Any lawyers out there?

[whome]

This is sort of a tongue in cheek question but:

VI states that we can't use 3rd party software, but since showeq is open source and we compile it, wouldn't that make it our software and in a sense "2nd party software" (VI being the 1st party)?? ;-)

[Manaweaver]

VI no longer own EQ, its now SOE only.

[PawnOrc]

whome,

Not a bad question but it is pure drafting. All they need to do is either define the term 3rd party or change it to encompass software of a stated class.

Think like a lawyer - why don't I get banned for my virus scanner?

[Old`Fart]

<----- not a lawyer

But let's consider clause 9 of the EULA:

"9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play. You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators. You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure. You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material."

First part: You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play.

--- Arguably, MacroQuest modifies the software, but I sure don't see SEQ modifying the EQ client on a Windows machine.

Second part: You may not use our intellectual property rights contained in the Game or the Software to create or provide any other means through which the Game may be played by others, as through server emulators.

--- I don't see SEQ accomodating this either. EMU project is cool, but it's not SEQ.

Third part: You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure.

--- Sniffing packets isn't adding to their load.

Fourth part: You may not sell or auction any EverQuest characters, items, coin or copyrighted material.

--- Don't get me started on people that exploit EQ for RL money. But SEQ != PlayerAuctions.

So, how again is SEQ violating the EULA?

Perhaps clause 7?

"7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the CD-ROM. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software."

The penultimate sentence might seem applicable:

--- You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law.

However, I really can't see crypto exercises being considered "reverse engineering".

There's my two cents.

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Old`Fart
"7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software. You may not copy any of the written materials accompanying the CD-ROM. You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. The Software may contain license management software that restricts your use of the Software."

The penultimate sentence might seem applicable:

--- You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law.

I have not reverse engineered, disassembled, or decompiled the "Software." You bad ShowEQ devs have! hehe

[smoothielover]

SEQ does not actually break any of the eula legalities technicall to the letter.

the key here is GAMEPLAY


***You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play***


perhaps they will change it slightly to

***You may not use any third party software to modify the Software OR to change Game play***

SEQ does in fact change the way you play the game if you use is for tracking named etc. seq is no different to map sites parsers and other similar information site in essence except that this is done realtime. DPS etc is better in SEQ but not significantly

the aspect that is the issue i beleive is the tracking of mobs.

Crypto is NOT reverse engineering unless we use a program to pass mem address info back to seq. thus doing what the poll indicates in announcments is actually the first step in killing SEQ as opposed to the actual idea of keeping it alive IMO.

If you are approached by a GM about any SEQ stuff the easiest way to solve it is " found a map on a map site whuich has common spanpoints and locs for named in general areas"

or

" according to the bestiary i use it said it drops this stuff so im hunting it.

or

The map has a line on sfaest ways to get to places.

if your a druid or ranger they wont really be able to check anything if you run around with track windows being USED & refreshed if your not tracking the mob at the time. if you track without hitting track button it can be VERY obvious your a SEQ user and thus defeating the EULA concept.

legalities are very hard to prove in IT as many are seeing in cases around the world ATM. The courts are ruling based on INTENT not on LEGAL Jargon

MS for instance have no intention of breaking up their company. they are just paying the fines as its cheaper for them. Intent to MONOPOLIZE has changed tho. MS have decreased the purchases of competing products and by not changing their standards away from the GENERIC standards have also displayed INTENT for Linux/novell/;Citrix/others to compete with them.

previous to this they were doing things like MSCHAP and deleting legacy code from DLLs which were not used by MS products and generally no nos in compatibility.

