Slashdot Log In
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
Posted by
michael
on Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:41 AM
from the pinch-hitter dept.
from the pinch-hitter dept.
An anonymous reader sent in: "As reported three previous times, Blizzard is attempting to squash the Battle.net emulator and open source bnetd project. The EFF has taken the case. Read the press release. LawMeme also has a satiric fable."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Good Penny Arcade (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002
What a terrible approach to build game interest! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is these gaming communities that build interest in the games, add features, etc. These enthusiasts dump untold hours into improving games and this is how the software companies reward them?
I have some ties to N.E.R.D. [nerdtreehouse.com], the worlds 3rd largest CounterStrike server and would venture to guess that 90+% of the gamers happily paid for their software. The community only gets better when Sierra Games [sierra.com] backs the gaming centers.
Re:What a terrible approach to build game interest (Score:2)
This is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a good defense. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the one that Blizzard/Battle.net may get the upper hand on.
Whoever stated that Diablo II, Starcraft, etc were to be "interoperable programs"? I believe by the TOA that Blizzard products are only sanctioned to run with other Blizzard products (two copies of Starcraft for example) or Battle.net.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a load of crap on the part of Blizzard and Battle.net. (here on out I will never purchase another Blizzard product) But the truth is, the EFF has made a very bad claim in defense of bnetd.
A good defense. (Score:3, Insightful)
No one stated that Diablo, etc. were Interoperable programs. That was directed at bnetd being interoperable. Since Bnetd is trying to interoperate (thru reverse engineering) with Blizzard software, the DMCA clearly states that they do not have to interoperate with ALL the functonality Blizzards' server provides.
Its a very sound defense using the very law you are attacked with to defend yourself.
Re:Not a good defense. (Score:2)
You can't say 'Diablo II is only allowed to interact with such-and-such programs' and more importantly, you REALLY wouldn't want to. What about input drivers, such as any of the Gravis programs which remap keys? That's a program "interoperating" with Diablo II. Does Blizzard really want to injoin those programs from working?
So long as a program isn't written to specifically get around anti-piracy provisions of a second program (bnetd is NOT: it's written to provide a server. the lack of CD-KEY checking is necessitated by Blizzard. This is exactly the argument that Bleem won in their lawsuit vs. Sony).
Keep in mind that the TOA of Blizzard products isn't law, and bnetd is NOT violating that TOA - the person using the Blizzard product might be, but that's not bnetd's problem (again, Bleem/Connectix case...) In any case, somehow I doubt that that TOA is even valid for certain things (we REALLY REALLY need some judge to come and say "get real, this is crazy" on these idiotic software licenses)
Blizzard is REALLY STUPID to continue this case in the court. IANAL, but honestly, the case is just way too similar to the Bleem and Connectix VGS case to survive. Here, Blizzard/Viviendi have an uphill battle, whereas all the EFF has to do is start filing briefs with tons upon tons of references to previous case law.
EFF Focus? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I'm not sure this is the right test case for DMCA. Vivendi is arguing that they need to shut bnetd down because it is being used to circumvent the terms of the beta program for Warcraft III. IMHO that seems like a reasonable concern.
It may be worthwhile to argue the case, but it seems to me that it'd be better for EFF to focus its efforts on fighting the worst abuses of DMCA, in order to get it overthrown. I worry that they will try to fight _every_ use of DMCA, spread themselves too thin, and lose all their cases.
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:2)
Why should the bnetd project be penalized if a beta tester breaks the terms of their agreement? This comes down to the old 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' kind of argument. If a tool has a legitimate use but can be used for criminal activities as well, do you get rid of the tool altogether? Luckily, with the DMCA, you don't have to worry about such philosophical arguments, because you just have your team of lawyers scare the shit out of anyone who comes within 500 miles of your intellectual property. Right or wrong, if you don't have the moola to dance with the sharks of a mega-corporation, you're screwed (unless some kind organization like the EFF or ACLU picks up your case).
