bought the game in 2009, you may not be entitled to play a version released in 2007. But if you bought World of Warcraft prior to TBC, you are undeniably well within your right to play on any server you see fit.

As for the legal issue of Hosting a server for a game you own, for people who also own the game. It's a mess. Anyone claiming to know the definitive answer is extremely unlikely to have any background in law. The only comparable case we know, is a case of a private server in the US charging money for in game items. Effectively using Blizzard copyrighted software to turn a profit.

Could Blizzard win in a French court? No idea, but they most certainly could have forced expenses and damage to reputation the server provider was simply not willing to risk.


The whole case is a mess because
1. No comparable case in France

2. Unclear laws regarding server hosing, the French practically invented bureaucracy. Why is Call of Duty 4 server hosting ok, but World of Warcraft server hosting not?

3. Notalrius profiteering over the whole endeavor is in question. Server services cost money, claiming any profit as ''access to server'' service is a legal mess in and of itself. Is Blizzard selling access to play World of Warcraft, or are they selling access to use their servers which contain World of Warcraft?

4. Presumably, everyone on the Nostalrius developer team owned a legal copy of World of Warcraft. Seeing as they chose to use a server provider, the team was presumably not organized as a company.

5. Nostalrius is presumably not registered as anything more than the web page. In a court room, i doubt it has any more legal meaning than your guild name.

But do they have a legal copy of the server license? Its kinda like yeah you have a license to Windows 7 but do you have a license to Windows Server 2012.

[Deleted]

There is no "article" from the Dutch government about it (the law has not been changed, so why publish anything about it). And this is exactly what the expert is talking about: as long as the Dutch government doesn't change the law (and comply to what the CJEU has said) downloading pirated software/movies is still legal. You can link a thousand articles about how what the CJEU has mandated is now in effect in Holland too, as long as the law is not changed it's legal to download.

The right step for the CJEU to take is exactly what you posted: "enforce the law".

-edit- From the article: "The Dutch government will now have to modify the private copying levy rules, Alkema said." And this has not been done!

That article is from 2014 however. Right around the time they where changing the laws

[cFortyfive]

If you are the legal owner of a pirates of the Caribbean disc, downloading it is not illegal, you already own the licence to use it for personal use. So if you forget it, go to holiday, you can download it and watch it yourself. Sharing it is illegal, and downloading it without owning it is illegal.

While common sense might support that line of thought it's not universally true at all.

But do they have a legal copy of the server license?

Obviously not.