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:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:3)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:3)
Y'all might think about sending a nasty letter to Blizzard telling them what you think of them (include root@ and sales@; piracy@ might just be a dumping ground for vents), as I did. I doubt they give a shit if one pissed-off customer tells them to go to hell, but if five or ten thousand did that's a fair chunk of change....
Max
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: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.
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Insightful)
And the online games that are not played on b.net are (more) vulnerable to hacking (who wants to play with a whole bunch of Level 99 characters?). Hence the existance of battle.net strongly encourages gamers to actually purchase the game.
They may not actually make any money directly of b.net (yet...), but I'm sure that it's contributed to their sales...
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2, Insightful)
Now my question: Why did they target bnetd and not FSGS [fsgs.net]. They have made 2x the progress on emulating bnet and have a fairly good service. They are, in fact, emulating several game servers.
I think Blizzard better pull out of it because of the bad PR. I've already decided not to buy their products til they make a Linux port (which wont be soon, i imagine). They are just harming their image more. Occasionally I have used bnetd at lan parties where there was no net access because its so much easier then using IPX (for starcraft).
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:2)
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: it's been fun (Score:2)
Re:Blizzard: it's been fun (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone sold you a book and said you could only use official [publisher] bookmarks in it, since reverse-engineering their patented bookmark technology is illegal, you'd laugh your head off. How about a sack of potatoes which you are not allowed to make into waffle fries like Chick-Fil-A's, or a box of pens with which you are not allowed to write anything about the manufacture of writing utencils, past present or future. Absolutely nobody would think these to be even remotely reasonable restrictions on usage of something I purchased. Why then is the DMCA seen as good and proper by anyone at all?
If you want to talk about knee-jerk reactions, look at the guys who thought up the DMCA. You know, the ones who think that Congress is only there to guarantee their continued income. "Oh no, new technology threatens our revenues. Our lawyers tell us that the only solution is to make it illegal to do anything we do not explicitly permit." Gee, what a great idea.
Down with the DMCA! (Score:3, Informative)
It's time the politicians got some sense knocked into them.
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?
Re:Down with the DMCA! (Score:3, Informative)
Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
But on to the topic of Blizzard. They're soon to be releasing Warcraft III, and the Slashdot audience is going to be a major market for them. I think we should steer away from any of their products until they withdraw this complaint and compensate/apologize.
So: when you see Warcraft III on the shelves, don't buy it. Buy Castle Wolfenstein or whatever, just don't buy products from a company who is against our rights on the net.
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.
Packet Dumps (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy a product from me on the condition that you only use it while wearing your grandmother's dress and masturbating into a jar of peanut butter, and you can't abide by those conditions, then don't buy the product.
Now, if Blizzard doesn't have any legalese in their purchase agreement restricting services such as bnetd, then Blizzard can fuck themselves and you can do whatever you want with your game.
Note that I care not one iota for the legal aspects of anything. The moral and the ethical aspects are my only concerns, and those are sometimes at odds with the legal framework. I won't live long enough even if I reach extreme old age to change unjust laws in the courts, but i do honor any and all contracts that I have assented to, and if Blizzard wants me in grannie's nightdress with peanut butter on my cock and I want to play Warcraft III bad enough, move over granny and hello, Jif.
You can't get any simpler than that.
Yes, I know that Blizzard are trying to prevent ther use/programming of a server product, but the same idea applies. Presuumably the programmers of bnetd had to obtain a legal copy in order to program their server. Therefore, if such a restriction exists in the Blizzard EULA, then I feel that the bnetd people are morally obligated to honor it. If not, well, as I said before, Blizzard can fuck thmselves.
Does the restriction exist or not?
Overseas! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overseas! (Score:4, Funny)
hmm
Re:Overseas! (Score:2)
Text of www.bnetd.org (for when its slashdotted) (Score:3, Informative)
... we are down right now. However, this time it isn't because of technical reasons but for legal issues.
