EFF Continues Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case 201
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Boing Boing post discussing the continuing conflict between Blizzard Software and the makers of bnetd, linking to the latest EFF-authored court documents (PDF) in a continuing legal battle over "the free bnetd software that emulates Blizzard's free Battle.net gaming service." Boing Boing argues of the EFF's new documents: "The prose here positively sings, and is as good a treatise on fair-use reverse engineering as you could hope to read", going on to quote their argument that "...the dissimilarity between the 'BATTLE.NET' and 'bnetd project' marks alone warrants summary judgment for the Defendants on Blizzard's Count III. Also weighing heavily in Defendants' favor is the fact that Blizzard has still failed to come forward with any admissible evidence of actual customer confusion." We've previously covered this long-running legal battle on several occasions. In related news, other readers point out a $1.2 million bequest to the EFF from the estate of Leonard Zubkoff "to establish the EFF Endowment Fund for Digital Civil Liberties."
blizzard online?? (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, Blizzard is above even Adobe on the list of companies I will never ever buy products from, no matter how good or useful they may be, or how much I may want them. Adobe being in the black books for having a foreign citizen arrested the second he stepped on American soil for the crime of figuring out how to change a bit in one of their files.
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
You would be hard pressed to find a company that displays more naked contempt for their community than Blizzard routinely does, however.
Blizzard representatives openly mock posters on the public forums. Granted these posters often ask inane or redundant questions, but there is an astonishing lack of professionalism displayed. Questions like "what can you tell me about feature X" are often answered "when you find out, tell me, I'd love to know!" There's no need for that kind of reply. Even Microsoft doesn't actually resort to taunting its users.
Posters who ask difficult questions -- like "what happened to the clan ladder that was advertised on the box of Frozen Throne?" -- have their posts deleted. Repeat "offenders" are summarily banned.
On the other hand I know they have a lot of extremely bright and talented people working there, and some are about the nicest people you'd ever hope to interact with. Knowing the long hours and the limitless passion and energy they put into creating and refining each game, it's hard to harbor any ill will towards the company. After all, these guys are the ones that really make Blizzard great.
It seems to me such a waste to let their berserk legal department and bizarre PR attitudes overshadow that.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
I'm an AoE addict.
KFG
Imagine that... (Score:3, Interesting)
(I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of the case here...just the amusement inherent in citing BoingBoing's opinion on an EFF affair as authoritative.)
Re:Imagine that... (Score:5, Informative)
But he's also one of the most respected web journalists, and if he writes that he really likes a brief, I would wager that he really means it.
Re:Imagine that... (Score:5, Informative)
If I were in charge... (Score:5, Funny)
"Don't make me turn you into a mindless sheep!"
But... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
(no space between cvsr and oot. IE. cvsroot)
You're looking for module bnetd.
IANL, but I can understand this! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Legal brief is actually a very fun read.
Plus, you got to give some kudos for a guy that uses the term bogosity [catb.org].
Emulation can be the only option (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:5, Funny)
invaluable to many users who would otherwise have no means of taking advantage of the matchmaking services offered by Blizzard's official servers.
... looking for love in all the wrong places
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:2)
I mean really, what are you at college for? Is this a survival issue? I don't know if the bnetd project is right or wrong, but it should be argued on its own merits rather than whether or not the guy from I Phelta Thi can play WCIII against his tri-Lamda counterpart.
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:5, Insightful)
At UC Berkeley, you can make your own majors. Maybe if games are so important to you, you can go there and become a network gaming major.
I mean really, what are you at college for? Is this a survival issue
And yet, college students look for entertainment. Some go to bars, some watch TV, some hunt girls, some learn to cook strange foods, some do dope, some hit movie theaters, clubs, go paintballing, etc, etc, etc.
The point is that gaming is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment. You hvae many friends nearby on a fast network, and most of you just got a computer in the last few years for college. Why not? Do you really never play games?
I don't know if the bnetd project is right or wrong, but it should be argued on its own merits rather than whether or not the guy from I Phelta Thi can play WCIII against his tri-Lamda counterpart.