INTENT has changed thus no further action taken

The intent of SEQ is arguable. it can be used to defeat the mobs in a more efficent way and to track mobs in a more efficent way BUT does not circumvent the need for a character to DO THINGS such as grouping/guilds/hunting for xp over time

the fact we can do it better could be layed down as we look closer at the info we get on websites etc.

wether the mob is a lvl 56 or 57 mob doesnt actually mean we are any better off in fighting it INGAME just means we know more about whats happening around us and can plan a little better.

tracking named & mobs in general outside our clipping plane is the only aspect that has changed gameplay. if forinstance seq implemeted a code change in the original source and commented it saying this line sets the distance from your character you can see and set the default value to the max clip plane level then SEQ as a product would NOT change Gameplay. The user of seq changing the clip plane value and compiling would be the incrimating person ie seq would not be responsible for the use in this manner.

Im not a longtime seq user so i dont have a complete understanding of all the functions but from what i have seen so far this tracking zone wide area of SEQ is the only INTENT issue i can see

This is my own opinion but is also in line with what i have seen people banned for over the whole of EQ.

same as the camping in & out tricks. its intent to use to defeat GAME rules. walls are not supposed to be camped through and thus INTENT is wrong. Macroing is INTENT to circumvent the need to use the interface.

Parsing files (logalizer), loging items you have (magelo), Mapping (eqatlas&co), beasts (illias/allakazam) and quest info are not INTENDED to defeat the game they INTEND to educate the game player to things that are consistent and just increase efficency for those who research.

EQW is the only thing i see any discrepencies in this way. EQW isnt actually in breach of INTENT but does Breach Point 7 & 9 of eula i beleive. it changes direct x calls and also SLOWS down the EQ interface this is probably targeted more as a support issue rather than a actual INTENT breach gameplay


these are my own feelings and opinions so VI/SOE may have slightly different veiws but it seems to be the trend worldwide and SOE wise.

if seq was to be ported to windows and not include the ability to track beyond the clip plane i would expect it would not be touched. in reality you can just say i play in a 3rd view screen rather than first person using the f9 views. it feasible you can do this as a non melee. melee would have more of an issue as to hit you have to be facing the mob be the right distance away from a mob for it to be in your height veiwable area but again a dual PC user exhibits the same issues when dualplaying 2 melee and they dont get banned.


if anyone else feels this is wrong please tell me what feature it is as i cant find anything wrong with automapping i do it pretty well manually with a map and a few pins on my pinboard. i also draw circles around general heavy spawn areas and write what lvl mobs are around there and what the mobs are affected by. as oposed to blueadept here i dont think that this information SHOULD be freely given thus my filters wont ever get circulated

blueadepts filters merely give you the named mobs and the things that are likely to drop stuff. now im guessing blueadept actually uses a variant of his filter files that are posted with more alert specifics and hunt settings etc but wont post those either for similar reasons SEQ is not desighed to make the game TOO easy or Shorter as there is no end to it. its merely a tool to get better VALUE for your time and to understand how deal with travelling and hunting.

an idea of what advantages we have is extremly visible ATM

SEQ users in the POK are the ones telling people which ports are where in their guilds etc. this does not mean its easier to win just that you dont go to the worng places and waste your time

i dobt anyone atm would be looking to take a lvl 60 to ANY zone they havent been to hunt in a non group situation. what this means is that PoP has been a smooth expansion for players to get a basic knoledge of. as a community this information is shared to ALL eq users not just SEQ users and thus is not an advantage to us but in fact an advantage to SOE because they dont have to deal with so many petition based on the " umm i clicked the book and got killed on the other side now i cant find my body as its been moved to the graveyard and i cant get to it because of mobs in the way.......WHY DID MY CORPSE MOVE FORM ZONE IT??

obviously this isnt happening anywhere near as much as what it could have if SEQ hadnt had maps made etc. sure muse at eq atlas also has maps but seq had all the locs for ports up 3 days before any of the map sites i went to. i think SOE should be thanking us sometimes not banning us

[Old`Fart]

> legalities are very hard to prove in IT as many are seeing in cases around the world ATM. The courts are ruling based on INTENT not on LEGAL Jargon

I'd be curious to see some discrete examples. I read some of the main outlets, and I don't recall many U.S. state/fed decisions favoring the ever-ephemeral INTENT (of a contract/license) over (its) verbage.