This site has been disabled as requested by Blizzard Entertainment and it will remain closed as we have no legal recourse other than to file a lawsuit against a large corporation. This is due to 17 USC Section 512(c)(1)(C) (AKA DMCA, supposedly required to be passed by WIPO treaties). Blizzard claims bnetd is in violation of 17 USC Section 1201(b), though we do not agree with their interpretation. Blizzard refused to specify a specific list of files on this site so the whole thing must be blocked. We are very sorry for the inconvenience but there is nothing we can do.
Text of original message follows:
February 19, 2002
Internet Gateway Inc.
tjung@igateway.net
noc@igateway.net
hostmaster@igateway.net
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to notify you, pursuant to the provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, that we believe one of your customers is
infringing Blizzard Entertainment's, a division of Vivendi Universal Games,
Inc. ("VUG"), copyrighted materials. Specifically, Blizzard Entertainment is
the owner of the copyright for the computer games Diablo(r) II and StarCraft(r)
and the multi-player server software run by Blizzard Entertainment on its
Battle.net(r) site. The following site hosts and/or distributes software that
violates Blizzard Entertainment's copyright:
http://www.bnetd.org/
The aforementioned site either hosts or distributes software which illegally
modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software or
bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard
Entertainment copyrights. Accordingly, Blizzard Entertainment demands that
you act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the web page listed
above in order for you to claim a safe harbor under the DMCA from liability
for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Please immediately
delete or disable access to this web page and remove its contents from view.
Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at
piracy@blizzard.com or 949-955-1380 extension
1616.
I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained
of is not authorized by Blizzard Entertainment, VUG, its agents or the law,
and that the information in this notice is accurate. I declare under penalty
of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am
authorized to act on behalf of all of the aforementioned entities.
Sincerely,
Rod Rigole
Corporate Counsel
End of original message.
We would like to thank our users for all the support and feedback over the years.
Google comes to the rescue again. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~rocombs/sc/ [nmsu.edu]
It is still on sourceforge. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Google comes to the rescue again. (Score:2)
Vivendi is evil! Dad gummit, you're telling me that somebody bought my employer and I work for the
fsgs battlenet server still available. (Score:2, Informative)
There's no sign on their homepage that they have received nasty letters.
http://www.fsgs.com
Re:fsgs battlenet server still available. (Score:2)
The project started around the time Starcraft was released. It was created for hack value and as a solution for the problems mentioned in the reply to question 1.4.
The original work was done by Mark, who maintained releases on http://www.starhack.ml.org/ through version 0.3. That version spawned several ports to MS-Windows, most notably FSGS. (...)
Blizzard just fell in my estimation (Score:2, Insightful)
It's obvious why Blizzard wishes this project didn't exist: they're trying to make money with Battle.net, and here these guys come along to potentially wipe out the market. So I might even have some degree of sympathy for them. But using the DMCA is just so obviously Wrong... it's practically immoral.
There's business, there's even "playing rough", and then there's just plain being assholes. Blizzard has crossed the line, and I don't think I'll ever think of them as highly again.
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:Blizzard just fell in my estimation (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The game could check for duped keys itself since it has to talk to the other clients. It does not.
2) The user could play over TCP/IP with Diablo II and older games allowed playing with IPX
3) The CDKEY check can not be implemented in third-party servers because it is encrypted! The number is different every time - even for the same key!
The bnetd project has been very careful to stay away from cracks, serial numbers, ISOs, etc. They were removing items like those from the message boards. It sure didn't seem to help them in the end!
mod parent up to 5(informative) (Score:2)
perfect example of how the dmca is a tool to eliminate competition, not fight piracy.
But the problem is, all of those points are just moot unless the bnetd folks can come up with the cash for a prolonged legal fight.
Re:Blizzard just fell in my estimation (Score:2)
The only solution (Score:4, Insightful)
People bitch about the DMCA but if Blizzard comes out with a must have game, will you go out and buy it anyway ?
Time to show you intend to punish companies that wield the DMCA to clobber the little guys.
Boycott Blizzard.