One of the clauses in the DMCA in determining whether a device is an illegal circumvention devices is whether the primary purpose of the device is for copyright infringement. Blizzard is representing bnetd as a device designed to facilitate software piracy. When people chime in and talk about all the legitimate reasons they use bnetd, it helps undermine Blizzard's arguments on that clause.
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that when we wanted to do some two-player games here at home (My wife is a much bigger Diablo II fiend than I am) I went out and bought a second copy. I'm sure I could have dicked around on the 'net and fou
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:5, Insightful)
I am quite sure that there are many people out there that have used bnetd to avoid paying for a copy of a Blizzard game. I am also sure that plenty of illegal content is swapped in IRC channels. Neither is a reason for shutting down a group of people that produce a tool that *may* be used to facilitate pirating a game.
I've never used bnetd, but here are a number of reasons I could see someone legitimately using it:
* Blizzard kicks a player off Battle.Net, for whatever reason. They can still play their game, just not using Blizzard's servers.
* The player and his friends have limited or nonexistant network access. If I work in village in many countries, I probably have lousy network access, but a fair number of folks that would like to play a game locally all in one place (especially an older game like Warcraft II that works on older computers).
* Pure interest in reverse engineering and writing a server. It's *fun* to do something like this, and you feel good when you can sit back and look at the finished product. I remember when folks reverse engineered the Hotline protocol (a vaguely BBS-like server that was quite popular on the Mac at one point). It was very neat to have something like this done.
* Ensuring that the game continues working. Blizzard may give "lifetime access to Battle.Net", whatever that means, but at some point, Blizzard will go out of business, just as all companies do eventually. Blizzard is very likely to continue sinking money into the service forever. If there is an open-soruce implementation of the protocol, people can continue playing as long as they'd like, just as with Quake.
Any of these are good reasons, and if any of these were the primary purpose of bnetd, rather than bypassing copy protection mechanisms, then the bnetd people are in the clear relative to the DMCA.
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:2, Interesting)
* Blizzard kicks a player off Battle.Net, for whatever reason. They can still play their game, just not using Blizzard's servers. For 99% of the players that means "Blizzard bans your keygen-generated CD key you used to install your warezed copy".
I don't know other reasons why battle.net wouldn't work yet bnetd would, since they are so similar.
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Emulation can be the only option (Score:2)
Ummm. No. That means that you've been banned for griefing (backstabbing) or maphacking, in Warcraft 3. In diablo II its item hacks and other goodies. It is not keygen cd keys. Keygen cd keys have never worked on battle.net, unless you were lucky enough to randomly generate a key blizzard had already distributed, and then that person will get rather irked and notify blizzard.
I tried b
Correction (Score:2)
Blizzard games already support local network play (Score:2)
What did Blizzard lose? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, this is the same company that threatened legal action over an open source tribute to an 8 year old game [slashdot.org] on the grounds it may cause confusion with their modern products. Having said that, the intelligence shown by the average 14 year old Blizzard fanboy makes that a real possibility
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:5, Informative)
And so they bring out the copyright guns to shut it down...
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike Kazzaa-lite or the IM clones bnetd is not attempting to use Bizard network resources...for a matter of fact it's the opposite! They're attempting to REPLACE Blizard's locked-in service to provide playing of the game on their own terms...it's not like they're trying to hack or take over or interfere with Blizard's offical channels here...mearly offer another alternative for those not willing or able to use the "offical" channels. It's fundamentally about connecting two copies of something you already paid for...you shouldn't need "permission" to do that.
