Blizzard Rains on Bnetd Project 771
Sir Homer writes: "Blizzard Entertainment has shut down the bnetd project using the DMCA, as declared in their site. The bnetd project is a battle.net server emulator licenced under the GNU/GPL originally for Linux and also works on most Unix variants. Project details can be found on this freshmeat.net page." As I understood it, bnetd was a complete re-implementation of battle.net, so it isn't clear what copyright violation Blizzard alleges occurred. Note to bnetd: under the DMCA, you can file a counter-notice with the hosting provider asserting that Blizzard was wrong.
Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Boycott (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm no coder, but I would assume that you could find most of the information you need to send and receive in the packets if you analyze it long enough. Can someone in the know elaborate on how they did it, and why it's counter to the DMCA?
It's nice that we don't have that dumbass law up here (Canuck land), but then US lawmakers have no problems foisting such laws against friendly countries, so really none of us are safe.
Just submitted this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, this only happened when someone warezed the WarcraftIII beta and modified it to work with BNetD, creating an 'open' beta test. This obviously infuriated Blizzard into having the BNetD project shut down. A shame too, since it doesn't cost them anything to have quite a few more of their fans playing the beta.
samba (Score:1, Interesting)
Best rep? I don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
That didn't stop me buying Diablo II a while later, but after this I sure as sh!t won't be buying anything from them again...
Re:Blizzard just fell in my estimation (Score:5, Interesting)
"But using the DMCA is just so obviously Wrong... it's practically immoral."
I thought that the DMCA was immoral to start with. IANAL, but they could very well pull this off. And it could be worse than you might think.
The battle.net servers store CD keys in some fashion to prevent multiple uses of the same key. In doing so, they can and probably will, claim that it is a copy protection device. You know, the kind that is illegal to circumvent, or provide means of circumvention to others, under the DMCA.
Enter bnetd. This is a GPL project which can be run by anybody, anywhere. Now these CD keys don't have to be checked, because the server might not require that. Hence paving way for your local lan party, using one CD key. Very much a circumvention of a protective device, if their device is what I described earlier.
Now, the real motive is why Blizzard may be trying to do this. Sales may be one issue, but it is still going to be fairely limited to people who know what they're doing. The more feasible version is probably that they're looking to charge an access fee for battle.net. The bnetd project would make a huge dent in such efforts, if not strike it down.
Here's the good part about that. If the bnetd people can reasonably prove that Blizzard acted in bad faith, the case may be dismissed.
But then again, IANAL.
Re:I fail to understand the DMCA Jurisdiction (Score:1, Interesting)
You haven't? How about any companies that don't like it when their programs are transimitted gratis to others who didn't pay for them AND authentication schemes meant to protect the product from unlicensed use rendered useless?
Packet Dumps (Score:2, Interesting)
Warcraft III - The Irony! (Score:1, Interesting)
However if you are interested in warcraft 3 support those sites have not been shut down (ironically). Being an Open Source project means that the users were free to do it themselves. And that they did!
http://www.madgrfx.com/warforge.html
http://ww
Those sites even offer serial numbers and stuff!
please see: (Score:2, Interesting)
my lettter to Blizzard (Score:3, Interesting)
From: [my email address]
Date: 20 Feb 2002 22:16:13 -0500
To: Rod Rigole
Dear Mr. Rigole:
Blizzard has had good success in parting me from my money. I have half a
shelf of the fine games your company has produced. However, that era is
over. Your ridiculous and short-sighted attack on the bnetd project,
claiming that the creation of a program that interfaces with your
somehow infringes on your copyright, may successfully stop that
interesting effort. Regardless of its success, it has cost you my
business forever, and you may rest assured that I will bring to the
attention of anyone soliciting my views of what to purchase your
company's bad behavior.
In an industry where some companies, like iD and Sierra, find great
success in opening their flagship products for interoperability with
customer-designed modifications, and even release old source code as a
learning resource for the larger community, your company has decided
that preventing enthusiasts from working with your products somehow
protects you. What it will protect you from is getting any more of my
money.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that the server is probably going to be shut down, I won't become hooked, and I'll go back to playing Unreal.
Blizzard should seriously reconsider this move. It stops a lot of potential buyers from seeing the game. bnetd won't make them lose any sales -- people who were going to buy the game will still buy it. People who are going to get a crack will still get a crack. People who wanted a chance to see before they buy... well... bye-bye.
Oh well, saves me money.