I second that (Score:2)
So, that's 2 for a boycott. No more blizzard games for me, until they disavow this bullshit in writing. Also, I need to knock off the red wine and sharp cheddar before going to sleep.
Re:The only solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to burst the
Let's think about this: Slashdot has about a quarter million users. Of these, about 1/3 are zealots who don't run windows, not even for the little pleasures. Of the remaining, i would suspect fewer than 1/5 of them *EVER* buy software because they feel damnit it should be free (beer). And after that, I would say that 10% of the remaining windows users who don't pirate software actually play blizard games but would be still willing to participate in a boycot. The rest will go on buying the game anyway because it's going to be a good game.
So we're left with 3000 people that will take part in a boycot against the DCMA and Blizzard simultaneously. Oh Ouch. How many copies of diablo II have sold? [blizzard.com]
Well here's a guess. 2.75 Million copies. And again, [blizzard.com]
how about the expansion? Another million copies. Boycotting them will do no good.
Now, I was trying to figure out why they did this, and I was thinking "oh this is easy, there's a charge for playing on battle.net, that's their revenue model. But on battle.net [battle.net] i found this:
Battle.net provides an arena for Blizzard customers to chat, challenge opponents and initiate multiplayer games, at no cost to the user. There is no hourly or monthly fee to use Battle.net, and there is no startup charge. To play a supported game over the Internet with other players worldwide, simply select the Battle.net option from within the game.
So what gives, blizard? How is this helping you? Are there ads in battle.net? Do you use it for free market research somehow? Do you simply want to track ALL of the online blizard games going on? Throw me a bone here.
But let's be serious: I'm not going to boycott blizzard. They've only released 5 games in their history, yet they've ALL been fantastic smash hits that i've loved. So I'm just going to go do the exact same thing that every other casual windows user on slashdot is going to do. I'm going to wait for a copy of it to hit kopykatz or morpheus and download it.
Boo fucking hoo, boycot.
~z
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
Re:The only solution (Score:2)
We need to (at least try to) kick the shiznit out of these media monstrosities. They are the ones who use bribery to turn their fascist ideals into federal laws. They are the ones who squelch out free speech with the megaphone that is capitalism. They are the ones who will ultimately turn everything into a 1984 nightmare, and it's going to be much sooner than we all think unless we wake the fuck up and start defending ourselves against this absolute corruption.
They didn't shutdown sourceforge (Score:5, Informative)
CVS, and the downloadable files are still there for now.
Re:They didn't shutdown sourceforge (Score:2)
... Nothing there to be shut down.
Sourceforge released files (Score:3, Informative)
When you see this on SourceForge, it generally means that everything the project has done up to that point is considered beta quality at best. There is no official "release" of the project yet. However, there is often a CVS repository that can be used to slurp up the current state of the project. The parent poster was attempting to point out that you can still use CVS to download this from SourceForge. I hope Blizzard misses this point long enough for a ton of people to get the files.
In addition to the boycotts being called for, I thought of a way for development to start back up. Use anonymous remailers to post signed tarballs and patches to USENET. That's awkward but would allow development to start back up unimpeded by Blizzards lawyerbots. Serve 'em right too.
This could be a killer app for Freenet if someone could think of a way to host a project inside it's cloud.
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.
Ha (Score:2)
shame I didn't notice the 'double twice' when I previewed...
Re:Just submitted this... (Score:2)
I fail to understand the DMCA Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
BNETD: A program that emulates a battle.net server.
Notice how it says "server"? Blizzard doesn't sell their server software, and nor does BNETD allow people to play the Blizzard games. I've never heard of a company shutting down a utility on the grounds that it enables more people to use their product. That'd be like a bucket company suing a mop company for making mops designed to fit in their buckets.
DMCA all over again...
Wrong analysis, right conclusion... (Score:2)
Copyright already prohibits the thieving of digital products, and patent law protects ideas.
However, I do agree that the DMCA is inapplicable to bnetd. That's because there is no circumvention of access controls going on, and because there is a specific exception to the anti-circumvention clause for the purpose of developing interoperable software. (See my post "sound like bullshit" for more detail.)