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Were you in favor of banning VCR's because they could be used for copyright infringement?
It may be true that bnetd is being used to circumvent the terms of the Warcraft beta, but I think that's not the issue here. The main issue is that the people who have signed the beta agreement are circumventing the terms of that agreemement, not the bnetd authors. Heck, the people responsible for bnetd may have never seen the agreement, how can they be held liable for violating it?
I think this is a perfect test case for the DMCA, because the law lets content owners go after any technology that can circumvent access controls, without regard to fair use rights or copyright expiration, instead of going after the individual people who willfully violate copyright, which would put content creators in the awkward position of calling their customers a bunch of criminals. I think this is wrong, and this case can show it is wrong.
Steve Jobs said it best when he introduced the iPod... Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one. I say that any method to curb piracy that relies on technological measures is doomed to fail.
Parent
Re:Copyright Violations and Speeding Tickets (Score:4, Insightful)
If a significant percentage of users/drivers etc, are breaking the law on a regular basis, might there be something wrong with the system?
I use this same agument against those who say that users who open virus attachments in outlook are just stupid, and that MS doesn't have any responsibility. Sure they do. Users will do stupid things, and your responsibility as the designer is to help prevent self immolation!
Same with the copyright problem. If there are millions of people doing it - ask WHY!!! Is it because the stuff costs more than it's worth? Is it because the users don't have money?
Frankly, I wonder if this is a great balance of power. The copyright holders by and large are huge corporate interests. Trying to bring them to heel is impossible. They can pass legislation like the DMCA to screw over consumers. Well, the reaction is like this...the copyright holders must sue _INDIVIDUALLY_ all the violators. Since it's probably not economically viable, the copyright holders will have to seek another solution - most preferably, to reduce the push to actually violate copyright. The most obvious result, is to lower prices, and loosen control. Once it's more work to violate copyright than just buy the product, most of us will simply buy.
I'll quit rambling now...
Cheers!
Parent
Re:EFF Focus? (Score:3, Interesting)
bnetd isn't actually doing it. the warforge project spun off of bnetd, because the bnetd people didn't want to allow support for the hacked beta.
However, because the project was OPEN SOURCE, anyone could pick right up where they left off, and in this case, someone did, and now there are tons of people anxiously awaiting the crack for the latest warcraft patch.
the bnetd guys really seem like they are on the level, and are getting slammed cause they do this for kicks, and thus don't have the $$ to back themselves up.
A shame really.
Warlords Battlecry 2 (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.warlordsbattlecry2.com/
http://www.
http://www.ssg.com.au/wbc
It has heros that can go up to level 50 and has over a 100 spells. Compare that to Warcraft 3, I believe their heros only go up to level 6 or 9 and have three spells. There are also 12 sides instead of Warcrafts 4.
Check out what the little guys have to offer
Actually Contributing (Score:5, Informative)
A payment has been sent to bnetd-defense@bnetd.org.
You will receive an email receipt for this transaction shortly.
For details on your transaction, please contact bnetd-defense@bnetd.org.
Item Name: Bnetd Project Defense Fund
Item Number: Defense Fund
Rather than just talk about it, I have put my money where my mouth is on this issue, by donating to the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same at this link [bnetd.org].
Blizzard Entertainment sadly mislead? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case? (Score:2, Informative)
Whether it violates the DMCA is another issue. The courts ruled recently against Sony where developers reverse engineered portions of the Playstation to get access to underlying protocols so that developers could create an emulator for the PC. Even though the reverse engineering violated some terms of the DMCA, there were two important facts facts: (1) the new product was legal, and (2) they attempted to obtain the information from Sony, but they refused to offer it.
It appears that this case is the same. The defendant was unsatisfied with a product. The producer was unable or unwilling to provide the desired product. The defendant was forced to reverse engineer that product in order to offer the desired services. The only remaining question is whether Blizzard applied for a patant for their network protocols. (unlikely.) If they did not, they do not own the IP of the protocol (since the protocol is a method and must be patented, not copyrighted) and therefore Bnetd is fully within their rights to publish it.
