stonewall337

The only basis from what I understand from the anti-bot crowd is that bot makers are breaking the Terms of Service, are infringing on Jagex's copyrights (as far as reflection bots are concerned), and/or are playing immorally (whatever that means) or against the spirit of the game. So, explain how these points hurt the game (e.g., your experience and enjoyment from playing RuneScape?). The only viable option is that low-level supply gathering (maybe all supply gathering) is not worth it, but other than that... Does wanting a fair and level playing field ever have to be justified? Um, yes? Everything has to be justified...or its baseless. That doesn't mean its HARD to do, but it is still necessary.

Umm, SETTLEMENT=/= the CASE itself. BIG DIFFERENCE...

MIST beta is out, or at least the beta client is.

I don't seem to understand why such would be ruled? As far as I know, any piece of "art" is copyrighted, be it code or a book or a simple poem/image. While obviously the copyright may have not been registered, the work is still considered so. The bot makers infringe on the copyrights Jagex has. It would be similar to me rewriting Harry Potter and selling it, wouldn't it? I took the work of someone else and am now using it to profit, with minimal changes. This is not a parody and it's surely not covered under fair use. (I am genuinely confused on this; not trolololing or anything). Because the bot program was NOT a copy of Runescape. Rather the argument was that the bot program violated the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act) access clause, which references how certain proprietary systems are accessed in copyrighted works. Since RS wasn't copyrighted, this did not apply. "It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works" DMCA can be found here http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

If you want to make that claim, then YOU have to defend WHY the burden of proof is on them. You havn't done so, as such the conclusion can be logically drawn that said burden of proof does not exist. (Philosophical burden of proof, we aren't talking legal here.) EDIT: Sorry double post. Merge please.

Not really. When you cheat in a computer game, you are actively cheating. When you kill somebody in a computer game, you are not actively killing. Ok, it is only a very small study, but cheating in games is not consequence free and as much as people want to say 'its just a game', it can have mental ramifications. http://www.gamesradar.com/study-says-social-game-cheaters-more-likely-cheat-real-life/ When I was in highschool, everyone cheated at some point. Doesn't make you a bad person. Sorry, this study is pretty vague... "Offering a few specifics, the report indicated 53% of social game cheaters said they had cheated on tests at school, over 43% revealed they'd stolen condiments from restaurants, and nearly half admitted to stepping out on a committed relationship." As opposed to the number of people who don't cheat on video games? What if just roughly half of all people have cheated on a test...Stolen condiments from a restaurant...Wow...that's a horrible crime. And with divorce rates at around 50%, it's no surprised that half of people who aren't married have cheated... Sorry, but bullshit studies are often...bullshit. For instance, over half of runescape players are virgins. Someone could interpret this as "They are virgins because they play runescape"...but in reality, they are virgins because they are 13.... Well if they said "they are virgins cuz of RS" they'd be using the logical fallacy of correlation = causation.

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet? Anyone else reminded of this scene: 1. I don't see how this is at all germane. If I was a law student currently I doubt I'd have time to post on a forum about a game I no longer play. 2. My opinion is based off legal research into the case, including reading the court documents. I doubt very few other people on this thread have done so. Instead, most of the posts are simple baseless opinions. At least I defend my stance. 3. Whats your point?

As long as its possible, yes.

woot Jagex adding dots. good idea IMO!

And just what would you "show off"? Your dumb luck? It is no different than "showing off" your wealth by buying trimmed armor. To be honest though, I'd be more impressed by someone who got the "Lucky Divine Spiritshield" than a trimmed completionist cape. What ever happened to inidividuals desiring items for their own merit; not taking into consideration what might impress others? Food for thought. Because personally, I ascribe more value to the "impressing" factor then I do to the simple "cool" factor. That is why I strive to be the best. I'd rather show how much better I am then most people, then simply use an item I might find slightly more attractive. You have a long way to go sonny. Meh. Everyone does this. The only difference is some people deny that they do it, ironically, because it's more impressive to pretend not to care. And that's not a baseless generalization, it's literally in your genes. I should have added that this was simply in video games. I play them because I enjoy the competitive aspect, as well as the progression aspect. I play to become better, and as a result I normally am better then the vast majority of players in whatever game I play. I am not above admitting this. That is part of how I have fun in a video game. Heck, others admit it too. " I am not below admitting that I like to have people oogle at my achievements, titles, and gear." QUOTE from a friend of mine on a different forum. That being said, to an extent I balance personal enjoyment against being the in the top 99.5% (instead of being in the top 95%). I raid with my current guild because I think they are amazing and fun. I trained slayer in RS past 99 while leaving hunting at 70 because I found hunting useless (and boring) and slayer was enjoyable. I could have had max cape by the time I quit, but I enjoyed certain things more then others. This is not to negate my previous statement: I wish to be the best, or amongst the best, but I still balance this with a certain level of what I find enjoyable. What I don't understand is why people chose to be WORSE then they could. I understand not doing something because you dislike it, but I find people doing the same activity as me in an inferior way, when they have the capability to do it at the same level, mind boggling. I'm not talking about AFK training (ivy) v something faster but more attention based (teaks or w/e it is now). Im talking about things like not using potions when slaying, or using a godsword, or w/e. Maybe they find that fun? IDK, perhaps. I just find it incomprehensible. A bit off topic, but germane to the quoted section of the discourse.