Re:I fail to understand the DMCA Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Although the strange thing is, I can't figure out why they're doing this. It just doesn't make much sense. Maybe someone with a bug up their butt sent an anonymous email to the legal department saying that this bnetd thing was hacking their product and they just fired off the standard form letter to these guys.
Re:I fail to understand the DMCA Jurisdiction (Score:2)
What in the world does that have to do with copyrights, the subject that the DMCA is (ostensibly) supposed to address? Oh yeah, I forgot, the DMCA is about letting companies do whatever the hell they want at the expense of the public.
Does Anyone Have the Code? (Score:2)
Blizzard violated the DMCA too. (Score:2, Redundant)
How to Blizzard know what the page was about unless they cracked the encryption? Time to send our lawyers out.
The real reason it was shut down... (Score:5, Insightful)
bnetd is not their product (Score:2)
Re:bnetd is not their product (Score:2)
bnetd is better because you can configure it on local machines and remove the latency of online games, while still having the added flexability of a dedicated server.
Re:The real reason it was shut down... (Score:5, Informative)
The BNetD project had NO support for Warcraft 3 in it, and the team was not planning on even starting to add Warcraft3 support to it until it was officially released by Blizzard.
What you had was a group of people downloading the source code and modifying the source code to work with Warcraft 3, OUTSIDE of the BNetD tree. The BNetD project had nothing to do with the leaking of the Warcraft 3 beta, nor the support for the non-blizzard bnet servers for War3.
What you basically have is somebody getting ahold of an Open Source program, changing the source to violate license agreements with Blizzard (beta testers, read the agreement over) or enabling people to play pirated beta copies of the software, and the original open source project getting busted for it. This would be like somebody downloading the source for grep, changing it to automatically break out copy protection in some program, distributing it back out on the net and then the companies going after grep as being the issue.
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I also just cancelled my pre-order of Warcraft 3.
I don't think it's Battle.net, its pirated games (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know enough about bnetd, but I would bet that bnetd doesn't do serial number verification. This basically allows everybody to use the same warez copy of a particular game and enjoy the benefits of Battle.net. I'm sure this is the largest reason why Blizzard wants to shut them down. Blizzard doesn't make any money off its free Battle.net service, but it does enforce that people actually buy the game.
- d
Blizzard's Lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect the real reason is the Warcraft 3 BETA mess. Combine this with the issue of other groups (http://www.madgrfx.com/warforge.html, http://www.clan519.com/, and a group on DALnet #bnetd) trying to say that they were the bnetd group and began working to support the Warcraft 3 BETA being pirated everywhere. Well I am sure that didn't help things at all.
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,
It does seem like a DMCA violation to me. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a terrible law, which copyright holders can apply in far too broad a scope, but terrible or not, it's on the books. Write your legislator, or hope the supreme court finally stops it.
Re:It does seem like a DMCA violation to me. (Score:2)
Warcraft III Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now with this bnetd, you can copy your Warcraft III Beta CD over and over again and simply play on your LAN or any bnetd server
With that in mind, Blizzard probably should have gone a different route then using the DMCA
mirror (Score:5, Informative)
I expect to get the CVS version of the project up there soon as well.
Bye Blizzard. (Score:5, Insightful)
But consider something. bnetd costs you nothing. If anything, it saves you bandwidth costs. You still sell the games. Oh, sure, you might complain that there's no cd key verification in bnetd and people can play cracked copies online with others now. Is this your reason? Perhaps it makes sense. Perhaps it doesn't. Maybe this gives cheaters the upper hand, maybe it doesn't. Maybe nobody really cares anyways.
What have you accomplished? Did the DMCA stop the proliferation of decss? No, it just moved it underground. You've taken a legal product and forced them to become outlaws. Now they have NO desire to cooperate with you, nor should they. Here is a group of people, who for NO MONEY WHATSOEVER have taken it upon themselves to provide services in your honor, to promote your products. And how do you respond?
