You know what's funny is that they are probably going to spend more money on this lawsuit than they've spent on PlanetSide maintenance/development in the past three years.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Blizzard goes after people screwing with their game and people say, "YEAH BLIZZARD!!!" SOE goes after people screwing with their game and people say, "BOO SOE, I HOPE THE HACKERS BEAT YOUR _ _ _ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Get over it people, they only make video games.
Blizzard goes after people screwing with their game and people say, "YEAH BLIZZARD!!!" SOE goes after people screwing with their game and people say, "BOO SOE, I HOPE THE HACKERS BEAT YOUR _ _ _ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Get over it people, they only make video games.
Ok, I'm over it. Now maybe you can get over the fact I hate SOE. I hope they lose.
Dude, i dont care who or what you hate.
But when people continue to throw rocks at whatever SOE/SONY does, be it good or bad it goes beyond hatred, it is just childish and ridiculous.
When Blizzard went after the gold farmers it was a good thing.
When SOE goes after the cheat sights it is a good thing.
Win or lose what they are doing is good for the genre, even if it accomplishes little. The first few times the gold farmers were sued nothing happened to them, but now it looks like places are being shut down. Hopefully in time the same can happen to the hack sights.
When SOE does nothing people respond with "SOE SUCKS"
When SOE does something people respond with "SOE SUCKS"
Weve got it, you think SOE Sucks. Im really sorry that they made you pay for a game that you ended up not liking (oh wait, they didnt) but that doesnt mean that everything they do is wrong and everything they touch is crap. If all SOE did was crap then they would not still be in business. They are not only in business but still doing rather well financially so someone must like them a little.
Well after the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco I would hope that SOE doesn't even think about it.
That aside, suing cheaters, hackers and gold sellers directly is a good thing.
Suing the 3rd party hosting site is somewhat of gray area. There is both right and wrong there. In a perfect world the 3 parties could reach an agreement to take care of things out of court. Then again SOE could just move crucial calculations off the client software and onto the server and this wouldn't be an issue?
The problem with this as I see it is that they are going for the host, not the actual perpetrators.
They might have a chance against the makers of the "hack" or whatever it is but to go up against the host seems pointless if they intend for this to go to court.
They probably want to scare them into shutting the site down, something they migth just succeed.
However I find it incredibly hard to see an outcome from this were the host would loose any sort of legal case against SOE, regardless of how many trillions of dollars SOE put into this.
Or am I getting this wrong?
Are they going up against the ones who owns the domain or the ones supplying the server and bandwidth, as in the company hosting the site?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with this as I see it is that they are going for the host, not the actual perpetrators. They might have a chance against the makers of the "hack" or whatever it is but to go up against the host seems pointless if they intend for this to go to court. They probably want to scare them into shutting the site down, something they migth just succeed. However I find it incredibly hard to see an outcome from this were the host would loose any sort of legal case against SOE, regardless of how many trillions of dollars SOE put into this. Or am I getting this wrong? Are they going up against the ones who owns the domain or the ones supplying the server and bandwidth, as in the company hosting the site?
Actually, going after the host is becoming the thing to do now:
For more than a decade, Web site operators have enjoyed a broad legal shield against lawsuits filed over material posted by their users, which has let user-driven sites like YouTube and MySpace.com flourish.
But a pair of recent rulings by federal district judges have chipped away at that protective shield. If those decisions are upheld on appeal, and if more judges follow suit, Web site operators and Internet service providers may find themselves compelled to police what their users post--or face the unsettling prospect of being held liable for the contents.
"We fear these cases might inspire a wave of new lawsuits that, even if ultimately dismissed, will create a chilling effect," said Sophia Cope, an attorney for the Center for Democracy and Technology, which has filed briefs supporting broad immunity and gets some financial support from a number of prominent Internet companies. "Many small start-up Web services might find that the costs of defending such suits--in terms of time and legal fees--are too much to bear."
The legal shield comes from a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which generally says Web sites aren't liable for their users' posts or other content they provide. That has immunized the dot-com industry from a wide range of civil lawsuits spanning everything from defamation to--in a case decided last year involving MySpace--lawsuits alleging that better child safety and age verification measures should have been put into place. (Individual "content providers" who post defamatory comments, upload inflammatory videos of their own creation, and the like, are still vulnerable to lawsuits.)
Perhaps ironically, the recent decisions that seem to be taking a narrower interpretation of Section 230 also stem from disputes over online dating and roommate matching.
'Bogus' FriendFinder profiles
The first of the two cases pits an anonymous New Hampshire woman against the FriendFinder Network, an operator of dating sites--some sexually explicit--including AdultFriendFinder.com and LesbianPersonals.com. Jane Doe accused FriendFinder of causing her various sorts of harm by allowing "bogus" sexually explicit profiles that could be "reasonably identified" as portraying herself to be published without her knowledge by someone else to its Web properties, as well as in snippets in FriendFinder advertisements on search engines and other third-party Web sites.