Something I find interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
The point (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you agree with Blizzards point that the bnetd project does in some way promote piracy, unless you are a complete fool, you should not agree that the DMCA applies to this case. Blizzard is grasping at best.
Its everyone's right as a consumer to fight this even if you agree with Blizzard. This is everyone's chace to stop complaining about the DMCA and actually do something. This will determine if software companies have the right to not only tell you how, when, and where you will utilize their products after your purchase them but also gives them the right to prosecute you if you don't. If Blizzards case holds up, it will open the door for many many more useful emulation projects to be shut down.
Who has Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
I say that the key-checking isn't anyone's responsibility but their own -- if you write software, and it doesn't check, then nobody else should be forced (or even expected) to do that job for you.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for. There's no method for a printer to check whether a printjob came from a paid copy of Word, just as there's no way for bnet to check the validity of an incoming connection. Nor should there be.
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
[note -- I admit that I'm not particurlarly versed on the specifics of this case, so if I zigged when I should have zagged up there, try to ignore that and focus on my argument, eh? thanks..
Re:Who has Responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody's. To legally place that responsibility upon anyone, legitimizes copy protection.
Copy protection is just a hack. It's a cheap way for publishers to avoid expending effort enforcing copyright. If it works for some of them, fine: let 'em try doing things that way. IMHO, it's a bad idea, but they should have the right to try it (for now -- but every time I see it abused, it makes me want to take away that right). Copy protection should never be legitimized or legally recognized or institutionalized. It should remain merely a hack. That's where DMCA went wrong.
Blizzard should deal with the copyright issue and sue the infringers, instead of thrusting new responsibilities upon other parties.
Parent
Is This Fight The Good Fight? (Score:2)
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over? IIRC, Warcraft 3 and Battle.net will have gone under major release/revisions and all of this will be moot. Why fight over something this transitory? I would would rather see the EFF tackle more serious issues like privacy issues than this...
So what is the underlying moral issue to fight for here?
Re:Is This Fight The Good Fight? (Score:3, Funny)
No dude, this is nothing to worry about. Fair Use and all that rot is just a bunch of theoretical bunk the pointy-headed academics use to keep us all confused. Just do whatever Blizzard and Disney want, and you'll be fine.
And when American Standard gets around to joining the game, you can ask them for permission to shit, and it'll be all good.
Sign the petition (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.petitiononline.com/blizdmca/ [petitiononline.com]
Letter sent to Blizzard... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been purchasing and playing Blizzard games for about four years. I have enjoyed Blizzard titles like 'Diablo', 'Diablo II', 'Starcraft' and 'Starcraft: Broodwar'. I have spent hard-earned money on Blizzard titles and have spent countless hours playing them.
That said, I do not plan to purchase or play any more Blizzard titles. Why? Blizzard games has threatened legal action under the DMCA against the Bnetd project (http://www.bnetd.org/), an open source multiplayer system for games that use Blizzard's 'Battle Net' multiplayer system.
In press releases and news articles, Blizzard has indicated that it feels that because Bnetd will not and cannot check users for proper licensing that it contributes to piracy of Blizzard games.
Unfortunately, Bnetd is a small project run by volunteers who have no ability to hire expensive lawyers to defend themselves against Blizzard's claims, regardless of their merit. Blizzard software is effectively using their financial resources to silence and eliminate a possible competitor.
This practice is despicable. I don't associate with individuals who believe that this is an acceptable practice and I will not support a company who does so either.
Further, I will encourage everyone I know to stop supporting your company and to stop buying Blizzard games because of this reprehensible act. In effect, your 'anti-piracy' concerns have lost you a paying customer. I hope that the irony of this is not lost on money-conscious salespeople or executives.
Hopefully, Blizzard games will realize that it is driving away in dependant developers, gamers, and other customers with this act and will with withdraw its legal threats against the Bnetd project. Hopefully, it will even issue a formal apology to the members of the Bnetd project. Until then, what I stated above remains in effect. You have lost me and everyone else I speak to on the matter as paying customers.
