JAGEX LIMITED v.IMPULSE SOFTWARE, ERIC SNELLMAN, and MARK SNELLMAN

[Nawty Zoot 0]

Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.

 

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?

 

Anyone else reminded of this scene:

 

Animal House:

 

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!

Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.

Boon: I thought you were pre-med.

Otter: What's the difference?

[Platinum_Myr 349]

Law is complicated by design. Lawyers and politicians design it this way so that they can continue to give themselves money. The public can't ever understand it all, because there are simply *too many* regulations and laws and whatever else on the books to actually make sense of any of it.

[stonewall337 66]

Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.

 

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?

 

Anyone else reminded of this scene:

 

Animal House:

 

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!

Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.

Boon: I thought you were pre-med.

Otter: What's the difference?

 

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?

[Veiva 581]

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.

 

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).

[stonewall337 66]

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.

 

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

[Veiva 581]

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.

 

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

 

I understand; however, in order to write the bot in the first place, one would have to reverse engineer RuneScape's source code (again, for reflection bots only). Consequently, they would be violating the measures Jagex employs to protect their work... As such, I would think the access clause would be valid. That's the bad thing about laws, I guess; they're oftentimes too vague, and technology always moves so much faster.

[Mercifull 309]

Considering a lot of the court documents, especially relating to the settlement are confidential I don't see how anyone here can really make any definite comments about whether bots really are illegal or not even if they are pre-med, pre-law or whatever.

[Sy_Accursed 1554]

Considering a lot of the court documents, especially relating to the settlement are confidential I don't see how anyone here can really make any definite comments about whether bots really are illegal or not even if they are pre-med, pre-law or whatever.

 

So true only pre-hogwarts or pre-telepathic-super-hero would stand a chance in hell of making a definitive comment.

[stonewall337 66]

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

[Nawty Zoot 0]

Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.

 

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?

 

Anyone else reminded of this scene:

 

Animal House:

 

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!

Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.

Boon: I thought you were pre-med.

Otter: What's the difference?

 

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?

Whats my point? My point is that youre trying to sell what youre doing as some form of legal research when you are neither a law student nor a legal representative in any manner at all. Pre-Law is a meaningless term, you could be a communications or drama major for all it matters. Anyone attending a community college is a pre-law student. Your so-called pre-law qualification is meaningless and comical.

 

I hate to fill you in on reality here, but youre not a legal authority of any kind. Youre not doing legal research. Youre some guy whos probing the internet for what he thinks is legal data and then extrapolating nonsensical comments therefrom.

 

Please leave the legal research to those people who actually do legal research, and know what it means to look up current law, case history, comparative precedent and common law, and then attempt to extrapolate that into the current circumstances. From what I have seen, you havent done any of that.

 

Please leave the armchair legal opinions out of this discussion. Leave the law to those people who know what theyre talking about.

 

Hopefully, some day if you do become a law student you will realize what a silly thing it is youre doing now.

[stonewall337 66]

Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.

 

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?

 

Anyone else reminded of this scene:

 

Animal House:

 

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!

Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.

Boon: I thought you were pre-med.

Otter: What's the difference?

 

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?

Whats my point? My point is that youre trying to sell what youre doing as some form of legal research when you are neither a law student nor a legal representative in any manner at all. Pre-Law is a meaningless term, you could be a communications or drama major for all it matters. Anyone attending a community college is a pre-law student. Your so-called pre-law qualification is meaningless and comical.

 

I hate to fill you in on reality here, but youre not a legal authority of any kind. Youre not doing legal research. Youre some guy whos probing the internet for what he thinks is legal data and then extrapolating nonsensical comments therefrom.

 

Please leave the legal research to those people who actually do legal research, and know what it means to look up current law, case history, comparative precedent and common law, and then attempt to extrapolate that into the current circumstances. From what I have seen, you havent done any of that.

 

Please leave the armchair legal opinions out of this discussion. Leave the law to those people who know what theyre talking about.

 

Hopefully, some day if you do become a law student you will realize what a silly thing it is youre doing now.

 

Oh god, I'm the one person actually looking at the only first hand information we have, and using it to form an opinion, instead of spewing whatever enters my head, and that's more baseless then just making stuff up. Ayup. Logical.

[Nawty Zoot 0]

Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.

 

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?

 

Anyone else reminded of this scene:

 

Animal House:

 

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!

Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!

Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.

Boon: I thought you were pre-med.

Otter: What's the difference?

 

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?

Whats my point? My point is that youre trying to sell what youre doing as some form of legal research when you are neither a law student nor a legal representative in any manner at all. Pre-Law is a meaningless term, you could be a communications or drama major for all it matters. Anyone attending a community college is a pre-law student. Your so-called pre-law qualification is meaningless and comical.

 

I hate to fill you in on reality here, but youre not a legal authority of any kind. Youre not doing legal research. Youre some guy whos probing the internet for what he thinks is legal data and then extrapolating nonsensical comments therefrom.

 

Please leave the legal research to those people who actually do legal research, and know what it means to look up current law, case history, comparative precedent and common law, and then attempt to extrapolate that into the current circumstances. From what I have seen, you havent done any of that.

 

Please leave the armchair legal opinions out of this discussion. Leave the law to those people who know what theyre talking about.

 

Hopefully, some day if you do become a law student you will realize what a silly thing it is youre doing now.

 

Oh god, I'm the one person actually looking at the only first hand information we have, and using it to form an opinion, instead of spewing whatever enters my head, and that's more baseless then just making stuff up. Ayup. Logical.

 

Ugh. Its these extrapolations that you make from these facts which make your attempts to form "legal opinions" based on your "pre-law" qualifications appear silly. I actually work in a law office and I know how the system works and why it works.

 

For example, youve questioned why Jagex Limited, a British Corporation, undertook legal action against the Snellmans (Snellmen?) in Massachusetts and then proposed that the action should have been thrown out because neither Jagex, nor the Snellman brothers, were resident in the State of Massachusetts.

 

Of course, to a trained legal eye, or at least to anyone that is even remotely involved in the actual real practice of law, one immediately realizes the invalid nature of your claim, because:

 

1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a federal law. The applicant filed an action under a Federal law, which means that an Applicant can bring legal action in any competent court of jurisdiction anywhere in the U.S.A., regardless of the location of the defendants or the plaintiffs. There is more than enough case law and precedent out there to support this course of action.

 

2. The alleged trespass of the Defendants under said Federal Law was tried in the State of Massachusetts under the consideration that the defendants sold their product to residents of the State of Massachusetts, and that said product was used within the State of Massachusetts. As such, the crime occurred within the state of Massachusetts and therefore, the Massachusetts Court has jurisdiction.

 

These are clear and valid points as to why the action was undertaken and pursued in the State of Massachusetts and these same points are brought forward in the Judges Order of August 16th, 2010.

 

Not to mention that the Applicants legal counsels office is located in Boston, Massachusetts. While they also have offices in Chicago and Washington D.C., it is most likely that Boston was the most convenient site for undertaking this legal action because the appellant Court in Boston probably had a clearer schedule. I have no way of knowing this for certain, but it seems likely. Either that, or their Boston counsel was their better choice for some other reason. I any way, that was certainly a mitigating factor as to why the action was tried in Massachusetts.

 

Even so, the Snellman brothers counsel made a huge blunder in trying to demonstrate that the Massachusetts Court was inappropriate for this action and, as a result, there are a number of sidelines that come into play here. Theres nothing like trying to tell a Court that its acting outside of its jurisdiction, especially when its clearly within its jurisdiction. Its like calling some small town Judge a bumpkin to his face.