What could these people have done for you? Its these same dedicated individuals who spend countless hours creating maps, who create all the fan sites. Creating for years on end an almost insatiable market of gamers who drool in anticipation of your next quality release, so they can start all over again starting with a purchase that puts money in your pocket and funds your next game. They're your customers. They're people who have a vested entertainment interest in prolonging the life and creative talents of your fine establishment. Without these people, your games would have no community. They would be played for a few months then forgotten. Your sales would never reach the levels you're used to seeing. These people are the reason you exist as you do today.
And you've just gone and pissed them all off. Great job. I truely admire your lack of vision.
-Restil
please see: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bye Blizzard. (Score:2)
I hope if you're really concerned, you sent an email to Blizzard's marketing department containing the above text. It's not like all the people at Blizzard are going to be browsing Slashdot and happen to see this post.
Re:Bye Blizzard. (Score:5, Informative)
*Subliminal Guy mode on* VU are the same nice people (blood sucking control freaks) that bring you movies (and prosecute the exchange of ideas like DeCSS), music (and squash P2P music exchange) as well as other forms of entertainment (cultural control). *SubGuy mode off*
Go figure.
Soko
Actually... (Score:2)
The DMCA threats against DeCSS didn't move it underground, they moved it into the public spotlight!
I agree with what you're saying, though. There's a certain knee-jerk reaction to these intellectual "property" issues that make companies do dumb stuff sometimes. They should take lessons from id software, who build a very strong user base through active collaboration with their fan developers. (Though I would like to see what would happen if someone made a server for Q3A that didn't check CD keys...)
Blizzard Contact Info (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, here's the contact info straight from their web site, if you feel like voicing your opinion. Couldn't really find a "bitch at us" address...
Blizzard Entertainment
P.O. Box 18979
Irvine, CA 92623
Sales Information/Ordering
USA: (800) 953-SNOW
International: (949) 955-0283
sales@blizzard.com
Support
support@blizzard.com or
macsupport@blizzard.com
This is nothing new. (Score:5, Informative)
life several years ago. In fact, the news was on Slashdot at the time, IIRC. He gave the project to
someone else, and no longer has anything to do with
bnetd.
Incidentally, he told me he recieved a cease and desist order from Blizzard when the news got out about his work. He also says he ignored it, and
nothing happened. However, this was before the DMCA existed, IIRC, so now Blizzard has the
teeth to follow through.
So Blizzard has been after bnetd before. This is
nothing new.
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:This is nothing new. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, IIRC, the DMCA has statutes/statements in it about how the law isn't retroactive (IOW: if someone started circumventing an access control method prior to the law taking effect, the DMCA couldn't be used against them). If your friend indeed started working on this prior to the enactment of the DMCA, I don't think the BNetD guys have anything to worry about.
It might be worth looking into, sure, it's a backwards way to avoid the DMCA affecting their work, but it sure beats folding like they have.
I can honestly see why this is happening... (Score:2)
Yet, Blizard was dumb enough not to put any protections in their software to make it harder to pirate. If they were smart, they would have done something similar to Windows' WPA crap (I hate it, but it does a good job) and catalogued all of the user's hardware as soon as they install the software.
battled is back! (Score:2)
Yes, I'll re-open the project in a server here in Brazil! And now I want to know: Who will shut me down? Who will tell me that I can't do a deamon like this because the law in a North American country does not allow?
I say let's re-open and wait for the evil-axis come and close us.
Jezus. (Score:2)
Two companies I actually like(d) (Nintendo being the other), both using the Digital Consumer Molestation Act to be total jerks.
Wonderful.
C-X C-S
To hell with nat^H^H^Hpatriotism. America sucks more every day.
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]
here's my letter (Score:2)
the bnetd project. In fact, it has distressed me to the point at which I
have decided to try to share what distress I can.
Until this evening I was really looking forward to playing Warcraft III when
it was released, in fact, I was expecting it to have a shot at being in the
running for the the best game of all time. Alas, it appears that my
enthusiasm will be for naught, because I will not purchase another Blizzard
product, or any product distributed by Vivendi until a retraction and public
apology is made. Your vicious attack on this charity software based on
entirely imagined copyright infringements is disgusting enough to me to
permanently boycott your company.
