Pointers to Legal Resources Needed

[PawnOrc]

I am a retired intellectual property lawyer. I spent many, many years in the field. I don't run SEQ because it is too difficult for me, particularly now. I am enjoying these boards and the great ideas I see here. All that said ...

I have read enough here to know that most of you are not educated in the law or the corporate world of companies like SOE. The VAST majority of the "legal" stuff written here is of the nature of "intelligent amature." So ...

Can someone point me to web sites which describe the actual state of the Federal or California law covering the following:

Un-authorized scanning of system memory together with use or transmission of information gained through such scanning.

Un-authorized scanning of information storage units such as hard disks together with use or transmission of information gained through such scanning.

Thank you.

PS: For you circle jerks out there - I did search and read these boards. It was not helpful.

[high_jeeves]

Take a look at www.cybercrime.gov for alot of info and links.

And this, specifically: http://www.cybercrime.gov/1030_new.html

Most of what is found at this link relates to the government, and how it may interact with private information. But there are some interesting cases described here which establish things about the 4th amendment and computer data. As well has how a hard-drive and files are considered as "containers" of information. While not directly applicable to private entities, I think it is fairly relevant.

edit: added a bit more info.

--Jeeves

[PawnOrc]

This is good stuff. It is off point relative to the "private" dispute brewing between SOE and its customers, but it is a great start. From here I can get enough to take to Lexis.

Anyone else looking at case law? We could all work together.

30 years in the game tells me there will be hell to pay if SOE "sniffs" too hard. They may choke on what they breath.

None of the foregoing is offered as legal opinion or advise. The author's sole intent is to foster exchange of ideas and discussion among like-minded individuals.

[who_me_use_seq]

Uh....If you are a lawyer shoulen't you be pointing us to these resources?

This is like a coder going to a legal website and asking for a good source of C++ info.

[fryfrog]

you might notice that he said he was an ip lawyer, i imagine its more like a perl scripter going to a c++ board asking for help with it. :)

[PawnOrc]

Right. This area is new by IP standards. It also invovles so-called privacy issues and public policy parts of contract law. I did not want to start down this path without throwing an invitation out for some help.

I have been impressed by the minds on these boards and I want to respect those who may be out in front on this topic.

[PawnOrc]

What is memory protection software? If it is running, does it protect areas of memory from being read? If so, would "hacking" a protected area constitute an "active attack?"

[high_jeeves]

I am not aware of any software that protects memory from being read by other applications. Memory can be locked by that application, so that reads to it are recorded, but even this can be overriden by going to a lower level of driver (without attacking, the events just do get triggered).

Also, if I see where you are going with this, the code itself (and therefore the fingerprint) in memory could not be protected this way (and wouldnt be, since it must be read from memory to be executed).

--Jeeves

[throx]

Disclaimer: IANAL. I am not even an intelligent amateur.

Wouldn't it simply be a case of Sony modifying the initial EULA you click agree/disgree on to permit eqgame.exe to scan your system for "game integrity" purposes without sending specific data back to Sony, much the same way Windows Update scans your system without sending specific data back to Microsoft?

Can't Sony pretty much place any terms they like in the EULA given that it is their server we are connecting to?

If this is the case then I'd be watching carefully for a change in the EULA...

[RavenCT]

Originally posted by throx
Disclaimer: IANAL. I am not even an intelligent amateur.

Wouldn't it simply be a case of Sony modifying the initial EULA you click agree/disgree on to permit eqgame.exe to scan your system for "game integrity" purposes without sending specific data back to Sony, much the same way Windows Update scans your system without sending specific data back to Microsoft?

Can't Sony pretty much place any terms they like in the EULA given that it is their server we are connecting to?

If this is the case then I'd be watching carefully for a change in the EULA...

Whe whole point of this thread is that they can put whatever they want in their EULA, that DOESN'T make it legal...

I think there was another thread somewhere around here (I know search, I'm too lazy to quote it here) that was talking about how they can't force you to "agree" your own rights away.

[baelang]

Originally posted by RavenCT


Whe whole point of this thread is that they can put whatever they want in their EULA, that DOESN'T make it legal...

I think there was another thread somewhere around here (I know search, I'm too lazy to quote it here) that was talking about how they can't force you to "agree" your own rights away.

the way i understand it, you can't agree to do anything illegle eigher. for example they could put in the EULA, "by clicking accept you agree to fellatiate some member of SOE development staff, or management, whenever asked to do so." no one would expect that clause to be upheld.