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2)
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is like creating an AIM server and telling all your friends to log the AIM client into it insted of the actual AOL server bucause you do want to be spammed by unknown people or because of firewall / network issues you keep getting disconnect from AOL.
However, the server you create will also let Trillian or whatever other client connect because you have no help from AOL
Missing the Point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously you can use Bnetd to facilitate quote bad things, let's say the piracy, but I hardly believe that is the focus of the project. Indeed, when discussing the issue with lawyers representing Blizzard, the Bnetd man made it clear that they would like nothing more than to roll in a function to do legitimate CD-Key checks, the way that Battle.net itself does. It's not something they can even implement without Blizzard's help. It goes without saying that the attorneys in question were not there to try and improve Bnetd, and as a result, they ain't trying to hear that. The blood of any breathing geek is enticed by the prospect of running their own Battle.net. What if they could? What if a sanctioned, but not supported product were delivered - one that diligently performed the anti-piracy measures assigned to it, ran their official ads, all while removing load from their main body of equipment? I'm trying to figure out who loses here.
Though Battle.net is a matchmaking service, it's silly to call that its only function. I've always thought of it as performing a sort of de facto authentication, a la Half-Life. This watchdog element is (I'm sure they believe) crucial to sustaining their business, and Blizzard has absolutely every right to try and protect their stuff via whatever methods they want to. Whatever else is going on here, I don't think that it's okay to make something that emasculates their security mechanism. I don't mean that in a legal sense, this violates statutes W, A, N, and G or what have you, I mean it in a personal one.
--
I support Blizzard and their attempt to protect their property, income sources, etc. What reason do they have to play nice and let bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose ad revenue if they do that, and they -potentially- lose more sales due to piracy.
If I had a product and was reliant upon providing a means for people to meet up for games, and used that as a revenue source, to feed my programmers and staff, and some joe schmoe comes along with a service that bypasses all that, and makes it easier for pirates to hop on, I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
Parent
You might be pissed but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case it would seem that Blizzard feels that they DID have some sort of copy protection and that this software went around it - that's not so. What Blizzard HAD was a FEATURE in their server software that performed the JOB of checking for legit copies. While that could be construed as some sort of "copy protection" these guys did NOT crack it. They did NOT infringe - they simply chose not to include that feature. And for this Blizzard is unhappy? Would they have been happier if these guys had cracked their feature and implemented it? I think not...
The scenario of the early IBM BIOS has ben brought up before and I believe it's a VERY good parallel. IBM tried to take Phoenix and others to court for creating a "clone" BIOS years ago. However these folks were smart enough to have created a "clean room" implementation of the IBM BIOS. They simply (cough) created two teams - one to examine the original BIOS completely and the other to create a version of it without ever seeing the real original code. They were able to ask questions about timings and what occured when certain signals were injected into the "black box" - the results of those questions influenced their coding. When done they had code that did the same JOB as the original firmware but one that didn't actually the same CODE.
IBM lost their case - as Blizzard should surely lose theirs. These programmers never had access to Blizzard's original works - how could they possibly have infringed? IMO this is pretty cut and dry. Unless these people have included portions of the Blizzard binary or other "works" in their code they have no leg to stand on. Saddest of all is that these people are FANS of Blizzard's work and they are being stupid enough to alienate them. Duh!