Perhaps a sane, rational letter to sales@blizzard? (Score:2)
Feel free to use parts or all of the above in your communications if you think it will help.
Dont like it? DO SOMETHING! (Score:2)
===>QUOTE
This site has been disabled as requested by Blizzard Entertainment and it will remain closed as we have no legal recourse other than to fight a long protracted lawsuit against a large corporation. This is due to 17 USC Section 512(c)(1)(C) (AKA DMCA, supposedly required to be passed by WIPO treaties). Blizzard claims bnetd is in violation of 17 USC Section 1201(b), though we do not agree with their interpretation. Blizzard refused to specify a specific list of files on this site so the whole thing must be blocked. We are very sorry for the inconvenience but there is nothing we can do.
===>END QUOTE
Enjoy your victory. I will never again by any product from Vivendi Universal, including games, music, software or television signals. I've canceled my Cable and DTV.
I intend to make my position clear to my elected officials that my support for their campaign will be subject to a simple litmus test: The DMCA has got to go.
Yes, Vivendi Universal deserves compensation for works they license from artists. Yes, the artist needs to be paid. No, you don't get to run roughshod over every one in the world in the name of "Intellectual Property". The above example and the fact you did not state the files in question clearly indicate that you have no intention whatever of honestly challenging the content provided, and do not wish to honestly engage in protecting your legitimate interests. This was, in my opinion, strictly a move to shutdown speech you do not like.
Since this asinine behavior doesn't seem to be limited to Vivendi Universal, I am boycotting all MPAA/RIAA members. Those that can create are few. Those that wish to push off substandard swill and non-confrontational news reporting on a dumbed down populace can watch my tiny trickle of revenue go to other pursuits. I'm voting with my feet and pocketbook. I'm sure you will never miss my tiny trickle of money. It is my hope that with this public letter, others will decide as I have and vote with their feet. May that tiny trickle turn into a tsunami of adverse public opinion and bury you.
I am challenging my peers to a very simple action: For every dollar they spend on an MPAA or RIAA member's products, donate ten cents to The Electronic Frontier Foundation, join EFF as a dues paying member, and in addition, find one member of the general public each month and explain just how Sony, AOL/TIME WARNER/CNN, Vivendi, and the other MPAA/RIAA members are eroding the rights and privileges of a free society. I urge all to check www.opensecrets.org and see just how much money lobbyist spend to further the causes of the giant IP owners, who gets that money, and call the official on it and make them accountable to those that cast the votes, not those that cast the dollars.
I sincerely hope that MPAA/RIAA members will re-think their position on the DMCA, and come to realize that the Nazi Copyright Police have no place in a community that wishes to further the free exchange of ideas, and to do otherwise is un-American, anti-freedom, shameful and dishonest.
Re:Dont like it? DO SOMETHING! (Score:2)
Yawn. (Score:2, Funny)
. . .
Directory of \\charon\downloads\suppressed
. ..
02/20/2002 09:25 PM <DIR>
02/20/2002 09:25 PM <DIR>
07/27/2001 01:34 PM 746,194 aebpr22.zip
01/12/2002 10:57 AM <DIR> ASPI Me (backdate to 1998)
02/20/2002 09:18 PM <DIR> Blizzard Jackboots
09/22/2001 04:05 PM <DIR> Broadcast 2000
01/30/2002 04:22 PM <DIR> eBookReader (old verson)
06/07/2001 06:50 PM <DIR> PanoTools
08/25/2001 12:06 PM <DIR> SKIE
06/08/2001 07:24 PM <DIR> TiVo MPEG
12/31/2001 08:00 AM <DIR> WMA crack (v7)
12/31/2001 08:06 AM <DIR> Xolox
08/25/2001 12:06 PM <DIR> xp-stuff
1 File(s) 746,194 bytes
12 Dir(s) 10,921,562,112 bytes free
Think these intellectual property assmonkeys see a pattern yet? If you want the widest distribution of a file, just try to stamp it out.