While the supporting of "pirate" copies may be a problem to blizzard, the bnetd project really doesn't have any business worrying about authentication! There's no constraint on their part to require the game to follow the "rules" that's the whole point of developing their own servers!! More than that, this would also set precedent in cases that would replace say, XBoxLive. That product is all about vendor lock-in...but the console and games themselves should be allowed a similar hack simply because it's your fair use to connect your products...especially if you are using unmodified original product...Part of this is about companies requiring you to use "specific" company-approved portals...and requiring so in the EULA! To take it to an extreme, what would the reaction be if MS forbade you from using, say, Samba on YOUR OWN networks to connect YOUR OWN PCs because they dediced to require windows license verification in AD/W2K3 server connection!! That's exactly the same issue being set forth even though it seems silly to say so. Cause remember, much of MS stratagy has been to "hide" their lock-in schemes behind the veil of "security" or "authentication" schemes. Imagine the "free-for-all" if companies can simply tag a serial number or phone home to every network connection and sue you if you don't follow it! That's totally nuts!
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
Bnetd is not hacking! It doesn't use the blizzard servers, resources, or affect normal fair play in any way. If I want to play my Warcraft with map hacks or break all the rules I should be able to do that with my friends! That's what this is all about.
For a matter of fact, if this was allowed to be at leased sanctioned, then it would give the map hackers and player hacks someplace to go and cheat all they want! The quake and counterstrike guys got over this a long time ag
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
The last paragraph... uh, how is it you can't play over a LAN? If you're not on a LAN, how is bnetd going to avoid your slow internet connection? If it isn't, what's wrong with a custom game? Meet in a private channel.
What Blizzard game doesn't allow LAN play? If Blizzard games aren't self-hosting, why does D2 let me host a TCP/IP game?
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
Right after Blizzard sued bnetd, they released a patch for Starcraft that allowed you to use UDP to play LAN games.
Prior to that your only option was to use IPX/SPX for LAN play. This was a minor hassle in Windows 2K/XP, potentially a major pain for previous OSes. That is, assuming the player knew enough about Windows networking to even know where to begin.
As far as I know both Diablo and Diablo 2 have always supported TCP/IP for LAN play, so this wasn't an
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
We have a "local net" with 5000 users seperated in 30 segments. Each segment is using nat with 1 external IP address(Yes, that suck, but that's all the IP addresses they got). People from different segments can't join a game on battle.net. If we are 2 people from segment a, 2 from segment b, then a person from segment c can't join because battle.net complain that the latency is to big.
The problem here is that battle.net belive that all the players are behind d
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
I'm on a campus network, and although I haven't tried to make games with people in different buildings (which are different subnets), I do know LAN play works.
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
Ofcause if Blizzard would just add an "Play with player at ip x.y.z.w there would not be a problem"
Re:What did Blizzard lose? (Score:2)
From what I recall they were adding realm support shortly before the official project got shut down.
A couple of the forks/derivatives of bnetd saw renewed action around the time of the Frozen Throne beta.
But since they eventually let in 30,000 testers, there was far less of a commu
DMCA and gotwow.net (Score:5, Informative)
Well, today I received an email from Blizzard. You may read it below, long story short, all files and the spell db will be taken down and will not be hosted on this server anymore. Here is the content of the email
ATTENTION BLIZZARD (Score:5, Funny)
I'll pretend to be a customer who was confused and sell out free software and legitimate uses of reverse engineering and for that matter all practical applications of intelligence and education. Why the fuck not. For the right price...
private message me for details.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance here (Score:5, Interesting)
Blizzard envoked the DMCA against bnetd, claiming bnetd (primarily) circumvented their copyright protection efforts because it bypasses the cd-key check given when logging into the battle.net service.
This is obviously an abusive use of the DMCA as that 'special' cd-key check only takes place on battle.net. It doesn't happen on single player, LAN, or TCP/IP games.
Sure, right now there are larger - more important cases to be fought. But, this case also has it's place of importance.
Blizzard is clearly abusing the DMCA [Yeah, yeah - atleast ACT suprised, k?) - and if they are allowed to abuse the DMCA this way and win their case - their case will become a reference in other similar cases.
As lame as this may sound, this is something gaming companies could use as a leash to control mods that they do/don't want to allow to continue developement.
