Macro

[Twistagain]

Lego Mindstorms

Yes, you can build a Mindstorm robot arm very easily which will push a hotkey repeatedly. Doing multiple keys shouldn't be that hard to adapt from the single-key version.

Yes, this is how I trained sense heading LONG AGO. No, it has never been used (by me...or my legos) to do anything more complicated than that...so, no auto-tradeskilling or the like.

[Arghargh]

GM said: "A macro program is third party software that changes game play."

EULA says: "9. You may not use any third party software to modify the Software to change Game play..."

The GM's reply appears to say you can't use 3rd party software because it changes game play, while the EULA say you can' t use 3rd party software to modify the software to change game play. If I were on a jury, I would think that if the software doesn't modify EQ, then it isn't in violation of the EULA. A gamepad to auto fire arrows makes no change to EQ's software, so it shouldn't be an EULA violation. The driver for the gamepad is not part of EQ, and is thus irrelevant. SOE would have to claim control over every bit of software on your entire computer if they claimed they had some authority over you gamepad driver.

I know of two way that macro programs work. One reads and writes into EQ's memory space. That to me is a clear violation since it is changing EQ's memory. The other is a wrapper that feeds input to DirectX. This much closer to the gamepad example, and is not (to me) as clear a violation of the EULA. What if I have a keyboard that can macro keys? Those are fairly common.

I'm a computer geek, not a lawyer, so take the above for what its worth. In the end, the exact wording of the EULA doesn't matter much since SOE can ban you and your account(s) for any reason the want.

[Soulfiend]

What about if your conjoined twin did the combines?

[Dunthor Warsmith]

Originally posted by Tudani
I think using another computer to program a mechanical arm might be cosidered 3rd party software (since programming the arm is software based), but if it was purely a mechanical device I don't see where it would be a violation of the EULA.

One thing I keep wondering about, but don't have the legal knowledge to actually figure out:

All these EULAs and whatnot ban third party software from doing various things. But if you write it yourself, doesn't that make it 1st party software, and thus get around all those restrictions? I get the impression it doesn't work that way, but I've yet to find a solid explanation as to why (the "best" I've heard is that while you're the first party, the new software is not related to the base interaction which deems you the 1st party, and thus by being external to that base interaction is still considered 3rd party, despite being crafted by the 1st party-entity. Seems rather peculiar to me).

[I may have 1st and 2nd party switched, but other than that ...]

[Arakni Spellweaver]

Dunthor,

From the way I understand it, the "first party" software is EQ. Therefore, anything that acts on EQ, but is *not written* by SOE/EQ programmers, is 3rd party, whether you wrote it or someone else wrote it for you.

*edit*

I re-read your post. I think you are thinking of this like 1st and 3rd person in writing. It works like that, but unlike in writing, it's not 1st and 3rd person relative to *you*. It's relative to SoE/Verant. SoE/Verant is the 1st party.


Think of it this way. Let's pretend this brownie I am eating is EQ. Sony baked it and sold it to me. I think, "Wow, wouldn't it be great to have some vanilla ice cream on it?" So I get a half gallon of Breyer's vanilla at the store. Nope, can't use it, Sony didn't make the Breyer's vanilla ice cream, that's 3rd party, so against the EULA. So I think, 'Well, I'll just make some vanilla ice cream myself". Nope, again, Sony didn't make the vanilla ice cream, so again it's 3rd party. Since Sony is the first party, only things that Sony has created to specifically interface with the Sony brownie is 1st party and OK under the EULA. Maybe Sony will say, "Hey, vanilla ice cream isn't too unbalancing" and start making vanilla ice cream themselves, which they create specifically for this line of Sony brownies they make. That's what happened with EQWindows. Or, maybe they decide that vanilla ice cream is too unbalancing, and they never make their own line of vanilla ice cream, and vanilla ice cream on Sony brownies stays illegal forever. That's what's happened with the macros.

Make sense?

Hungry yet?

[eniamn]

i so hope with that example you have a gm baker. it would be so appropriate.

[Dunthor Warsmith]

I thought it went

1st Party: The purchaser of services
2nd Party: The provider of services
3rd Party: Any entity that is not the 1st or 2nd party. This seems to be able to include the 1st or 2nd party, if the actions in question are sufficiently outside the scope of their role as the 1st/2nd party.

I thought I had it in the right order ... but if I got it backwards (which is 1st, and which is 2nd), then if you replace all the "1st"s in my previous post with "2nd"s, does it make more sense?

I've been searching around trying to find a decent definition of first/second/third parties in terms of simple contracts. No luck, but plenty of tangental stuff. Things like

Third-Party Payer: An organization other than the patient (first party) or health care provider (second party) involved in the financing of personal health services.

a State agency (1st party) contracts with a vendor/contractor (2nd party) to provide ... contractor must hire a subcontractor (3rd party) to fulfill

Anyhow, I guess the meat of the issue is:

Nope, again, Sony didn't make the vanilla ice cream, so again it's 3rd party.

Beyond things contained in the agreement at the time of the initial agreement, can anything be considered to be of the party of the purchaser? Or is everything else forced wind up being shuffled to either provider-party or outside-party?

[Arakni Spellweaver]

Actually, Arakni is a GM jeweler, but she does have baking to 200. The reason I used a brownie is that that's what I had in front of me at the time. MMMmmmmm... brownies for breakfast.

Actually yes Dunthor that does make sense but... therein lies the problem with EULAs. Most EULAs have a stipulation that unless they specifically grant you the right to do something, you don't have that right. For the EQ thing, I think the only right you have as 2nd party is to play the game. Once you step outside that right, you're no longer the 2nd party, because you're not acting like the 2nd party, therefore making you a 3rd party. Which I guess means that if you're playing EQ with a macro, that makes you the 2nd and 3rd party at the same time.

Which is pretty much exactly what you said, so I guess we're in agreement there.

And yeah, it is weird, but again, that's why the lawyers get paid the big bucks, and why they argue in court about things like the definition of the word "it".

The one thing I just found is that they refer to "you or any third parties" quite a bit in the EULA ... except the item in question, which just talks about "third party software". Which I guess means that you can argue it on the technicality that maybe they only meant third-parties-not-you if you're caught running a hack that you created, but on the other hand, there's that whole spirit of the law thing, and I know *I* don't have enough money to argue that kind of technicality in court. Especially because they'd just change the EULA if they lost anyways.

[Rissenn]

"Can i use a macro program to make CE's if i am at the keyboard."

So if you can create this via an ordinary hotbutton, then it would be ok I assume.

How would such a hotbutton look? I suck at creating them...

[Abazagaroth]

EQwindows used to be software that could get you banned if you were somehow "caught" using it.

It isn't any longer.

I think the issue is very clear in SoE's approach in actual day to day dealing with these issues:

If it is "cheating", i.e., allowing you to do something you couldn't do yourself, either through altering gameplay, or doing something while you are afk you couldn't do normally if you were afk, then they will act on it.

It isn't worth their time (and thus money) to bother with anything else.

I don't care enough to bother looking up macro programs, but if someone is sitting there at the keyboard staving off RSD watching a macro perform something they would be doing anyways (i.e., not some random alt doing something while you are asleep), I seriously doubt you'll have a problem, as you can answer any tells you get if for some reason a gm contacts you.

[splunge]

When you ask 'What if i do this? Will it violate the EULA?'....

What you should be asking is...

'If i did this, and get caught, will it cause enough of a ruckus and annoy enough people that it wont be worth $13/month to Sony to keep me around?'