Personally, I'm happiest with clients like iD has created (Quake etc.). Yeah, they rely on a "master server" but they don't require you to go through their "portal" to get the information you want. For that matter iD releases SOURCE of older games - they're VERY friendly to their fans and I buy their products as a result. Tribes and others have used this model too - it's nice though I don't think they release source. The GameSpy software sprung from this and I think it's terrific when a 3rd party can concentrate on a niche like that. Enter Blizzard... I don't know how different the Blizzard model is but if it's "broken" enough for people to work to code their own then they've got problems that need to be addressed by something other than a lawsuit against their fans. somehow I cannot imagine a company like iD doing this. Funny, I was considering buying one of their games too - glad I DL'ed the server code before it got zapped
Your logic is ... not there (Score:4, Insightful)
>bnetd do whatever they want? They certainly lose
>ad revenue if they do that, and they -
>potentially- lose more sales due to piracy
It's not up to them whether they should "let" people do things that are perfectly legal. It's not "playing nice" to respect the rights of other people; it's the way it has to be. Get all of the other fascists together and get this through your hard stone heads: Blizzard CAN NOT create legal policy; nor can any other corporation. They are not lawmakers; they can not decide to declare something illegal because it presses upon their revenue stream. They (and you) also need to realize that stretching the boundaries of an existing law while operating under the assumption that your legal opponents will not gather the funds needed to fight back is intolerable and does ABSOLUTELY NOT constitute fair defense of your property.
>I'd be mighty pissed, and rightly so.
No, not rightly so. It would suck because someone is COMPETING with you. Are you a capitalist or a dictator?
Parent
Re:I gotta agree with Blizzard... (Score:2, Redundant)
See, thats just wrong.
Its really nice to rail against the machine, and attack a huge mammouth like Vivendi, but the story is old, and tired.
Listen, they wrote the game. It cost them money, and brainpower to develop the game, and when it was finalized, they chose to provide it to the world. And they provided it for a price, because after all, they had to pay for the programmers, and administration, and deployment and on-going maintaince.
So you can see where they would be a little peeved if somebody came along and developed a free server that would let everyone get around paying them a little money to use their own server.
Now, I don't agree with their decisions, I have always thought that if you give the servers away for free, more people will buy the clients (witness Quake II/III and HalfLife), but hey, they have the right to decide what to do with their property. If you don't like it, then don't buy the game. Its a simple as that.
It would be really nice if we lived in a utopian society, where everyone gave freely of themselves, and nobody needed anything. Unfortunately, the last time I looked, my phone bill needed paying, and so instead of living in your utopian world (aka, your parent's house), I've got to go back to work for the evil corporations and try to wrench a few bucks out of their hands.
The reasons is ... (Score:2, Informative)
Currently as it goes, if you want to play with others online using a Blizzard product, you are almost force to buy a legal copy. The introduction of emulators will by-pass that.
Blizzard has a legal beef here.
Re:The reasons is ... (Score:2)
As for your last statement about cd keys keeping people honest, this may be true, but no company has an obligation to make it especially easy for pirates to use its programs. Playability on Battle.net is something that Blizzard sees as a key selling point, and it does not have to release its cd key validation if it doesn't want to dilute this selling point.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a paying customer, I demand value and satisfaction from my Blizzard software like Warcraft and Diablo2.
Since the Blizzard server is:
- SLOOOOW
- Unreliable
- Hacked all to hell
- VERY buggy
I choose to have the ability to play my ALREADY PURCHASED SOFTWARE on a server of my choice. Just because Blizzard would prefer I didnt doesnt mean jack.
Your argument that Bnetd is punishing Blizzard for creating value is totally incorrect.
It punishes Blizzard for NOT creating value on the server side.
I rewarded them for their client side software. What I choose to connect to is *MY CHOICE*.
And its entirely legal too..
Parent
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:2)
- SLOOOOW
- Unreliable
- Hacked all to hell
- VERY buggy
Excuse me, but I've seen these assertions before, and I have no idea why people make them.
Starcraft/Warcraft are peer-to-peer games. Battle.Net is the matchmaking service. There can be no gameplay issues with the servers because games do not connect to the servers.
Diablo II is the only client-server game, and admittedly it has major problems. The original Diablo was also a bit of a multiplayer disaster so I think the problem lies with their Blizzard North department, not their Battle.Net service.
And yet people use Diablo II as an example of why Battle.Net sucks. But by doing that, they have willfully ignored the fact that Diablo II supports direct TCP/IP games (not restricted to LANs) as well as an 'Open' player-hosted mode.
