Default judgement of $3.6 million awarded to Nexon in the case against pserver

[MrTouchnGo]

I gotta say, though I'm no lawyer, perhaps if the defendant had showed up, they could have at least pleaded some case. I'm looking up some anti-circumvention stuff, and for the most part, it talks about removing locks and copy-protection and whatnot, but doesn't mention anything about connecting to a different IP address other than the one of the original copyright holder. It seems that they could be able to argue that not every 17K registered user is an anti-circumvention charge against them since the only thing each player needs is a new client, whereas all the real work goes into developing the server source code.

While using the Service, you agree not to:

...Host, provide matchmaking services for, or emulate or redirect the communications protocols used by us (or our designees) as part of the Service, including, without limitation, by protocol emulation, tunneling, reverse engineering, modifying the Software or using a utility program to host the Software;

...In addition you agree not to create...private servers

...You agree that if you host or operate a private server of a Nexon game or host or operate a hack site that sells hacks to a Nexon game or if you distribute, disseminate, design, code, moderate and/or provide free or paid access to private forums that sell or distribute hacks, or assist in the design of any private servers...you will have the unconditional obligation to pay Nexon America Inc. the sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars for each such program (including patches) and versions thereof as liquidated damages.

[Eos]

@MrTouchnGo Your quote is meaningless. The TOS is just that. The terms of using the service. Not a legally binding contract. Not an extension of law. It possesses no punitive authority. There is no law against breaking it unless the activities outlined in it are in fact illegal. You'll note the court clearly said as much in regards to the damages Nexon tried to ask for.

I'm looking up some anti-circumvention stuff, and for the most part, it talks about removing locks and copy-protection and whatnot, but doesn't mention anything about connecting to a different IP address other than the one of the original copyright holder.

Breaking the protection on the client to serve it's content up for yourself is a clear violation of the DMCA. It's the MMO equivalent of ripping an album and then streaming the MP3s publicly while accepting donations for doing so.

[MrTouchnGo]

Not a legally binding contract.

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-...760107-9749629

Now I'm confused.

[Eos]

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-...760107-9749629

Now I'm confused.

Well for one, the answer there clearly states it should not be taken as legal advice.

Try looking for more relevant info that actually cites references you can more thoroughly vet and research;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

Oops, skipped over a link I meant to add;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law

Refer to the requirements for "Consideration", specifically as it applies to asking someone "not" to do something, in exchange for something else. Considering you can download the client and extract the WZs without ever agreeing to the TOS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_...nications_Corp. is also relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service#Violation

And of course, the one known case of it actually going to suit;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...v._George_Hotz

Even in this case breach of contract was a laughable addition that never saw the light of trial. The DMCA violations were the real threat because in order for breach of contract to succeed you have to prove injury and the only thing you can obtain from it in most circumstances is what you can fairly prove to have lost due to the breach.

[MrTouchnGo]

Well for one, the answer there clearly states it should not be taken as legal advice.

Try looking for more relevant info that actually cites references you can more thoroughly vet and research;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service#Violation

And of course, the one known case of it actually going to suit;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...v._George_Hotz

Even in this case breach of contract was a laughable addition that never saw the light of trial. The DMCA violations were the real threat because in order for breach of contract to succeed you have to prove injury and the only thing you can obtain from it in most circumstances is what you can fairly prove to have lost due to the breach.

But the posters actually did have links and cited a court case.

At the bottom of the first post was a link to a list of such cases.

In the second post was linked a blog post that further linked to a court case in which it was noted that

Courts routinely enforce clickwraps. See U.S. v. Drew,
259 F.R.D. 449, 462 n.22 (C.D.Cal. 2009); Burcham, 2009 WL 586513, at *2-3.

[Eos]

But the posters actually did have links and cited a court case.

At the bottom of the first post was a link to a list of such cases.

In the second post was linked a blog post that further linked to a court case in which it was noted that

See my amended note concerning not having to agree to anything to extract the data. And everything else I said.

The only thing in that TOS that has any teeth is ... well, nothing. Because the DMCA already gives them all the teeth they need, and everything in the TOS that reiterates their rights from the DMCA is meaningless in terms of contract because it's already asking the user to abstain from what's illegal in the first place.

Just to reiterate the key part I suspect you're not getting; You can not obtain punitive damages for Breach of Contract, only compensatory and incidental (both meaning that the plaintiff actually took a provable loss due to the breach), so for anything that's not already illegal in that contract there's nothing that could be gained, short of lawyers costs, and a court has the right to say no to those too if they feel their were no damages actually done and therefore no real point in the case. Judges do not like having their time wasted just to piss on the little man to prove you can.

[MrTouchnGo]

Just to reiterate the key part I suspect you're not getting; You can not obtain punitive damages for Breach of Contract, only compensatory and incidental (both meaning that the plaintiff actually took a provable loss due to the breach), so for anything that's not already illegal in that contract there's nothing that could be gained, short of lawyers costs, and a court has the right to say no to those too if they feel their were no damages actually done and therefore no real point in the case. Judges do not like having their time wasted just to piss on the little man to prove you can.

That clears things up, thanks.