Or, say, someday MS decides that each time you log onto their xBox Live gaming service it checks some sort of key. This would prevent anyone from offering competing services to the xBox Live. Even if they are just doing it for fun, or as an OSS project.
Regardless, the point is that the results of this case could potentially have FAR-reaching implications for potential OSS projects.
Nevermind the fact that the entire lawsuit is bogus. Though, with the exception of the trademark/copyright claim for the use of the 'bnet' name. (Battle.net is, in fact, collectively known to the majority of users as b.net - and is most commonly referred to as such.)
Re:Don't be so quick to dismiss the importance her (Score:2)
It's kinda hard to perform the check in singleplayer and LAN games, as you could either circumvent it by unplugging your network connection to the world, or losing sales to every user who do not (gasp) have Internet connection.
No keycheck for direct TCP/IP games is bit more gray area, but basically they are 'LAN games' as well, and requiri
You know what... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that piracy and cheating don't happen on bNet, of course. But the way I see it taking things like this out of the picture is like locking your door in a bad neighborhood. It sucks for a guy walking by who needs some shelter, but is that really going to change your mind about it?
Re:You know what... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You know what... (Score:3, Insightful)
And they do ban cheaters' CD-keys. The more cheats there are, the more complicated the enforcement work gets.
I will certainly agree that it wasn't the main motive, however.
Re:Oh please (Score:2)
Re:You know what... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong -- the actually contacted blizzard and asked how they could incorporate it into bnetd. They were first ignored, then later hit with cease and desist, and then DCMA and then here we are today. But they actually made the effort to make the CD Key check work
Re:You know what... (Score:3, Insightful)
What Blizzard Hears:
Hey guys, we just disabled your ONLY way of fighting piracy. Now, if you could just give us your CD-Key scripts, we can make it so you never sell another blizzard game again!
Posting Anon, because you hate to hear the fucking truth.
Piracy Control? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
The CD-Key check on battle.net is NOT Blizzard's primary form of anti-piracy. Hell, it's not even a good one. CD-Key gen's are available for every Blizzard title. EVERY title. (Well, all those that require a key anyway.)
All can be found with little effort, navigating the right hack sites. In fact, many people trade them off for
Re:Piracy Control? Huh? (Score:2)
1234567890123
works great.
(cant remember exactly how many but it just increments like that)
Re:You know what... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible that people use bnetd in conjunction with illegally obtained copies of blizzard games, but that has nothing at all to do with bnetd. Those people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement. No need to use the DMCA to prosecute people who did not commit a crime.
Re:You know what... (Score:2)
Re:You know what... (Score:2)
They may enclose a bunch of legalese with the product, but that is irrelevant. I already purchased the copy. I don't need to agree to any license or contract to use something I already own.
Re:You know what... (Score:2)
Re:You know what... (Score:2)
If anything, this reflects poorly on Blizzard. What's the first rule of anti-cheat online gaming?
NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT!... EVER....
You must assume that you have absolutely no control over what commands the client will issue and when it will issue them.
The system should be designed so that even if I had the source code to the client I wouldn't be able to cheat. Just l
Re:You know what... (Score:3, Insightful)
The major method of cheating in a WarCraft III game is via a map hack.
The server-side solution to this is to only send what the player can see to the player.
Problems arise with lag, when the player can't see units as soon as he should. It also means for a significant number of extra fun computations on the server, which is probably pretty busy as it is, and that will likely just add to the first problem.
This is all irrelev
Re:You know what... (Score:2)
Hmmm, like bnet crashing, or having horrible lag because the windows servers they use are unstable.... or just plain slow ISP.
Hmmm, so what is the purpoe of the pain-in-the-ass CD Key I have to type in every time I reinstall my legitimate copies of every Blizzard product? Why do I have to keep the s
When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs (Score:2)
On the other hand, if Blizzard ripped off its characters from D&D, then WHY DO DWARVES FLY on gryphons?
Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs (Score:2)
Re:When I was younger, I was into tabletop RPGs (Score:3, Insightful)
The day Games Workshop pull that off is the day the day they need to start looking over their shoulder for the Tolkien estate.
