Forum:Jagex legal precedent

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Jagex legal precedent
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 April 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

Following the discussion about the Runescape Model Viewer (ie: Forum:RSMV ), here is one gem that editors might want to know.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36773265/Jagex-Ltd-v-Impulse-Software-D-Mass-Aug-16-2010

See pages 15 through 17, which unequivocally smashes any legal doubts about whether the use of the RSMV violates the US DMCA, using the exact same arguments I used a while ago.

--Agamemnus 21:29, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

(PS: Massive failure on the part of Jagex. Accusing someone of copyright violation by attaching images of things that don't exist in the defendant's product? Brilliant lawyer, really... kind of follows the trend at Jagex to hire "brilliant" people. See page 14. Edit: actually, see any page. It's sad and almost comical how poor Jagex's lawyers are.)

(PPS: I love how the default skin has a text box that doesn't adjust.. it's 1.5x bigger than my horizontal screen res.)

(PPPS: The judge made two typos on page 16. See if you can spot it!)

(PPPPS: The judge claims that Runescape has a 10-hour trial period... not very thorough reading by the judge, either!)

Discussion

Joy, another thread on the RSMV. Let the drama commence.

So after page 3, the document is completely blank for me. Would you care to post a quote in this thread so everyone can see what you're referencing? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe try again later or on another browser. Works fine for me in Firefox. Every page is a scan, so I can't quote it.--Agamemnus 21:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
You can type the relevant sections out by hand. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Lol, three pages? Maybe someone else can do that. My job is done! --Agamemnus 21:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
http://www.webcitation.org/5xX0LT85d WebCite of it. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:18, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Idea - We update pages of CURRENT CONTENT and wait for FUTURE CONTENT to be released... kthx Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:37, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. But, you do agree that the potential legal limitation that was argued before has been smashed beyond all comprehension? --Agamemnus 21:40, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Even if it has been blown, let's keep with the current and wait for the future. :P svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Pending on RSMV discussion, strong oppose Evil's statement - With your logic, we shouldn't have even mentioned dungeoneering on this wiki until the day it was released, and we should delete the Upcoming updates page. People are going to care a lot more about future RS updates than they will about Red cog. The only reason we don't use the RSMV for this is because of the legal issues, and if there really are none, I see no problem with this proposal at the moment. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:20, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - At the time, there was a trial version of the game, the Instant Demo, which had major restrictions on what could be done. I have also read the entirety of the document and while I do believe Jagex pressed or will press more on this issue, the fact that Jagex had failed to register (or could not) the abbreviation "RS" shows some lack of forethought in their appeal to the United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Now I see why one would say it does not break Jagex's copyright as you only sign away your rights by registering an account, rather than just accessing the server for the game. That being said, in relation to DMCA, I still prefer the status quo and not using RSMV imagery. Ryan PM 22:11, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the "demo", but you could still play the f2p version as well. Also: even if Jagex had registered the copyrights, the case specifically for invoking the DMCA is still not there, because there's no encryption, as the judge stated. Further, even if there was encryption, I don't think that the DMCA would apply even then as the bot software would not bypass the encryption -- the player logging in would via his or her credentials.--Agamemnus 22:26, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't read what you linked to, but I think we should definetely not do anything against the Jagex rules. Even though they may not be able to have official copyright, they can still remove us from the recognised fansites list, which means we can't tell people to visit the rswiki in-game anymore. We should just stay with the images and info we have now, and not use things against the Jagex rules to get more info/better images. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:27, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

"which means we can't tell people to visit the rswiki in-game anymore" O, rly? --Agamemnus 23:08, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, really. The last fansite removed from the recognized fansite list has their name censored in-game even with the censor off. Not to mention that mentioning non-approved fansites/urls has been grounds for blackmarks/mutes in game. This isn't a question about the legality of the issue -- it's a question about whether Jagex approves or not, and they obviously don't approve. Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 23:21, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why anyone should encourage Jagex's petty antics and LOLgic. But no, if you go back on the RSMV discussion, the vast majority of the discussion was about just that -- the legality of using the RSMV. In fact, what bone does Jagex have to stand on when their "prohibition" against discussing the RSMV on their forums on the grounds that it legally infringes on something is pretty much no longer the case with this legal precedent? And it's their forums, not the rs wiki's, anyway. I'm not really sure how it got to a point where rs editors are afraid (of getting their accts banned?) because of some Jagex employee's uninformed opinion on a legal matter in a Runescape forum. --Agamemnus 01:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Let me get one thing clear. "all RuneScape accounts (and items) remain the property of Jagex at all times, and they will not hesitate to remove such items from RuneScape if they have evidence that rule breaking has taken place."[1] So, Jagex has all rights to ban people for using the RSMV(3rd party software) to ban people using it, even though some employee said whatever. Also, they also have all rights to remove the rswiki from the fansite list, and have all rights to ban people mentioning us afterwards(again, because accounts stay property of Jagex at all times). Because we don't want this, we should just not start doing things Jagex forbids. It only gives problems, and we can make our images ourselves. We don't need a RSMV for that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 06:36, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Except it's not actually "rule-breaking", per se, so your fears are really unfounded. --Agamemnus 07:44, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