I mean, you could then argue that an MP3 player on a second machine changes the way I play EQ; I mash tradeskill buttons more quickly; or I grind more aggressively.

Heck, the new beta nVidia DRIVERS I install change gameplay. They make the Bazaar run at more than 4 fps.

In fact, the Microsoft Windows Update installs software patches that make my system more stable. That means fewer crashes to desktop from EQ. Ooooop, EULA violation!

You can see where the argument goes.

Ultimately, Verant remotely scanning networks/LAN clients is clearly illegal under the law. The use of SEQ is not CLEARLY in violation of their EULA.

Again, be interesting to see how it all shakes out ...

[three-p-o]

Actually it does. SEQ is a 3rd party.

Party 1 (Server) <-------> Party 2 (Client)
................................|
................................V
....................Party 3 (ShowEQ)

Deffinition of a 3rd party is anyone other than the intended recipients of data. Does not matter if they were not specific in their declaration of this.

"You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play."

I personally think that the person that wrote this line goofed. I believe what the intended line should have been is this.

"You may not use any third party software to modify the Software or to change Game play."

See that 'or' in there?

I use it to find my way around. Gives me my exact location on a map instead of having to try and plot my location on a printed map.
I use it to warn me of another person's train before it arrives.
I use it to find mobs close to my level that I might be able to fight reasonably well, mobs that I can pull solo, and find out of rare spawn X is up to call in the cavalry.

SEQ is a 3rd party piece of software that changed my gameplay.

[high_jeeves]

The whole discussion is moot. Read the WHOLE EULA... it says, in no uncertain terms, that they can ban you for any reason. If they decide that they are going to ban anyone with an even IP address, they can. They dont need legalities here. As long as they dont charge you again after they ban you, they can disconnect you from THEIR server anytime they want to, for any reason whatsoever.

--Jeeves

[Tadix]

Since we are on the subject about clauses. Did you know that Microsoft has a clause stating that any program written for Windows has to agree to before making a product. In short it says that "the Alt-Tab function cannot be disabled for any program used by windows." Due to it takes away what windows is. The ability to open and run many windows at the same time. And for some reason I don't see why Windows would let one program alone do this. Unless they have changed it but I haven't seen anything saying they did.

edit: Thanks for the information. I feel sheepish now

[throx]

Tadix,

That clause is to get your program certified as "Designed for Windows". There's no such clause for generic Windows based programs.

[bonkersbobcat]

9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play.

Does "game play" mean how the game operates or how I operate in the game? It could be argued either way.

[Graffix]

All?

Since the EULA is a contract that is agreed to by clicking accept before you input your payment information are you bound by changes to the EULA prior to the expiration of your billing method. We all pay in advance for our game time, and by accepting the terms both SOE and the customer enter into a contract agreement as set forth by the EULA. If they change the terms prior to account re-bill are they in breech of contract?

Although you have to click accept to the EULA change is the new "contract" valid since they broke the last one?

Any lawyer know?

-graffix

ok so i dont know how to read: "we may amend this agreement at any time"
yes i am a moron, flames welcome!

[Old`Fart]

> The whole discussion is moot. Read the WHOLE EULA... it says, in no uncertain terms, that they can ban you for any reason.

Absolutely. They could ban all account holders under the age of 40 today. They could ban all account holders accessing EQ from outside the United States.

The academic argument is whether or not SEQ violates the EULA terms.

And, in the world of PR, which sounds better:

"We banned Mr. So-and-So for violating clause nine of the EULA."

or

"We banned Mr. So-and-so not for violating the EULA, but because we felt like it."

> I personally think that the person that wrote this line goofed.
[missing -or-]

I think so too -- and it boggles me they haven't amended ...