Blizzard=SCO? (Score:4, Informative)
Recently, we have received an increasing amount of feedback from our customers in regard to the probable copyright infringement of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft products (each, a "Program") on the Internet. We here at Blizzard share the concerns that many gamers are voicing. In this regard, we have contacted one of your users in connection with the aforementioned site and the infringement of Blizzard intellectual property. Please note that all title, ownership, and intellectual property rights in and to each Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any titles, computer code, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch phrases, locations, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects, methods of operation
Seemingly Blizzard now claims the rights to the entire RTS genre
Re:Blizzard=SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe it means building a Command Center which can then build SCVs and allows a Barracks which allows an Armory which allows you to build Firebats...okay, I haven't even played that game for about two years.
That's the point, though. Say terrifying things. Make them think you could sue the pants off of God so you don't have to try to sue the pants off them.
Shady, yeah, but what isn't these days?
WoW (Score:2, Funny)
(I kid, I kid)
Re:WoW (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. has to stop treating corporations - tools designed to deflect liability and dodge taxes - as living entities. A Corporation's goals do not benefit mankind - they benefit the stockholders.
When you give a non-human entity greater rights and priveleges than you do actual people, it enslaves us.
Blizzard's other lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
World of Warcraft won't be free. (Score:2)
I don't blame them but then again I'm not sure they should be able to shut someone down who created a free version of their proprietary online game engine.
Re:World of Warcraft won't be free. (Score:2, Informative)
You know that 200000+ people hitting a server and constantly refreshing is rough right? I mean the forums were flooded with "When are beta signups" and when someone posts that it's up, everyone looked. 400000+ total applications and a bunch of 'em being spammed isn't nice.
Battle.net service is NOT be
I hope so (Score:3, Funny)
Re:missing the point (Score:2)
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a good reason that the EFF isn't mounting a campaign against the RIAA: some of the RIAA's tactics may be scummy, and the penalties provided by the law excessive, but they're basically in the right. People who post and download copyrighted songs that they haven't already purchased in another format without the copyright holder's permission are in fact infringing valid copyrights. The purpose of the EFF is to defend civil liberties on-line, not the "right" to rip-off and distribute other people's property.
Not to Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an organization called the RIAA that happens to represent their label, so suddenly it's okay to pirate the artists' music. The legality issue is completely ignored.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, I agree with your outlook on it.
But, interesting tidbit - did you know premium artists like Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears get less then $1 per album sold.
I not only think ripping off music is wrong, but I think the artists aren't properly compensated.
Seriously, how much of that $15+ that you spend on a CD is for the physical media, ink, or advertising used to get word on the album out. Imagine what lesser artist's get. Like a penny an album? More, I'm sure - but it does make you wonder.
I was watching an E! 'thing' the other day on Britney Spears - which stated she had earned roughly $18M from her album sales. Lots of money, yes. But c'mon - we're talking about BRITNEY SPEARS here. And that's from well over 20 million total album sales. So she earns the music industry a few billion and they give her a few million.
Ehh, not that anyone cares. To me it's like donating money to a charity only to discover 95% of the money donated goes to pay fat executives.
The RIAA doesn't give a crap about the artists, all they care about is fattening their own pockets.
In their minds, the artist making more money is simply an 'unfortunate side-effect.'
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called business. It's called a contract--THAT THE ARTIST SIGNED.
Britney Spears didn't even write most of her music. She doesn't get all the money, because part of it goes to her image-makers and marketers, part of it to her songwriters, part of it to her producers and developers, and part of it to the label. That's what happens when you're a pop singer who doesn't write your own music or have your own image.
An artist should shop around for a better contract, or not sign one. This crap about "The RIAA doesn't care about artists" when those artists are the ones who freely signed the contracts in order to get a deal is bogus--you think those artists think they need you to pity them when they put down their signatures willingly?
There's a lot that goes into CD distribution, from marketing to production to hiring to etc.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no alternative. You either sign up with RIAA, or you get no record, no air time, and no tour dates.