But LaPlante also differed from previous opinions in one important area. He refused to dismiss Jane Doe's argument that FriendFinder's republication of her profile invaded her "intellectual-property rights" under New Hampshire law. She claimed to be concerned about violations to her "right of publicity," which says an individual generally has the right to control how his name, image, and likeness is used commercially--and the court ruled that Doe's argument fell into the category of intellectual-property law.
That point is crucial because, when writing Section 230, Congress explicitly said its shield does not extend to lawsuits "pertaining to intellectual property." Until Judge LaPlante's order, courts had viewed that only as applying to federal claims mostly about copyrights and trademarks--and not state lawsuits over more amorphous publicity rights.
The reasons this could create headaches for Web publishers are twofold, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. For one thing, laws governing "rights of publicity" are not uniform across the states, which means e-commerce companies would be forced to align their operations with the most restrictive state's law.
And unlike in copyright or trademark cases, where there are fairly well-established rules governing how Web sites are supposed to respond to such infractions posted by third parties, "we don't know what rules are; we have no good case law" on rights of publicity, Goldman added.
Others fear that the ruling could prompt legal mischief. For instance, courts have ruled in the past that Web publishers can be immunized for posts that tarnish someone's reputation--a practice typically covered by defamation laws. CDT's Cope said she's concerned the intellectual-property exception will "swallow the rule," inspiring other courts to allow plaintiffs to slip in defamation claims and others under the guise of "intellectual property" claims.
Judge LaPlante's ruling, however, is not the end of the case. The court can now hear evidence on whether to agree with Jane Doe's remaining allegations. Judges aren't exactly known for changing their minds, once they've made a decision. But Ira Rothken, the lead attorney defending FriendFinder in the case, said he believes any subsequent appeal to the 1st Circuit would result in a finding that state-level intellectual-property laws, too, are subject to the Section 230 exemption.
Roommates.com's matchmaking woes
The other Section 230 saga concerns a Web site called Roommates.com, which allows users to set up profiles and seek roommate matches in thousands of U.S. cities. One of the ways the site attempts to spark matches is through requiring members to complete questionnaires that stock their profiles with a number of personal details, including their gender, sexual orientation, and whether they have children, according to court documents.
The problem with this as I see it is that they are going for the host, not the actual perpetrators. They might have a chance against the makers of the "hack" or whatever it is but to go up against the host seems pointless if they intend for this to go to court.
It still doesn't matter if they can't even find the hackers to serve them papers.. are they even in the same country?
Quick background on the current problem with in PlanetSide. There is a huge hacking problem going on with in PlanetSide currently. This has been a issue for about 2 years, but has only risen again in the past few months. The hackers are using some pretty nasty hacks and the player base is pretty upset. Looks like SOE is finally doing something about it
My son used to play this game when ti first came out. It was actually filled with people back than . not sure why it died out though. It seemed pretty popular in Beta..
Comments
You know what's funny is that they are probably going to spend more money on this lawsuit than they've spent on PlanetSide maintenance/development in the past three years.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Well Said!
Ok, I'm over it. Now maybe you can get over the fact I hate SOE. I hope they lose.
Dude, i dont care who or what you hate.But when people continue to throw rocks at whatever SOE/SONY does, be it good or bad it goes beyond hatred, it is just childish and ridiculous.
When Blizzard went after the gold farmers it was a good thing.
When SOE goes after the cheat sights it is a good thing.
Win or lose what they are doing is good for the genre, even if it accomplishes little. The first few times the gold farmers were sued nothing happened to them, but now it looks like places are being shut down. Hopefully in time the same can happen to the hack sights.
When SOE does nothing people respond with "SOE SUCKS"
When SOE does something people respond with "SOE SUCKS"
Weve got it, you think SOE Sucks. Im really sorry that they made you pay for a game that you ended up not liking (oh wait, they didnt) but that doesnt mean that everything they do is wrong and everything they touch is crap. If all SOE did was crap then they would not still be in business. They are not only in business but still doing rather well financially so someone must like them a little.
its a good step to sue the hackers. especially in games like PS where everyting is PvP centered you cheat on your fellow players.
i prefer it this way than Blizzard's way of installing spyware on your PC to identify 3rd party tools.
just imagine the outcry if SOE tried something like that.
Well after the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco I would hope that SOE doesn't even think about it.
That aside, suing cheaters, hackers and gold sellers directly is a good thing.
Suing the 3rd party hosting site is somewhat of gray area. There is both right and wrong there. In a perfect world the 3 parties could reach an agreement to take care of things out of court. Then again SOE could just move crucial calculations off the client software and onto the server and this wouldn't be an issue?
The problem with this as I see it is that they are going for the host, not the actual perpetrators.
They might have a chance against the makers of the "hack" or whatever it is but to go up against the host seems pointless if they intend for this to go to court.
They probably want to scare them into shutting the site down, something they migth just succeed.
However I find it incredibly hard to see an outcome from this were the host would loose any sort of legal case against SOE, regardless of how many trillions of dollars SOE put into this.