Sam
Re:Blizzard's Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
This raises some obvious questions:
a) If bnetd did have the cd-key anti-piracy implimented, would Blizzard allow bnetd to exist?
b) Would Blizzard offerer any source, or binaries (.lib,
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Wishful scene.
Blizzard guys come to work in the morning, read all the emails. Fire lawyer, say WOW this BNET thing, thats great, now we can release a public beta intended to run on servers other than battle.net and we don't have to worry about overloading the server. Yay! Call up the presses!
Sorry just a dream! (I'd have to buy 5 copies of WC3 then, just on principle)
Re:This is nothing new. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=older/980411091 225 [slashdot.org]
I imagine the publicity that the Slashdot story generated was what convinced the SPA and Blizzard to back off. Maybe it will work again this time.
Anyway, I'm somewhat amused to be a certified DMCA criminal! ;)
Re:Down with the DMCA! (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it? I've written a few letters to my legislators, and with one partial I have had no indication that my letters were ever opened, much less read. For all I know, they are stilling sitting in anthrax quarantine somewhere, or were thrown out unopened. Realistically, the best I can hope for is that some intern scanned the first paragraph of the letter for keywords, pressed a "tally one against the DMCA" button on his computer, and threw the letter away. Can someone offer me evidence to the contrary? I'd love to see my cynicism refuted by someone's experiences to the contrary...
Essentially I feel like I have no say in my government's decisions, because I'm not rich enough to buy influence through campaign contributions. And even if I did have enough money to buy influence, I hardly think that is the way a democracy is supposed to work. Time to move to Canada?
There's another fully functional Battle.Net server (Score:4, Interesting)
Check out FSGS, it's available for windows and linux and works great. I tested it at a lan party, we played 4 or 5 8-player starcraft games with it on the local LAN using TCP/IP!! (NO MORE IPX!!!).
It works for westwood games too (Red Alert, etc).
FSGS [fsgs.net]
Re:The only solution (Score:5, Interesting)
You boycott something by not buying the product and then actively telling your friends and relatives not to buy it either. Whenever you hear people mention the name, you go into litanies about the company and don't shut up until whoever is listening to you agrees not to buy the product either. You post to message boards, you bug your local merchant, you do what you need to do to get your message across. Maybe you'll be lucky and get someone in the press to notice and then the word will spread even more.
3000 people know a lot of people. It's a networking effect.
-Russ
Everyone's missing the point. (Score:2, Interesting)
That is why Blizzard is pursueing them -- this is not a cause worth a boycott!
Re:It does seem like a DMCA violation to me. (Score:1, Interesting)
At best, Blizzard could argue that it reduced the value of pirated copies by meaning that they could not be guaranteed online play. But the counter-argument would be that playing on a bnetd server has reduced value as opposed to the official Blizzard server anyway, because of the lesser number of players available.
The problem is that this is becoming a common trick for making protocols proprietary; include copy protection in them, and then say that a) they won't tell you how to make the copy protection work (that would nullify its use); b) if you design it to not include the copy protection you broke the DMCA, and c) same thing if you re-engineer the copy protection.
I recall Real used it as well, suing a company for making a third-party player which did not respect the 'No Record' flag - while at once refusing to tell that company how to actually detect the 'No Record' flag in a stream, even though the third-party did actually state that if Real told them they would add it to their player.
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:3, Interesting)
They claim that bnetd is a copy protection circumvention device. Namely, that it allows you to play without a unique CD-key, i.e., a pirated copy. Problem is, the only thing the copy protection does is prohibit access to Blizzard's Battlenet. It doesn't keep you from playing single or multiplayer games at all. Bnetd is only a circumvention device if the people using it gain access to Battlenet where they otherwise wouldn't. That is not the case.
It's like claiming a left-handed catcher's mitt is a circumvention device because people who use it won't be using the right-handed version to play baseball, ignoring the fact that you can still play without either.
Find a technical fix (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if this is not technically possible right now, battle.net has an obligation to consider supporting low-impact measures like this that preserve their rights without trampling on other noninfringing uses. The courts are there to decide disputes when the parties can't agree, but this dispute seems pretty easy to deal with.
So, it's an unwelcome development, but if the bnetd developers decide to spend some time now trying to work with battle.net to find a technical fix, it's time well spent. In particular, the courts are not going to be sympathetic to battle.net if a straightforward solution were proposed but then ignored by battle.net.
Legal recourse, as an insider (Score:4, Interesting)