Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Ordinator]

In the extremely technical sense they are.

They used an IP that was not theirs to use.


My neighbor has a classic car in his garage that he has not driven in 10 years. I am sure he will not mind if I take it for a drive without his permission.

Dumb and old argument dating back to napster days. A car is tangible. And nobody was getting hurt or losing out on money by people playing Nost.

[Relapses]

Dumb and old argument dating back to napster days. A car is tangible. And nobody was getting hurt or losing out on money by people playing Nost.

So a company shouldn't give a shit about its IP since it's an old version of the game?

Lemme know when you get your degree in copyright law since I'm pretty sure that's exactly the fucking reason such a thing exists.

[Ordinator]

So a company shouldn't give a shit about its IP since it's an old version of the game?

Lemme know when you get your degree in copyright law since I'm pretty sure that's exactly the fucking reason such a thing exists.

Blizzard understandably had the right to take action. I more so hold issue with the amount of mindless drones who feel the need to condemn people in the name of Blizzard.

[Pann]

See, precedent was set and you followed it. Game, set, match, I win. You're also going by definition 2, whereas definition 1 shows precedent as: an example or guide of expectations for similar future affairs.

Good for you. Perhaps you should print that off and have a grown up stick it on the refrigerator door for you?

Words can have different meanings depending on the context of situation in this case, before you barged in, we were talking about the legal sense. It is no-one's fault but your own for interrupting a conversation and not understanding the context.

[Deleted]

Yes, actually two!

Kern is meeting with Blizzard next week - Thursday - and they accepted the paper delivery of the petition.

Nost team is meeting at the beginning of june. They couldn't reveal the exact date for security reason, but they said we'd hear of the meeting before the end of the first half of June.

Cool! Thanks for the update!

[Addict]

Blizzard understandably had the right to take action. I more so hold issue with the amount of mindless drones who feel the need to condemn people in the name of Blizzard.

More condemn them in the name of the law.

[Gavan]

More condemn them in the name of the law.

ToS is not a law.

IP protections can be laws, but have to be proven in court as infringement. No laws are determined, supported, or proven broken until resolved in court.


Right now people are defending Blizzard and nothing more. There is no legal high ground until proven in court. This site is not a court.

[Marakesh]

This site is not a court.

Thank God for that.

[Uurdz]

@Eapoe you seem stuck in a customer mindset and unwilling to accept my point. The difference in B2C and B2B relationships is significant both legally and in practice. To call it "splitting hairs" shows a lack of appreciation of this fact.

All your examples and thinking relates to customer to business relationships. If you cannot accept that this is actual a business to business relationship there there is no point in us discussing this further as we disagree on a fundamental level.

- - - Updated - - -

In the extremely technical sense they are.

They used an IP that was not theirs to use.


My neighbor has a classic car in his garage that he has not driven in 10 years. I am sure he will not mind if I take it for a drive without his permission.

IP theft is enforced by legal proceedings of the person who owns the IP. Property theft (car) is enforced by the police/law enforcement.

IP law is not cut and dry and there are caveats including fair use (not applicable here) which don't apply to property theft.

[Eapoe]

Good for you. Perhaps you should print that off and have a grown up stick it on the refrigerator door for you?

Words can have different meanings depending on the context of situation in this case, before you barged in, we were talking about the legal sense. It is no-one's fault but your own for interrupting a conversation and not understanding the context.

No, precedent, obligation, expectation, and agreement all have very specific definitions. If your failing to understand the difference then proceeded to making a claim that was refuted for being wrong is the cause of your response, then that is your failing. In the legal sense, Nost has potentially violated copyright laws (I say potentially to humor Gavan), to which people pointed out if Blizzard offered to hire them a precedent is set. You then misunderstood and spoke of precedent as obligation, to which I then corrected you (multiple times, to which you attempted to say were wrong because you, again, misunderstood the difference). Now, you are trying to say there is a difference of meaning in the words, when the literal definition is what was being discussed. The fault lies on your end, as I simply tried to show you the error of your thinking to which you then, and now, try to undermine by stating that my accomplishment was juvenile. If we can get back on topic now, if there's any new information I'd appreciate that.

[Vineri]

Well, that's what happens when you steal intellectual property and use it

The IP in question was not being used, nor would it ever be used in the future, if Blizzard had a hand.

This is the big Hmmmm moment. WoW of past is no longer playable. Should we use IP legality to prevent others from enjoying it? I would venture No, if the game is no longer playable in the state it once was.