Or am I getting this wrong?
Are they going up against the ones who owns the domain or the ones supplying the server and bandwidth, as in the company hosting the site?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html
Courts chip away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield
For more than a decade, Web site operators have enjoyed a broad legal shield against lawsuits filed over material posted by their users, which has let user-driven sites like YouTube and MySpace.com flourish.
But a pair of recent rulings by federal district judges have chipped away at that protective shield. If those decisions are upheld on appeal, and if more judges follow suit, Web site operators and Internet service providers may find themselves compelled to police what their users post--or face the unsettling prospect of being held liable for the contents.
"We fear these cases might inspire a wave of new lawsuits that, even if ultimately dismissed, will create a chilling effect," said Sophia Cope, an attorney for the Center for Democracy and Technology, which has filed briefs supporting broad immunity and gets some financial support from a number of prominent Internet companies. "Many small start-up Web services might find that the costs of defending such suits--in terms of time and legal fees--are too much to bear."
The legal shield comes from a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which generally says Web sites aren't liable for their users' posts or other content they provide. That has immunized the dot-com industry from a wide range of civil lawsuits spanning everything from defamation to--in a case decided last year involving MySpace--lawsuits alleging that better child safety and age verification measures should have been put into place. (Individual "content providers" who post defamatory comments, upload inflammatory videos of their own creation, and the like, are still vulnerable to lawsuits.)
In early test cases such as Zeran v. AOL, courts have interpreted Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act to supply fairly broad immunity for Web hosts. That trend has largely continued in recent years, with judges finding, for example, that dating site Matchmaker.com was immune from a lawsuit involving an unknown prankster's phony profile impersonating actress Christianne Carafano, and that Craigslist wasn't responsible for allegedly discriminatory housing ads posted by users of the online classifieds site.
Perhaps ironically, the recent decisions that seem to be taking a narrower interpretation of Section 230 also stem from disputes over online dating and roommate matching.
'Bogus' FriendFinder profiles
The first of the two cases pits an anonymous New Hampshire woman against the FriendFinder Network, an operator of dating sites--some sexually explicit--including AdultFriendFinder.com and LesbianPersonals.com. Jane Doe accused FriendFinder of causing her various sorts of harm by allowing "bogus" sexually explicit profiles that could be "reasonably identified" as portraying herself to be published without her knowledge by someone else to its Web properties, as well as in snippets in FriendFinder advertisements on search engines and other third-party Web sites.
A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire federal court on March 27 partially sided with FriendFinder, ruling against some of Jane Doe's claims against the company.
But LaPlante also differed from previous opinions in one important area. He refused to dismiss Jane Doe's argument that FriendFinder's republication of her profile invaded her "intellectual-property rights" under New Hampshire law. She claimed to be concerned about violations to her "right of publicity," which says an individual generally has the right to control how his name, image, and likeness is used commercially--and the court ruled that Doe's argument fell into the category of intellectual-property law.
That point is crucial because, when writing Section 230, Congress explicitly said its shield does not extend to lawsuits "pertaining to intellectual property." Until Judge LaPlante's order, courts had viewed that only as applying to federal claims mostly about copyrights and trademarks--and not state lawsuits over more amorphous publicity rights.
The reasons this could create headaches for Web publishers are twofold, said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. For one thing, laws governing "rights of publicity" are not uniform across the states, which means e-commerce companies would be forced to align their operations with the most restrictive state's law.
And unlike in copyright or trademark cases, where there are fairly well-established rules governing how Web sites are supposed to respond to such infractions posted by third parties, "we don't know what rules are; we have no good case law" on rights of publicity, Goldman added.
Others fear that the ruling could prompt legal mischief. For instance, courts have ruled in the past that Web publishers can be immunized for posts that tarnish someone's reputation--a practice typically covered by defamation laws. CDT's Cope said she's concerned the intellectual-property exception will "swallow the rule," inspiring other courts to allow plaintiffs to slip in defamation claims and others under the guise of "intellectual property" claims.
Judge LaPlante's ruling, however, is not the end of the case. The court can now hear evidence on whether to agree with Jane Doe's remaining allegations. Judges aren't exactly known for changing their minds, once they've made a decision. But Ira Rothken, the lead attorney defending FriendFinder in the case, said he believes any subsequent appeal to the 1st Circuit would result in a finding that state-level intellectual-property laws, too, are subject to the Section 230 exemption.
Roommates.com's matchmaking woes
The other Section 230 saga concerns a Web site called Roommates.com, which allows users to set up profiles and seek roommate matches in thousands of U.S. cities. One of the ways the site attempts to spark matches is through requiring members to complete questionnaires that stock their profiles with a number of personal details, including their gender, sexual orientation, and whether they have children, according to court documents.
I think.
It still doesn't matter if they can't even find the hackers to serve them papers.. are they even in the same country?
My son used to play this game when ti first came out. It was actually filled with people back than . not sure why it died out though. It seemed pretty popular in Beta..