You can mention the wiki in-game Once we became approved it became permissible to tell people to use our site for help.--Degenret01 02:02, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this thread? (wszx) 03:49, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

To lay out some facts.--Agamemnus 07:42, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (I think?) - Andorin tells me that you want to make taking images from the cache acceptable, and that, according to your links, it's legal. So my post is going to be about that.. If I'm wrong in thinking that this is what the thread is about, let me know.

...Why do something that could potentially be illegal when you can just take the image yourself in-game? "Cause they has images that is of stuff n0t released [email protected]#!" - Umm, I have yet to see a Music cape. It's not real content, it's content that does not exist in RuneScape, so it's simply speculation. It might be released, it might not be. What a spoiler, man. That is all. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:06, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Even if this passes, it breaks RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. Jagged has NOT confirmed anything in there. Real Nub 07:16, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you opposing??? I didn't make a proposal of any sort. You're opposing the facts? :X--Agamemnus

Comment - As using the RSMV for future update info both breaks RS:NOT#CRYSTAL and it gives us a big chance of getting the right to refer to the wiki removed, and maybe it's even illegal by law (what one Jagex employee says is not always what Jagex wants). Along with the fact there are only opposes in this thread, I think this thread doesn't have any chance of passing. I suggest we add this subject to the Previously rejected proposals, with previous threads about this being RuneScape Model Viewer = Against the rules, Fair Use and the RSMV., Secret information(especially this image in the thread), Runescape model viewer, IRL laws, cache, and consensus, and even Talk:Jagex cache. I think the amount of times this has been discussed is really enough now, and because of the reasons mentioned earlier, I suggest we put it on the rejected list directly after closing this thread(or close this already). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:58, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the notion of putting it on the rejection list. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
These arguments get wayyy too heated every time it's brought up, and the debate has gone on far too long, with no consensus in sight. I concur with Andorin and Joeyt. NIPPON ICHI 19:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Agree with adding it to Previously rejected proposals. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:10, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Fergie. I mean really, how long does it take to get an image? Would you risk losing your account, and the wiki losing it's recognition, just to save a few minutes? ɳex undique 19:19, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you opposing??? I didn't make a proposal of any sort. You're opposing the facts? :X--Agamemnus

¿Question? - Is US law the only thing that matters? (I have no idea how things work for internet things). --Henneyj 19:56, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since the wiki's servers are located in the US. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
All Wikia wikis have to adhere to the laws of the State of Califonia. ʞooɔ