That's why the RIAA was formed, to monopolize the production of (bad) music.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. There is no easy alternative. The "artists" go the easy route and sign up with the RIAA labels because it's the easiest and most comfortable way to get their dime-a-dozen craptacular pop music out. The alternatives would require hard work and talent, so I'm not surprised they don't take them given their lack of both. But they exist.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, to take it a step further, if you download music from an artist you normally wouldn't listen to or buy (ie britney spears), decide you like it, and go to their concert aren't you actually helping out the artist since they get more money from the concerts than from CD's that you would have never bought anyway.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
You're right--
Millions of people downloading billions of songs from thousands upon thousands of music albums magically equates to being a good thing and not affecting sales at all.
Get real.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
Absolutely, completely, 100% false. Apparently, you believe there is some gun pointed at a band's head forcing them to willingly sign a standard business contract. Are you even aware of the European market, or the indie genres, or the non-RIAA mediums? Are you aware there exists such a thing as an Internet? iTunes? I could go on and on and on.
That's why the RIAA was formed, to monopolize the
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
you forgot, they need money for drugs.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, let me say that I agree with the previous posters, and you partially, that people who share copyrighted material without permission to the masses online are likely to be infringing on those copyrights. I am indifferent towards the recent RIAA
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
15 bucks in the store: Whats their % 30?
10.5 Middles mans cut, 15%?
9 Artisit 1 buck
8 cost of production? Unknown to me, but I'd love to find out.
also, onlt 75% can be kept ar 'overhead' and still be kept as a charity. That can be bad, but not always.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Did you know that most authors, including Zahn, Clarke and Sawyer, earn probably 5-8% royalties on sales of their books?
Unless they sell a great number (for SF books, this is usually into the six figures, and most SF books, except for franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars, sell between 20,000 and 50,000), that number stays low on paperbacks.
So that $8 paperback you bought only earns the author, who did nearly all the work on that book, about $.50. Talk about a travesty!
Or, frankly, that's just how the industry works. Artist/author makes a creative work, sends to the label/publisher, who has a team design the jewel case & liner notes/jacket or covers, before marketing the work if they do at all, then selling in volume to big distributors, who sell to smaller distributors or major chains, who have to ship them to the individual stores, who have to put them on the shelves or online for the consumer to purchase.
Each one of those steps needs to make its profit, the last of the chain needing to be the biggest cut (between 40-60% off retail). In the end, the cuts trickle back to very little leftover for the artist or the author.
And that's how it's always been. CDs can be bought online and the record labels circumvented. However, most authors still enjoy being in print, so eBooks aren't going to change that industry yet.
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Hilarious (Score:2)
I didn't call it a culture movement. Justifiers like you have.
The thought process is about art, not demonizing the RIAA or thief.
For fuck's sake--give me a break. The thought process is about "art?" When a college kid installs Kazaa and rips the latest Linkin Park CD in 30 minutes, he's thinking about how artistic he's being and preserving music? Get real. You're justifying it as an art movement to remove th
Re:Not to Slashdot (Score:2)
Again--you seem to have missed the point--those artists freely signed those contracts. You're trying to "protect" the artists from something they did themselves. It's a completely irrelevant point and I don
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:4, Interesting)
So I for one am glad the EFF is not trying to take the RIAA to court because it would be a total waste of resources.
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:5, Insightful)
The young hotheads most often got themselves killed while accomplishing nothing.
As I recall there was one group of 40 to 70 year olds, mostly farmers, who managed to tie up an entire division of the German army chasing them for the duration of the war without suffering a single loss on their part.
When one's resources are limited one is perhaps best advised to pursue that resistence in which one is likely to prevail. In fact Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. defined the role of the lawyer as being predictive of success.
The proper place to tilt at legal windmills is in the legislatures, not the courts.
Nor is this case a trivial one with regards to digital rights. At stake is whether a publisher has the right to tell you how you can play a game which you legally have license to play. More and more game publishers seem to be looking to charge you to play a game after you purchase it to further fill their coffers.