Yes, the court actually said that Jagex didn't have a copyright and as such attempting to use the access portion of the DMCA was untenable.

good source??? you mean their forum??? lol I don't frequent forums for botting, sorry. You say that as if it is something to be proud of. Its a neutral issue. Not doing so doesn't make you better, or give you any type of higher moral ground. Frankly, it is hardly germane to the topic at hand at all.

And just what would you "show off"? Your dumb luck? It is no different than "showing off" your wealth by buying trimmed armor. To be honest though, I'd be more impressed by someone who got the "Lucky Divine Spiritshield" than a trimmed completionist cape. What ever happened to inidividuals desiring items for their own merit; not taking into consideration what might impress others? Food for thought. Because personally, I ascribe more value to the "impressing" factor then I do to the simple "cool" factor. That is why I strive to be the best. I'd rather show how much better I am then most people, then simply use an item I might find slightly more attractive.

From a legal standpoint, I wanted the bot makers to win. I think the access clause of the DMCA as used here is asinine, and a result of the failure of the courts to properly define virtual goods, accounts, and the like. There is far too much legal ambiguity out there currently. I also find it interesting, but understandable, that although the Jagex TOS say all court cases related to RS would be held in British courts, this case was held in Mass. As well, I find it asinine that the court did not dismiss the case, as the defendants requested, due to their being in Flordia and having no offices or personnel in Mass, or even move the case to the court in Florida. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36773265/Jagex-Ltd-v-Impulse-Software-D-Mass-Aug-16-2010 On further attention, Jagex's attempted use of the DMCA was declared "untenable" by the court. I honestly think the only reason Jagex won was because they were able to afford better lawyers. Personally, I think that the case was itself untenable. Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student. I don't have the knowledge the court's had, but I believe my stance is still more defensible then most on these forums. This is not to argue the merits of the outcome of the case, simply the merits of the case itself.

for you cabbage collecters.

hi this is a good blog.

Soverignty - Intellectual property would be the indirect translation. Which virtual goods are not, as shown. Thus, it does not apply.

Not according to the sources quoted.

Thanks but I want to be a zerker.. Then you should have said that earlier TBH.

I don't know. I'm basing this stance off what legal grounds there are for virtual goods being considered property instead of IP. Personally, yes. But I don't know if there are legal grounds.

Morality is relative. My point isn't that there is NO social obligation, rather that its not the position of a company to care about social issues to the extent they disavow profit. Its their job to make a profit. Also, the position of the comment was specifically on virtual goods, were there is common law grounds for arguement. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such common law ground for the time spend on a character's development.

This is completely irrelevant, the character itself is not the same as the virtual goods on the character. Also, no company owes any country anything. They pay taxes, and provide jobs. Its mutual.

So American case law concerning contracts of adhesion isn't really applicable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_contract_law

I'm not going off what players may consider right, or logical. I'm going off common law, and law scholars opinions on the facts about virtual goods being more then IP. The fact that a contract of adhesion is not binding does not mean that everything is suddenly unfair for Jagex. It simply means there is a possibility, if tried in court, that the TOS would need to be changed in order to actually be binding. Example, the arbitration clause in the linden lab case. I still stand that the implications are not important to this specific discussion. That isn't the point I'm trying to discuss. Yes, the implications to real life would be game changing, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, and for that I am apologetic. I meant in this discussion, the implications aren't relevant to the discussion, as one can't really tell how things would turn out, and as a result all resulting opinions of the implications would be moot. I'm trying to keep this as one of the more rare, reasonable discussion topics, rather then an opinion topic. Also, contract of adhesion and the ability of one to bind a person varies, it would matter if the Jagex TOS were decided to be thus in court, or if just a part, or how. See Linden Lab.

Was I that unclear that everyone is missing the point of the compassion between NORMAL party hats and certain LUCKY items, specifically the DFH?