[smoothielover]

the concept of gameplay has to be consistent with other companies or be defined in the eula thus gameplay is defined as "defing the intended rules of the inbuilt game engine. the only thing seq does that is beyond what is researchable is the limitless tracking for all acounts.


is the argument a moot point yes as sony dont have to allow access to their servers to anyone unless they receive a payment. they can reimburse or deny peoples money and thus not allow them access.

the concept of a eula implies that sony are putting down some guidelines for which they will apply bans. if we defeat their arguments and are banned we can take them to court for unfair discrimination if we really want to.

yes seq is 3rd party software but so is directx and a virus checker. they recommend you turn off virus checkers but do not FORCE you and thus accept that some 3rd paty software is erquired. this defeats their own eula. does that make the eula a moot point no again it comes down to intent.

if you abuse the tracking system in seq for named mobs etc then you are intending to take advantage of knowledge not available to the client and ingame rules unless you are a ranger and even then you change the way you track. if you use seq as a log parser solution and a realtime stat gatherer then you of course do not intend to defeat the in game engine. ie if you use a filter file your cheating. suer i cheat technically but i dont cheat to the point where it make other players a disadvantage. same cancepts as ninjalooters and such. they looted the body and thats fine but they get a rep and end up groupless .

using seq to save time and get better information rather than just printing out the bveast guides etc is not really any different.

the other thread re seq users reps atm is hard to argue against. yes we can be assholes if we want to but the general intent for seq is not to defeat the game engine to to make it more efficent to play the game.

AS I SAID BEFORE. you still have to win against the mob and get enogh people to help you. if we really had a bad rep then we wouldnt have enough freinds to take out the mobs we are hunting.

I dont beleive i have ever taken any named mob that had been camped and thus i dont have any moral issues with seq.

macroing is also a hard call. its cheating but its also a extremely bad system design in my view.

tradeskills are based on stats which are not true to life. forinstance the dumbest people i know in my life atm are cabinet makers yet they are skilled with their hands therefor DEX should always be a factor in a trade yet it is completely ignore in some cases. a flawed system means you need to invest money in items not specifically for use in any other area of your character.

a warrior should be a better blacksmith than a chanter yet a chanter's high inteligence & charisma in most cases will prove to be better at learning the skill even though they fail due to low strength.

trades should be capped for classes that dont use them . a warrior makes better armour than a chanter in reality because they know how armour is supposed to feel and move and can test it and make modifications to it . a chanter cant even wear it so they obviously shouldnt be able to make great armour

thats my definition of flawed

macroing simply means you dont have to spend as much time watching the pc doing it. you rarly trade skill while mobs are beating you and you still need to buy and sell the items so its probably just targeted at the people who actually want to cap all their trades. which in fact is what they are trying to allow you the ability to do by giving you skills you shouldnt be able to use.

only 1 skill goes above 200 but they dont say its gotta be the skill you should be doing as a chanter (jewelry) or as a warrior(blacksmith ) or ranger (fletching ) or a gnome ( tinking)



also on the point of they can ban us whenever they want

they have to display some form of infringment or they WILL get sued. personal trauma, depression and several other things have been attempted to be sued for after people played EQ as it was a choice thing for the person to play but if sony ban someone and they top themselves and sony is proven to be responsible for unfair banning which is not in accordance to a breach in the eula and thus causing this death in some part they will get hurt significantly i would expect. i doubt this would ever come to light etc but i think the word that is used is duediligence...prolly not spelt right

any company has to provide a certain amount of due dilligence in their running as a buisness. This means that they cannot use their position in a manner to hurt employees & customers.

basic examples.

sexshops are a good one. we know what they are etc and they can be advertised but ONLY in certain ways

Delis' food has to be consumable else health department attacks them

retail - have to supply product to solve customers needs and in a working order. you cant sell faulty gear and say sorry


as a discuttion on ethics sony have to display some concern over who they ban