The point I'm making is this: As long as all people involved have a CD-KEY, I have never seen a valid reason for the existance of a Battle.Net emulator. That doesn't mean its wrong to create one, but it *is* wrong to justfy its creation by some manufactured need. And don't throw LAN party crap at me - there's no reason that 50 people can't either use LAN play mode or else all log into a private Battle.Net channel.
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bnetd doesnt HAVE to cause that problem. Blizzard can provide a very simple network request scheme to allow the Bnetd server to challeneg the cd-key.
Blizzard does NOT want that.
As such, it is a simple case of a software manufacturer who does NOT maintain their software (server-side) driving their customers to find alternatives.
As to playing the beta thru Bnetd violates the point of having an open beta?
It still exposes bugs on the client side, and BOY does Blizzard ever have PLENTY of those in EVERY release.
I get to decide, according to the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
By law, as a consumer, once I purchase a product, I am entitled to FAIR USE.
Software "licensing" has NEVER been successfully upheld in court, and many argue that it goes entirely against the protections the law has traditionally given the consumer.
Further, the Blizzard licensing agreement does not in fact restrict me from playing my software with a third-party server software.
Not to mention, they didnt come after the END USER violating those terms of service! They came after programmers who offered them an alternative. Programmers not bound by those TOS/Licensing terms.
So, No. I get to decide what I do.
Parent
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? No. (Score:2)
Why? I love the client side piece, I hate the server side piece, and I can replace that.
Why should I return it?
>The fact that Blizzard's service does not meet your expectations has nothing to do with the right of bnetd developers to reverse engineer Blizzard IP and exist parasitically
Nope. It simply provides ME with the right to LOOK for alternatives. Thats my right as a consumer under FAIR USE laws.
>What you choose to connect to might be your choice
Yes it is.
>but it's Blizzard's choice to kill bnetd - and bnetd, right now, are completely fucked. Doubly so since EFF stepped in, incompetent communists that they are.
No, it is their choice to attempt to kill bnetd. And fail.
And the EFF beign incompetent?
I presume since you post as AC, you have a law practice that defends the rights of millions of computer users around the world -- SUCCESSFULLY -- pro bono in most cases..
Right?
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
I'd rather run a bnetd server on my co-lo box and let friends connect to it!
Verant tried to do the same Everquest did the same but at least they have the excuse of revenue stream losses (though at 35 quid a pop for the add-ons it's not like the monthly fee is the stream).
What this suggests to me is that Battle.net will stop being free once Warcraft is released and Blizzard are going to start charging for access.
All the other piracy stuff is just FUD
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2)
it's not like the monthly fee is the stream
should be
it's not like the monthly fee is the only stream
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard sells games - people BUY games. Bnetd is not challenging the sale of those games - it's allowing people to play the games as they were intended - on a Battle.net server. Blizzard cannot, should not, and absolutely will not ever be able to say "oh, and you can only play these games on OUR server at Battle.net, and if you try to play them anywhere else, that's illegal."
bnetd is creating a free alternative to a necessary extra piece of 'hardware' to use the game to its full value. This is IDENTICAL to the Bleem/Connectix case. Completely identical. In that case, they created a free implementation of a Sony PlayStation on a computer, and the courts agreed "well, yes, if people BUY the games, they can attempt to PLAY them on whatever they want." If you try to say that bnetd is wrong, then by extension WINE is wrong, Bleem is wrong, hell, VMware is wrong. But they're not. Why? Because reverse engineering is legal, and critical, for any healthy economy.
Blizzard makes money off of games. In fact, Battle.net earns them no value, no reward in your own terminology. God. Blizzard, and everyone else, are just plain stupid here - let bnetd run, and Blizzard makes MORE money, for crying out loud. How the heck can it be bad to offer people MORE ways to play a game you're selling?!?