To many, the game was better then (myself too). Work the game to either accommodate past players, or allow "illegal" servers to happen.

Blizzard got a slap across their face, and they needed one, honestly. The current game is not competitive in the current market - it is only held by current customers. Current customers are dwindling. Past customers are immense.

[Gadzooks]

The IP in question was not being used, nor would it ever be used in the future, if Blizzard had a hand..

Which has absolutely no bearing in copyright law, and unless massive changes are made to the laws, never will.

To state this just shows your complete and utter ignorance of copyright law, and your laughable defense for infringing Blizzard's copyrights is cute, but completely fantasy, if not bordering on insane.

I DARE you to go before a judge in a copyright infringement case, and say 'Well, they weren't using it". See how far that gets you. See how hard the opposing attorneys laugh at you, after you're shown the door after being judged against.

- - - Updated - - -

@Eapoe you seem stuck in a customer mindset and unwilling to accept my point. The difference in B2C and B2B relationships is significant both legally and in practice. To call it "splitting hairs" shows a lack of appreciation of this fact.

All your examples and thinking relates to customer to business relationships. If you cannot accept that this is actual a business to business relationship there there is no point in us discussing this further as we disagree on a fundamental level.

- - - Updated - - -



IP theft is enforced by legal proceedings of the person who owns the IP. Property theft (car) is enforced by the police/law enforcement.

IP law is not cut and dry and there are caveats including fair use (not applicable here) which don't apply to property theft.

There is no such thing as "IP theft". It's called "intellectual property infringement", and it's a civil matter in court, not criminal. IP rights are protected by laws, enforced by courts.

Property theft is a criminal case, violations are covered under the criminal code of the jurisdiction the theft occurred in, and enforced by courts.

This is the distinction you're clumsily trying to elaborate on.

[Vineri]

Which has absolutely no bearing in copyright law, and unless massive changes are made to the laws, never will.

To state this just shows your complete and utter ignorance of copyright law, and your laughable defense for infringing Blizzard's copyrights is cute, but completely fantasy, if not bordering on insane.

I DARE you to go before a judge in a copyright infringement case, and say 'Well, they weren't using it". See how far that gets you. See how hard the opposing attorneys laugh at you, after you're shown the door after being judged against.

And then there was .. you.

What do you care? Does it really affect you in any way? If people play the game they want to play, how exactly does this affect you? Do you have Activision stocks? Was your dad a Judge? Tell us!

[Gadzooks]

And then there was .. you.

What do you care? Does it really affect you in any way? If people play the game they want to play, how exactly does this affect you? Do you have Activision stocks? Was your dad a Judge? Tell us!

I don't owe you an explanation for anything i do, just know that if you post ignorant statements like that one, i will correct you, wether you like it or not.

Now, do you have ANYTHING to respond with, regarding your inane stance that if copyrights aren't used, there's no basis in protecting them? I have some spare time right now, and could use a laugh.

Or would you prefer to continuing sniveling at me?

[Vineri]

There is no such thing as "IP theft". It's called "intellectual property infringement", and it's a civil matter in court, not criminal. IP rights are protected by laws, enforced by courts.

Property theft is a criminal case, violations are covered under the criminal code of the jurisdiction the theft occurred in, and enforced by courts.

This is the distinction you're clumsily trying to elaborate on.

We have a name for you - backseat lawyers.

[Gadzooks]

We have a name for you - backseat lawyers.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the difference between "criminal" vs. "civil" law.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation? Or are you just going to snivel at me more?

[Vineri]

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the difference between "criminal" vs. "civil" law.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation? Or are you just going to snivel at me more?

I'd only wonder if you were getting paid to discredit Legacy folks. You seem very adamant about it, with little gain.

You see, some people out in the world like things you don't like. A good part of life is realizing this, while also understanding that nobody quite thinks the way you do.

What do you care if people enjoy Legacy WoW? You keep trying to bring up legal mumbo-jumbo. It means little.

Some people, like myself want to play Legacy LEGALLY. You don't get that I want to re-subscribe for this? I WANT TO RESUBCRIBE TO WOW TO PLAY LEGACY!.

Come Legends without Legacy, count me out, again.

[Bloodclaut]

WOOO! so close to Vanilla guys I can almost taste it.

For those of you debating precedent for treating pirates with reward, Blizzard is NOT setting that precedent at all in this situation if they oblige and provide Legacy servers.

Why?