* machine names changed to protect the guilty
Counter File Paperwork (Score:5, Informative)
Was orginally made to deal with Napster issues at the height of the craze.
--
Malk-a-mite
=============
Dear Internet Service Provider:
This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a complaint received about my webpage(s). The pages in question are:
(insert list of URLs here).
The complainant's claim of copyright violation should be rejected because (please see all checked items):
The material in question is not copyrighted, or the copyright has expired. It is therefore in the public domain and may be reproduced by anyone.
The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported.
The complainant does not hold the copyright to the material in question and is not the designated representative of the copyright holder, and therefore lacks standing to assert that my use of the material is a violation of any of the owner's rights.
My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the "fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC 107. If the complainant disagrees that this is fair use, he or she is free to take up the matter with me directly, in the courts. You, the ISP, are under no obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my speech at the behest of this complainant. Furthermore, siding with the complainant in a manner that interferes with my lawful use of your facilities could constitute breach of contract on your part.
The complaint does not follow the prescribed form for notification of an alleged copyright violation as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 USC 512(c)(3).
Specifically, the complainant has failed to:
Provide a complaint in written form.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)]
Include a physical or electronic signature of the complainant.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Identify the specific copyrighted work claimed to be infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered by a single complaint, provide a representative list of such works.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]
Provide the URLs for the specific files on my website that are alleged to be infringing.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii)]
Provide sufficient information to identify the complainant, including full name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)]
Include a written statement that the complainant has a good faith belief that use of the disputed material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(v)]
Include a written statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
[17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi)]
This communication to you is a DMCA counter-notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law.
My name, address, and telephone number are as follows:
(insert your name, address and phone number here).
I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside (or, if my address is outside the United States, any judicial district in which you, the ISP, may be found).
I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
My actual or electronic signature follows: ________________________________.
Having received this counter-notification, you are now obligated under
17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the complainant of this notice, and to restore the material in dispute (or not take the material down in the first place), unless the complainant files suit against me within 10 days.
David S. Touretzky is a principal scientist in the Computer Science Department and the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University.
Dear Vendors: (Score:2)
We really hate the DMCA.
No. I don't think you understand. We *REALLY* hate the DMCA.
So if you think you have been wronged, feel free to send out your lawyers. Just do NOT invoke the DMCA, or you are going to have a lot of your potential early adopters start spitting when they see your corporate logo.
Signed,
Someone who usually will buy your games
Are these people on acid? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to stick to the moral high ground, and never play another Blizzard game again unless it's a pirated version.
Re:Are these people on acid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like pure bullshit to me.
It's common practice for corporate lawyers to send vague threatening (but totally unfounded) e-mails to people when they don't like what they're doing, even if they have no intention to fight a losing legal battle.
Here's why I think this is stupid:
- The anti-circumvention clause deals with access to a copyrighted work. There doesn't appear to be a copyrighted work in question here.
- There is an explicit exception for reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability, with a sentence like, "... to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs." Which seems to be almost precisely what they are doing.
FYI, the text of the DMCA is here: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap12.html [loc.gov] .
Even if you can't afford a lawsuit, please guys, make it expensive (in some sense) for corporations to make these kinds of threats. That can mean fighting back a little and racking up legal fees, that can mean spreading the word on fansites and such and causing an *increase* in popularity (when what they want to do of course is to stifle the project). It can mean starting up your own similar project and making them have to track you down and threaten you, too.
Personally, I've had a couple of these run-ins myself. For the first one, I got help from the FSF and the lawyers finally backed off. Most recently, I had a run in with some type foundries over my program "embed" ( http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~twm/embed/ [cmu.edu] ); simply letting the lawyer know that I wasn't willing to back down without a fight convinced them to give up.
Things to make you go hmmmm (Score:2)
The president of blizzard is Michael Morhaime [mailto] and the vice-president is Frank Pearce [mailto] and the chairman is Allen Adham [mailto]
Anti-circumvention technology (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a point of clarification. Obviously bnetd is not copyright violation since it is reverse engineered. But this isn't why they are getting shut down...