Parent
Re:"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed. (Score:2, Troll)
Were you asleep when DMCA got passed somehow? As pointed out in the argument summary and many posts on here, this law made reverse engineering very illegal in most cases, and this law has been tested in courts. Please don't talk down to "us people" when you don't understand the legal grounds on which Blizzard is making their argument.
How the heck can it be bad to offer people MORE ways to play a game you're selling?!?
Yes, Blizzard is very stupid. When 10 of my buddies and I use our warez'ed ISO copies to setup our own Battle.Net implementation with our keygen'ed keys, I definitely see how Blizzard makes MORE money.
Who modded this up ?? It's a troll !! (Score:2)
To those that modded the comment up :
Print out the comment '"Freedom" of thievery? Indeed.'. Hang it on your wall where it is easily visible to remind you of what a troll looks like.
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldnt have if Blizzard would have:
1. Cooperated with them to create an authentication method (Blizzard doesnt want to at all!)
2. Maintained the Battle.Net server to a level encouraging people to NOT look for alternatives. Between Diablo, and Diablo2, and now Warcraft3, it has become BLARINGLY obvious that Blizzard is NOT capable of maintaining a server of sufficient size, sophistication, and protection to maintain gaming of any quality on the server-side.
>The alternative is to hand over the CD-Key construction details - to an OPEN SOURCE product, no less - and paint a picture in source code of how to generate valid keys.
Not at all! There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why Bnetd couldnt do simply pass a network request from the Bnetd server to the Blizzard network directly to request an authentication challenge. Blizzard doesnt want that, because it challenges THEIR NETWORK beign the sole means of playing!
Blizzard is WRONG. I paid for the software, I am legally allowed to use that software in any fashion I see fit, including connecting it to a third-party server!
Re:Blizzard is Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Tough shit. Since when is the law based on guaranteeing revenues? If Blizzard's copy control mechanism is based on an invalid assumption (i.e. that all servers will be controlled by Blizzard), that is Blizzard's problem. Point me to the law that says "thou shalt not do anything that interferes with a company's ability to generate profit".
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2)
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2, Insightful)
It accomplishes exactly the same process that the bnetd-thru-network-auth model would.
Re:wrong; other alternative exists (Score:2)
Re:Bnetd ok, but not ok (Score:4, Interesting)
Bnetd proves that you don't need battle.net to play Blizzard games.
Except for the fact that it allow people who have pirated blizzard's games to play them online, which they would not be able to do with only battle.net.
So fucking what? They can also play pirated games offline where there are no controls at all. Shall we outlaw offline play of Blizzard games because there is no CD Key checking?
Bnetd has many completely legal and ethical uses. It allows people who have bought the game to play it even if Blizzard decides to close up shop (which seems only a few months off, way things are going) or even if Blizzard's ISP is having technical difficulties. It also allows people to play in a controlled environment free of cheaters, something Blizzard has failed to provide.
It's also not strictly true that you can't play with illegitimate CD Keys on Battle.net. Keys are valid until Blizzard invalidates them. You could tell your friend your valid CD Key, and as long as neither of you are online at the same time, both of you can share the CD Key and play on Battle.net. So much for stopping piracy. Battle.net does not in fact, prevent piracy of Blizzard games. In fact, one could say that, like Bnetd, the primary purpose of Battle.net is not to prevent piracy, but to provide an online arena where players can meet each other and play. That it can have some effect on piracy is a secondary function. Bnetd tried to add this secondary function, but Blizzard refused to cooperate. So it was left out.
I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
What exactly has Bnetd stolen from Blizzard? Be specific. Name an item that Blizzard once possessed that they no longer possess because of Bnetd. If no one has lost anything, no theft has taken place.
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them.
This is not morality, this is what some people derisively call situational ethics. Your "morals" amount to "I'll do what I please." Following your ethical compass, it's OK to pirate Blizzard's software if you think it or the company sucks. I'll think I'll pass on your theory of ethics.
Parent
Re:No leg to stand on (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who posts lists of people who should have been in the WTC.