This could be a legal landmark case.
KFG
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:5, Interesting)
In the halls of the legislature you fight the good fight, with all your might.
Even civil disobedience is either directed at cases where one feels one can prevail and overturn a law, such as the Scopes trial, or where conviction under the law forces the hand of the legislature to act, such as in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.
The fact that Blizzard is not seeking to charge for the use of their servers is irrelevant to the issue of rights. If a game publisher can force you to specific terms of use after purchase, then charging for such use is inevitable by someone.
If a publisher cannot enforce terms of use after purchase than the whole issue becomes moot. It's your game.
My game is Grand Prix Legends. A game that six years after it's release not only still has a strong community, but is still selling. Since it is now a bargain title there are people who buy it several copies at a time to give them away. In one case someone in England just sent a copy as a gift to a young teen in South America who was complaining that he couldn't buy it locally and couldn't buy it over the net, and was thus constrained to the six year old demo version.
It's a great game, and still considered by many to be state of the art, but what has really played the key role in its longevity is this:
It was released with rock solid net code, but the publisher provided no official servers. Nothing. Here it is guys, you're on your own. Every copy of the game can function as a server. Have at it.
And we have. And continue to. And will probably continue to for many years. And will keep purchasing copies of the game as long as it's even vaguely possible to do so.
All because it's our net game, that we control.
KFG
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:2, Insightful)
In the old days though it was considered part of the lawyer's professional ethics to take certain cases pro bono because they needed to be fought. Clarence Darrow is a prime example of someone who took this seriously, using his success in these cases to be able to charge high rates to offset his loss of time and expenses.
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:2)
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're exaggerating quite a lot there. However, even if that's the case... uh, what's the problem, exactly?
Many of the most unjust civil cases are where a big deep-pocketed company sues the little guy over rights they don't really have. The little guy can't afford to fight a big legal war, so is forced to settle on the big company's terms. If the little guy could afford to fight there'd be no problem.
That's where legal groups like the EFF, ACLU, etc can make a big difference -- by not only winning these cases but acting as a deterent against any other would-be plantifs.
It'd be nice if we had the "loser-pays" legal system of, say, the UK but we don't. People like the EFF are the best defence we have against these kinds of lawsuits.
Now go give them a bunch of your money
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:5, Informative)
My god, I wish that were true. Do you know nothing about the EFF? I guess I should be thrilled that our PR is so good that some people remember only our victories. Obviously we don't like to trumpet our losses, but I am still baffled by this charge. We spent near a million dollars -- an amount equivalent to our annual budget just a few years ago -- losing the 2600 DeCSS case, a very hard case which we took on because it had to be fought, and a case based on the same principles of defending reverse engineering that are deemed unimportant by the above "insightful" posting.
I will have to relay that "we always" win sentiment down to the lawyers in the trenches. It will cheer them up, at least until they stop laughing.
Plus don't get the idea that the EFF has anything remotely close to deep pockets. Quite the reverse. As you may have missed in the note, the donation was put into an ENDOWMENT. This means it will be invested, and the earnings from the investment can be used to fund our battles. The million dollar donation is extremely generous, and I hope that others might remember us in their wills (or even better, beforehand) in this way, but it is an endowment, not operating money to give us deep pockets.
Please, actually learn about the EFF and its history before making ludicrous claims like these.
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
KFG
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that that game was meant to help produce an example that could be pulled out when judges seeking to censor games claim that games cannot contain significant political expression, and thus do not merit First Amendment protection. (This happenend some time ago when someone-or-other was suing someone-or-other over a game.)
Re:I'm with the AC above (Score:2)
Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular (Score:2, Funny)
But games played with dirt and potatoes just aren't as fun.
Re:The solution is there but sadly unpopular (Score:5, Funny)
No no, you've got it all backwards!
Re:Free Standard Game Server (Score:2)
Re:Free Standard Game Server (Score:2)