The aforementioned site either hosts or distributes software which illegally
modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software or
bypasses anti-circumvention technology
The reason Blizzard is panicked about bnetd is that it bypasses their "anti-circumvention technology". In other words, Blizzard will claim that the BattleNet servers are their method of ensuring that people don't illegally copy their games. It is the only time that they check to make sure that you aren't using somebody else's licence. At least in the past, Blizzard game installations have not checked with centralized servers to make sure you don't install on multiple machines. The only thing that you couldn't do if you installed on multiple machines with the same licence was play on BattleNet. Now that has been taken away from them and there is nothing that a copied version of a Blizzard game lacks.
It seems like there are few solutions to this (other than legal ones which are costly and only piss people off):
Anyways, I hate to see big companies picking on fan-made tools, but I guess I understand why Blizzard feels threatened. I hope they can come to a mutually satisfying agreement that will let us all have more fun with Blizzard games but still lets Blizzard make money since they work long and hard to make quality games (far better games than any free-software group has ever made IMHO).
/. doesn't get it (Score:2)
1 The DMCA/Blizzard thing is not new. They've tried it against many many sites and people that release hacks for their games (such as duping in diablo or maphack in sc)
2. It's a shame that blizzard pulled a DMCA on bnetd, but the reason for them shutting down it down were legit. Basically right now the beta for warcraftIII is out, but only 5,000 out of 100,000 got it. As a result many many rabid fans have gone to desperate measures to get it. Right now the ways to play it without getting the beta mainly consist of getting the ISO using one a ripped key or else a no key hack and then playing with another single player hack. Blizzard cannot do much about this and the player can't really play against opponents since there is no computer ai in the beta. Recently (friday) Bnetd released their a new underground version that will allow war3 to be played. This is why blizzard doesn't want it. They don't want a public beta for reason that I will not get into here.
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]
Legal recourse, as an insider (Score:4, Interesting)
- Modifies or alters Blizzard software. Nope, it's entirely independent. Users choose to connect of their own accord, by their own means. We only run our own software.
- Bypasses anti-circumvention technology. What, the CDkey system for Blizzard games? We don't enable users to pirate software, we only provide gaming servers for people who already own the games.
Something else to consider. If BnetD violates copyrights, then how about the 15,000 average concurrent users on FSGS [fsgs.net]? Anyone remember Kali? Surely if Blizzard let those services exist for years upon years, bnetD is no more harmful a precedent. Last, Blizzard ought to rethink their policy of aggression on anyone who tries to enhance the experience for their users (might I mention UltimateBot [ultimatebot.com]). The thousands of users that FSGS claims are NOT hogging the limited bandwidth (or development resources) of the battle.net staff. FSGS, BnetD and any related projects are really helping Blizzard more than they're hurting them. All fans of the project can rest assured that this isn't the last you've heard about BnetDRe:jeez (Score:2)
Why don't you actually read the letter?
Re:wcIII (Score:3, Informative)
1) Write your Representative and tell them how you feel about the DMCA. By law they are required to respond to all letters.
2) Don't purchase products from DCMA supporters
3) Tell DMCA supports that you will no longer buy their product because...
If you read this and think its too much trouble...fine I won't flame, but you should know that our Gov't laws are made by your representitives in congress and the senate, not by Corporations. Your congressman is a whore who values two things money and apporvel ratings. If you are a provider of either they will listen.
Re:samba (Score:2)
Two words: Embrace and extend. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:samba (Score:2)
Re:piracy??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true at all. "Doing nothing to prevent piracy" is not the same thing as "facilitating piracy". Facilitating piracy implies an intentional act (e.g. offering warez'd binaries for download). Simply failing to do key checking is not.
Shall we make ftp illegal now because it does no checking to make sure that the files you transfer aren't copy protected? Most of the Internet would be a violation of the DMCA under your criteria. (hell, maybe it is... in which case either the DMCA goes or the Internet goes... they can't co-exist)