The pirated item in question is not available on the market. Its not available for purchase. Its like Pepsi Blue. If an individual or group re-created Pepsi Blue with a similar formula but the same name in order to gain ground and gave it out to the community then Pepsi may realize that the market DOES exist for this.

Blizzard is doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If they want to tap in to this market then they need to respect why this has come to fruition. They are fortunate enough that the product is something old that belongs to them and not something new and not protected by copyright.

Pepsi, after filing a cease and desist, should invite the soda re-creators in for a meeting and either a) attempt to buy them out and re-launch the product themselves and send everyone home happy or b) gather any information they can from these individuals to better understand the neglected market that they wish to re-introduce a product to. This could include hiring for development or even just consulting. This could be good for Pepsi since it will help them in the category or re-booted products.

If they condemn Nostalrius then the players will less likely pay Blizzard for this service, morally speaking. Blizzard would not do the same to a pirated product that was of something currently available on the market. Blizzard owes respect to Nostalrius for creating the buzz and they're doing just that.

These circumstances are very specific and most-likely will not repeat themselves unless Blizzard refuses to create Legacy servers. Bottom line, Blizzard was missing out and they are the only ones who have to right to provide this product in the first place. Also since the product was provided for free, there is no malicious intent with said piracy.

Therefore, this is not setting a precedent since a similar situation would likely NOT be treated the same regardless of the outcome here. Also no situation could be identical enough to even warrant the setting of precedent here. Blizzard is not hurting their own reputation by inviting these guys in and listening to them. Quite the opposite. They are doing themselves a favor and may gain support for doing so.

Blizzard has the right to do what they wish following the shutdown of the Vanilla server ran by the Nostalrius team. They are NOT OBLIGED to treat any other groups or individuals in the same way.

[Eleccybubb]

WOOO! so close to Vanilla guys I can almost taste it.

For those of you debating precedent for treating pirates with reward, Blizzard is NOT setting that precedent at all in this situation if they oblige and provide Legacy servers.

Why?

The pirated item in question is not available on the market. Its not available for purchase. Its like Pepsi Blue. If an individual or group re-created Pepsi Blue with a similar formula but the same name in order to gain ground and gave it out to the community then Pepsi may realize that the market DOES exist for this.

Blizzard is doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If they want to tap in to this market then they need to respect why this has come to fruition. They are fortunate enough that the product is something old that belongs to them and not something new and not protected by copyright.

Pepsi, after filing a cease and desist, should invite the soda re-creators in for a meeting and either a) attempt to buy them out and re-launch the product themselves and send everyone home happy or b) gather any information they can from these individuals to better understand the neglected market that they wish to re-introduce a product to. This could include hiring for development or even just consulting. This could be good for Pepsi since it will help them in the category or re-booted products.

If they condemn Nostalrius then the players will less likely pay Blizzard for this service, morally speaking. Blizzard would not do the same to a pirated product that was of something currently available on the market. Blizzard owes respect to Nostalrius for creating the buzz and they're doing just that.

These circumstances are very specific and most-likely will not repeat themselves unless Blizzard refuses to create Legacy servers. Bottom line, Blizzard was missing out and they are the only ones who have to right to provide this product in the first place. Also since the product was provided for free, there is no malicious intent with said piracy.

Therefore, this is not setting a precedent since a similar situation would likely NOT be treated the same regardless of the outcome here. Also no situation could be identical enough to even warrant the setting of precedent here. Blizzard is not hurting their own reputation by inviting these guys in and listening to them. Quite the opposite. They are doing themselves a favor and may gain support for doing so.

Blizzard has the right to do what they wish following the shutdown of the Vanilla server ran by the Nostalrius team. They are NOT OBLIGED to treat any other groups or individuals in the same way.

Disagree. Nothing could come out of this meeting bear that in mind and maybe something could. Look at that whole big announcement Nost hyped up and turned out to be utter shite.

[Bloodclaut]

And this is why Blizzard has been making it very clear, since their legal actions, that they did this because THEY HAD TO. Not because they wanted to. They are trying to make is very clear that they don't want to hurt this community. They just don't want to experience any detriment from the private server, otherwise they would have shut many of these servers down a long time ago. They need to protect their property but if people are going through extraordinary lengths to share in a piece of this: (operating a server voluntarily for no pay and no charge to the community is quite extraordinary if you ask me), then they may wish to make this available to the community once again. In order to do so, they need to protect it. This is why they are treating Nostalrius like this because they don't want to shut these guys down they just have to and now they need to oblige to the requests of this community in order to avoid any potential backlash.