Fails to meet criteria for previously rejected proposals - The only reason for that category to exist is for topics overwhelmingly rejected by the community. The model viewer pics are often supported by many community people with sound logic and reason. This cannot be added under the terms we established for items to be added to that list. I consider wanting to add this item to that list as a shady attempt to stop reasonable discussion on an unpopular subject. That is NOT what that is for, and it is quite sad to see people trying to game the system to make this happen. Some times we have to deal with things we would rather not, deal with it. For myself I continue to hold out the hopes that some day this community can as a whole, stop trying to kiss Jagex ass and start using these pics in an extremely limited manner. But adding this is simply not permissible at this time.--Degenret01 01:17, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal, though. It's some info that people should take into account for when someone makes a proposal in the future. :-) --Agamemnus 07:42, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I read that right, but are you saying that everyone who doesn't think this will ever pass is gaming the system? NIPPON ICHI 01:22, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
No, just the ones trying to add it to the previously rejected list. Or maybe they simply never read the criteria for that.--Degenret01 01:24, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by your last few statements? That not participating in something that may be illegal is sucking up to Jagex? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:26, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
It is very well known that many people who oppose these pics do so for that very reason, yes, to kiss up to Jagex. Not all, but some. As for illegal, I have not seen any evidence anywhere to suggest it to be so, but rather the reverse. If you read the entirety of all the previous threads you will find some very compelling arguments to refute the notion of illegality. That one silly mods quote referenced above is of zero value what so ever and should not be included, he is not a lawyer nor a member of their legal team. Every time some says "illegal" many reasonable people just accept this claim without any facts to back it up. --Degenret01 01:43, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't oppose to kiss up to Jagex. I'm pretty sure they don't have that much interest in petty arguments like this on one of their many fansites. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:49, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Then it doesn't apply to you =D.--Degenret01 02:02, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to put this on the black/rejectedlist anyway, because this discussion about exactly the same has happened way to many times, and none of the times we got consensus. If I'd start a thread about you (Degenret) paying editors 100k for each 1000 edits they make, people will of course support because they want money. If you oppose giving away money yourself, it could be clear the thread doesn't pass. Then I could come back with the very same thread for another 10 times, but unless you change your mind, the thread will not pass. With your reasoning there's no way we could add it to rejected proposals, as the community would support it. It's just that the argument(s) of the opposers is/are so much stronger that there is no way it will ever pass. This discussion is very similar to the example about giving away money. There are indeed supporters, but unless Jagex changes their mind, we can't do it in any way, because else Jagex bans us from their recognised fansite list, people mentioning us might get blackmarks, and we will probably lose editors. This is all, unless Jagex changes their mind.
About "kissing Jagex ass", I am not kissing their ass, I am just considering the fact they will probably remove us from the list of allowed fansites, and I don't want it to be forbidden to talk about RSW in-game without risking blackmarks. That is the same as deciding not to steal from others, because you risk something bad when you do it. Then you are not kissing governement ass, but you are just doing what has the least negative effects. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:32, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I strongly reject your contention that opposers of these images have a stronger argument. A great great many people have rejected it only because of the legality issue, which in other threads has been shown to be nonexistent. With those opposers argument being nullified, there is actually damn few arguments left to oppose this. And your money thread analogy fails, sorry.--Degenret01 10:38, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
I consider the fact we might not be allowed to mention the wiki in-game a strong enough reason to wipe out all others. Not being able to mention it = not getting as many new visitors = not having as many contributors = not being up-to-date as easily as we do now. People like the fact we are up-to-date more than the fact we have nice images, so we should keep the good work up, and not lose the most appreciated thing to get something less appreciating. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:59, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
@Degen: How about the fact that NONE of the images of unreleased content have been confirmed as future updates by Jagex? There was an image of the Dragon Pickaxe in there for months, possibly even years before they released it, and when they did, it looked nothing like the cached image. Using the images is a direct violation of RS:NOT#CRYSTAL and as such should not be allowed. If RSMV images were to be allowed, then I can go make pages for anything and everything made in passing references, because it's the same principle, things which are only backed up by circumstantial evidence. I'm also rather confused as to why you'd want cache images anyway. They're (apparently) rarely in HD, and can just as easily be taken by an Orb of Oculus and a fast screenshot ingame. Tell me why RSMV images are so damn interesting, and I'll consider supporting. Real Nub 15:00, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Would like to point out that the cache has other uses besides looking for future items. We can get detailed images of items very easily with the RSMV. ʞooɔ 16:44, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
@Real- Thank you for paying attention. Since you failed to, I will restate what has been said multiple other times. The arguments for using unknown images, as discussed on other threads, was not to make a page on each. Because you are right, not crystal has a bearing. We discussed using the unknown pics solely on a single page which would clearly state that none of these images as of yet had a known use. That was it. Nothing more would have been allowed. So not crystal would be 100% preserved. Very tiring to repeat ourselves forty times because people cannot read a whole thread.--Degenret01 23:36, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
So the page would basically say, "Here's some stuff we found in the cache. No idea what it is, or if it'll ever be released, but we haz pictures of it so it's all good". People will look at it, and think, "AMG THERE'S PICTURES IT MUST BE COMING SOON MUST START FORUM THREAD", Jagex decides they don't want to recognise us any more, and anyone saying "Try RSWiki" ingame risks blackmarks. Sounds great. Real Nub 06:49, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Look at the mess you've caused... I found this case months ago while I was researching for Forum:Fair_Use_and_the_RSMV., but it doesn't matter even yet. If you'll notice the order at the end, "In accordance with the foregoing, defandants' notion to dismiss or, in alternative, to transfer venue is DENIED and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED." Basically, the defendents were not allowed to have the case argued in their home state of Florida or dismissed completely on technicalities, and Jagex's evidence did not prove their case sufficiently to be granted a temporary legal order shutting down the defendants' website and preventing them from committing the acts of which Jagex has accused them. The order to which you've linked says, "This isn't a blatantly obvious ruling in either direction; we're going to trial." With the preliminary injunction request, Jagex only said, "We have a copyright, and the DMCA protects it." During trial, Jagex has the opportunity to argue the points which the judge called insubstantial and impotent. Notice that the judge called the points "insubstantial" and "impotent" - not "incorrect" or "implausible;" the judge said that the points were not substantial or potent enough to have a ruling made before trial. Even if the judge makes a ruling in favor of the defendents, Jagex can appeal the case, and Jagex can continue appealing the case until the Supreme Court forces them to stop. Only then is this a precedent, and only then can it be brought to the Yew Grove.

