MO;UL distribution not allowed

[Justintime9]

I'm not sure if you guys are still trying to distribute the MOUL files, but i just got a response back from cyan, after telling them what people were doing.

Hi Justin,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is a clear violation to post in public areas copyrighted files which do include but not limited to, Python and SDL files. We are looking into this matter.

Thanks,
Mark DeForest
Cyan Worlds, Inc.

so, if you are... stop XD

[andylegate]

As far as I know, both here and over at the GoMa, are not distributing any of the MOUL files.

[Justintime9]

well, this is the post I sent awhile ago, around the time the files were downloadable...

Lately there has been much debate over a cirtain issue, someone has developed a tool that allows explorers with URU CC installed, to play URUlive ages (Eder Delin, etc.) in single player. Now, many people argue that it's not violating any agreement to have those files up, while others believe they're cyan's ages, and we have no right to distribute them freely. it seems that we're not getting anywhere arguing, so do we have your permission to use these ages in single player URU? if at all possible, please answer quickly , because it seems that this debate will go on and on until cyan steps in.
~A concerned URU fan
here's the thread: http://www.uruobsession.com/forum/index ... 33170&st=0

[andylegate]

And it appears you got an answer from Cyan: Distributing MOUL files is a no no.

[Justintime9]

yuup... but he said this about telling people how do it themselves (using this: http://www.guildofmaintainers.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=435 tutorial)
his response:

Hi Justin,

Personally, I think that the tool itself is in the same gray area that other Uru fan created tools are in.


Thanks!
Mark DeForest
Cyan Worlds, Inc.

and after I asked him if that means it's ok, he said this:

You've caught me in a strange position of which I can't give you a straight answer.
The tool is as ok as other Uru derived tools created by fans.


Thanks,
Mark

[andylegate]

Then you have your answer Justin. Neither "no" nor "yes" at this time.

No nobody should distribute MOUL files. Period.

Converting MOUL files for use with Uru:CC: "grey area" "can not comment on at this time"

Just as with Age Creation itself right now is a "grey area"

Who knows? The future could bring changes.

[Chacal]

You needed to write Cyan about this? We could have told you. We have, actually.
It has always been clear to everyone that Cyan, along with any other company, disapproves distribution of its copyrighted material.
The law in most countries is also quite clear on the subject.

As for the tools, there is no grey area. It is not a distribution of Cyan files, so there is no legal argument against it.
Whether or not Cyan approves of the tools is irrelevant. The most they can do is revoke your license to play the game.

[BAD]

Justin,

I don't mind if you contact Cyan to ask questions about what is legal or not, but as to a debate, I don't remember there being much of any.

This forum stands that no one should make anyones copyrighted material available for download without the expressed written permission of the copyright owner. That is why we removed the link to the torrent for the MOUL files once we realized they were a part of it.

[Marten]

As for the tools, there is no grey area. It is not a distribution of Cyan files, so there is no legal argument against it.
Whether or not Cyan approves of the tools is irrelevant. The most they can do is revoke your license to play the game.

Presently, Blizzard Entertainment is attempting to establish that if you've used tools to modify WoW in a way they don't approve, then you've effectively had your license revoked automatically, and therefore any playing you've done since the license revocation is a copyright infringement and could be subject to lawsuit. Under that line of logic, there is definitely more that Cyan could do than revoke a license to play the game. Many people are hoping that Blizzard will lose their case because it could set a very bad precedent, but I think it is foolish to say "Oh, there's nothing <game company> can really do to you" when case law on this matter is not yet settled.

Reference: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... t-law.html

[Justintime9]

debate: http://www.uruobsession.com/forum/index.php?s=650463ee9daf46ac46f0f3dea255bfae&act=ST&f=111&t=33170&st=0