Also, Jagex probably didn't expect to receive preliminary injunction any more than the defendants expected the case to be dismissed on technicalities, so it certainly wasn't a "fail" on anyone's part; judges want the process to speed along, but lawyers want time to research, so they file requests for transfer of venue, dismissal on technicality, preliminary injunction, and other ridiculous but perfectly legal actions. I also wonder if that judge was presented with the case of Burcham v. Expedia: "Even assuming somehow that Burcham never knew he created a user account or that an account was created for him, Burcham is still bound by the user agreement. A link to the full text of the user agreement is found at the bottom of the very web page that shows the listing for the hotel room Burcham booked..."

Furthermore, the judge's idea that the terms and conditions don't apply by reason of supposed lack of copyright registration confuses me because Altera Corp v. Clear Logic Inc. held that copyright law does not preempt the enforcement of contractual rights, and the terms themselves state that a person agrees with the terms by accessing Jagex's website, which is upheld in the aforementioned Burcham v. Expedia. Leftiness 20:25, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

It's still legal precedent -- at least for the purposes of discussion about legality... Something doesn't have to be law, or even a finished case in the courts to be considered a legal precedent. Edit: a little more. Yes, it is indeed a fail in LOLspeak sense (not the legal sense) because it's fairly clear that Jagex did not actually MAKE SENSE with the vast majority of their arguments by not providing the correct evidence (as in the hammer and pick icons with the artistic registratiion thingie....why?!?). The judge discussed the "likelihood of success on the merits": it's not legally binding, but it shows what his thought process is -- if Jagex wants a shot at winning, they have to convince the judge on his terms, not theirs.
A little moar about your "confusion". I assume you are referring to pages 14-15. The last sentence there about the lack of (registered) copyright is not the main point of the judge's considerations, but the final straw. The judge did not bring up the copyright "issue" -- Jagex did. Jagex is not suing the bot users, but the bot maker. There is no contract between the bot maker and Jagex, and thus no contractual issues. The judge correctly stated that a few random copyrighted Runescape images, which are not part of the bot program in any way, cannot make the bot maker infringe on the copyright. The leaps of logic one would have to make are simply too big. --Agamemnus
In regards to legal precedent, a denial of preliminary injunction is certainly not reasoning to consider Jagex's argument invalid. The judge did not order that Jagex is wrong and the defendants are right. The judge did not order for Jagex to pay the defendants' legal expenses. Again, I point out that the defendants also could not receive dismissal on technicality, and that isn't because their case is invalid. In my experience with court cases, judges are skeptical of making decisions before going to trial, and there's nothing wrong with that.
In regards to Jagex's arguments of copyright infringement and violation of contract, I'd point out two things in the terms and conditions. First, "'Jagex Product(s)' is used as shorthand for our online games including all Jagex websites used to play those games." Second, "Your accepting [the terms] in full is a condition of your use of a Jagex product (whether or not you subscribe). If you don't agree with any part, please don't accept them or use the Jagex product." In order to create a bot which interfaces with RuneScape, the creator was using a Jagex Product - specifically the game's code. By using it, he agreed to the terms, so he violated the terms. By violating the terms, he had no license to be in possession of Jagex Products, including the icons for mining and the like, so he also committed copyright infringement.
In research I also found Jagex's paperwork requesting a trial by jury, dated six months before the linked denial of preliminary injunction. It's hosted at Courthousenews, which isn't exactly a favorable source as I'd prefer a government site, but it's certainly as reliable as Scribd: Link. Please read the whole document, but I took special notice of a few sections. In 22, the terms "vicarious" and "contributory" infringement are used, which mean that Jagex charges the defendants for providing the means by which more people may violate their contracts. Basically, there wouldn't be people using the defendants' bots to break the terms if the defendants hadn't made the bots, so they're liable. Continuing, section 35 and 36 regard the Java-based security measures which are the "encryption" required by the DMCA. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find exhibit D, but I'll keep looking.
Also notice that the judge only denied Jagex's request for preliminary injunction, not the request for trial. I understand that this source is biased in that it's from Jagex's lawyers, but I'd prefer if discussion of this particular case were held off until a ruling is at least made for the first time. Even after that, discussion can always continue with an appeal. Leftiness 18:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand why anyone feels the need to argue about the pertinance of Not Crystal. Honestly, even I believe that the fact that something is in the cache is enough to justify posting information about it. We post about future updates, where someone "reliable" has said something about making an update, but do you really think that it's more likely for an update to be released because someone said something about it? How much time might go by before that update will be released? How different will it be than what was first mentioned? I'd say it's more likely to be released if it's in the cache, or it's at least further along on the process, because they've obviously started working on it - not just thinking about it. It's also probably not going to be much different than its cache counterpart when it's released, per the popular dragon pick example, again because it's in the cache and they've started working on it. Regardless, this is only my attempt at slowing what I consider to be the illegitimate and heated arguments which give the RSMV discussion a bad reputation. Leftiness 12:14, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I really, really, REALLY hate the RSMV. It brings nothing but trouble with it, as seen by the over 9000 threads and discussions we've had on it. We are not a crystal ball, and shouldn't start trying to be one. I don't care if it's an "assured prediction" since nothing is damned assured until Jagex releases it. Just look at the Dragon Pickaxe. The RSMV depicted it differently then what it was released as, giving us mis-information, and being a wiki we should be accurate. Also, Jagex doesn't like people looking at the Model Viewer as seen in past threads, so why piss them off? Just to have some most-likely inaccurate images? Not worth it in my opinion, since as I said before, we are NOT a crystal ball. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:33, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you opposing??? I didn't make a proposal of any sort. You're opposing the facts? :X--Agamemnus
And this is all these threads boil down to, every time. People bring up the same points every time: if they oppose it, they say the Wiki isn't a crystal ball (which it isn't). If they're for it, they just say using these images WOULDN'T be a violation of that policy, with minor variations in terms of reasoning.
These arguments will NEVER stop going back and forth, so let's finally put this beast to rest once and for all. NIPPON ICHI 01:43, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
A very accurate deduction. If this fails, then nothing changes, and hopefully this gets thrown into the category of "We're done with this topic nao". If this passes, we will have a alot of new articles, some of which may be completely Photoshopped (since the RSMV is so vast, who'd know?), which can throw off our accuracy by quite a bit. The crystal ball policy and header would have to be changed or even deleted due to the fact we'll have people adding God knows what as images they found or made. To me, it's peace of mind , editing and Jagex by keeping it away, r chaotic image adding, a nightmare in Speedy Deletions, and a chance someone with Photoshop misleads us with an item they made up and will be hard to search for. It's just not worth the headache imo. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
Please see my above request that people stop discussing Not Crystal. Then scroll up a bit further where Agamemnus provided a legal document. Then read the legal documents that I linked. All of that is new information. The only old information is the endless bickering about Not Crystal. "Regardless, this is only my attempt at slowing what I consider to be the illegitimate and heated arguments which give the RSMV discussion a bad reputation." Leftiness 18:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - If no new arguments are presented within the next two days, I will close this thread. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:55, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - I have read over Forum:Reveal leaked info?, Forum:RuneScape Model Viewer = Against the rules (archive), Forum:Fair Use and the RSMV. (archive), Forum:Runescape model viewer, Forum:IRL laws, cache, and consensus, this thread, and the legal case in question before coming to this conclusion. The main arguments are centered around the legality of the issue, the question of breaking the terms and conditions set by Jagex, permissibility under our policies, and the potential benefit/harm that may come from allowing such images.

The issue of the legality has not been "unequivocally smashed" as neither the defendant nor Jagex got the ruling they were seeking. There is not enough of a leaning one way or the other for this to be a legal precedent. Aside from the case itself, relatively no new information has been presented since the previous threads' closures. Therefore, the issue remains whether Jagex's terms and conditions and the wiki's policies (in addition to the potential harm) can indubitably supersede the arguments for the use of such images or vice versa. There seems to be no consensus as to whether Jagex's terms and conditions play into this as the arguments seem evenly split between "to hell with it" and "don't do anything to get banned", so to speak. However, the question of our own policies and whether or not the precedent must be reversed plays heavily into the discussion. It appears that the overall consensus is that these images should not be allowed, regardless of any new proof provided regarding the legality of their use. Additionally, this proposal will be added to the list of previously rejected proposals as it has been suitably rejected numerous times by the community. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:41, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Note - A list of past Jagex cache/RSMV discussions can be found at the top of Talk:Jagex cache. This thread been added to the list. That is all. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 05:43, April 13, 2011 (UTC)