Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Q&A With Vivendi Rep About Bnetd 369

Posted by Hemos from the judged-for-crimes-not-yet-committed dept.
Colin Winters writes "War3pub.net managed to get some answers out of a Vivendi rep about why they are suing BnetD and what they hope to accomplish. Worth a read to see how Vivendi/Blizzard is thinking about the whole thing. They believe that BnetD is going to profit sometime in the future, and want to stop them now. Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Q&A With Vivendi Rep About Bnetd More

Q&A With Vivendi Rep About Bnetd

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:09AM (#3394742) Homepage Journal
    If you don't nip something in the bud, eventually you can't litigate against it.

    If you DO nip something in the bud, well then you're evil THEN TOO! Now THERE'S some logic for ya.
    • Nip it in the BUD

      You sir have watched too many episodes of Andy in Mayberry

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is more like handing out speeding tickets to speeders, to curtail the behavior that may lead to the accident ten years down the road.

      They, in the estimation of Vivendi (yet to be seen in court), are already breaking the law. Sure a cop looks like an asshole for giving a joy riding teen a speeding ticket, but the law is there for a reason.

      They are breaking the law today, and even though it seems like a harmless little fun, it will have larger ramifications in the future. The law needs to be enforced today, to make sure damages are not realized in the future. If not with bnetd, then with an actual for profit company that will use the bnetd project as a precedent.

  • I'll tell you something (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Delrin ( 98403 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:09AM (#3394743) Journal

    P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?

    Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.

    Ummm, it's just this kind of thinking that will destroy us all.

    • Re:I'll tell you something (Score:5, Informative)

      by IpalindromeI ( 515070 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:27AM (#3394884) Journal
      Not only that, but if you read the legal complaint [bnetd.org] that Vivendi filed against them, Vivendi actually claims that the bnetd people used their code, illegally of course. Last time I knew, listening to client/server communication packets wasn't illegal, and it's a far cry from source code. Reverse engineering software is not illegal. It kinda sounds like Vivendi is grasping at straws with most of this stuff. Note the DMCA claims that were later dropped when they realized, "Oh yeah, I guess they didn't break any circumvention."
      • I agree with you, and it seems to me that this DMCA thingie is mostly empowering large companies to impose various policies on smaller companies who can't defend themselves. Like the google filtering and other stuff that has made the news recently. :(
    • Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.

      Ok, so this means that Microsoft using the BSD networking code (open source) and making an immense profit is illegal under the DMCA? Cool!

  • maybe I'm crazy ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by karb ( 66692 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:12AM (#3394754)
    didn't vivendi drop any pretense of a DMCA violation and stick to traditional copyright violations? About everything else the "vivendi rep" says is legally questionable, and seemingly unrelated to vivendi's actual positions, or at least as I understood them.

    Or this just a joke/hoax that isn't very funny/convincing?

  • In case the forums get slashdotted... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:13AM (#3394772)
    We didn't have long, but here's what I could get. Turns out this fellow is actually above the people on this case, and did not know as much of the details as I had hoped. However, he provided us with some legal information which describes Vivendi's reasoning for the complaint against the BNetD project.
    --------
    P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?

    Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.

    P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.

    Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.

    P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?

    Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.

    P-T: Did Blizzard/Vivendi ever consider purchasing bnetd and fsgs technology as a way to improve and lessen the load off their b.net servers?

    Vivendi Rep: I don't know. It's a possibility.

    P-T: What do you think about the attempted hiring of a successful cracker of the Warcraft III Beta by Blizzard?

    Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy.

    P-T: What positive outcomes (for the gaming community and product development) do they expect to achieve by pursuing the lawsuit?

    Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.

    P-T: Do you feel that the huge number of pirated Blizzard games will hurt BNetD in the court cases?

    Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.

    --------

    There it is. I feel as though I got a few good answers out of him, and I hope that this helps to answer any possible questions that you all might have. My impression is that Vivendi really doesn't know as much about the dirty details of the situation, and they are filing suit on a truly legal basis. Once again, I hope this helped, and I am hoping to get some answers from the same representative over email.
    • I like that they're talking about "pirated server software"... One can only hope that this case goes nowhere, because the very idea that this is what's going on is a really frightening one.

      So much for "reverse-engineering for interoperability"... control freaks. All I can say is this: Vivendi is Big Entertainment. They're giving bnetd the DeCSS treatment: intimidation and propaganda.

      /Brian
    • >>>
      P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?

      Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
      >>> end quote

      What does that mean? That anyone using Apache for servering pay content is illegal under the DCMA? It's like they don't understand what these words mean they just repeat them in hopes of brainwashing the public into letting them have their way.

  • BNetD responsible for Vivendi's opinions? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kefoo ( 254567 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:14AM (#3394775)
    Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.

    So now BNetD is responsible for what Vivendi thinks they may do in the future?

    • This is a side issue (Score:5, Informative)

      by Otto ( 17870 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:31AM (#3394905) Homepage Journal
      The whole profit thing is a sidetrack and not really the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is where they think that BnetD uses their source code.

      Story recap:
      - BnetD reverse engineered the protocol (*not the code!*) used by Battle.Net.
      - Using this, they created BnetD, which simply emulates battle.net. They entirely wrote their own code to do this.
      - They went along just fine until the Warcraft3 beta was leaked.
      - Being as the software was open source, someone else took BnetD, added support for the leaked beta, and created WarForge.
      - BnetD gets the crap sued out of them.

      So, where does profit come into this? Answer: it doesn't, it's some moron Vivendi rep trying to screw with your head.

      BnetD does not use any of Battle.Net's source. It's a totally legal hack, reverse engineering the protocol. They didn't even need to analyse the source of the games themselves, just the protocol. Any fool with a sniffer can see the packets, after all. After that it's a matter of trial and error.

      So, given that they didn't use any of the source code from any of Battle.Net's stuff.. It's perfectly legal for them to sell it and make a profit.

      Of course, if you assume, like Vivendi appears to be doing, that they stole the code or that they are using their code, then yeah, BnetD would be in the shit. But they say they are not, I believe them (as I've analysed protocols before), and thus I think BnetD will win, assuming they can afford counsel.

      • Re:This is a side issue (Score:5, Funny)

        by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @12:30PM (#3395363) Journal
        1. Make Battle.net server emulator.
        2. ???
        3. Profit!

      • The DMCA prosecution (if targetted) is Vivendi's (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RalphTWaP ( 447267 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @12:33PM (#3395377)
        Alright,

        Let's follow the possible argument form that Vivendi could present.


        1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA

        2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.

        3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA

        Folks, at this point, the game is over for BnetD.

        The courts may return a ruling that none of the IP involved was incorrectly obtained (essentially ruling that the reverse-engineering of the protocol was cleanly done). However, unless the court finds that the DMCA violation did not take place (i.e. if the BnetD lawyers show #1 above to be false), then the court is bound to rule that the BnetD project is in fact guilty of a violation of the DMCA.

        Guilt under that proposition alone would likely cause the disintigration of the BnetD project.

        Now, of course, there are many courses of appeal ("The DMCA is an unjust, unconstitutional law", "The violation is in accordance with the exemptions within the DMCA") but that road is long, hard, and expensive.

        As it stands, I would have to say that the case is similar to what would obtain if a company were to create (for instance) a Playstation clone capable of playing any game, from any region, (and incidently without checking to see if it was a copy). That device would then be in an approximately similar position as BnetD.

        Of course . . . that's already happened, the device is a mod chip, and Sony is going hard after the creators . . . . Using the DMCA.

        .

        Unfair, yes. Unjust, certainly. Unconstitutional, perhaps. But the DMCA is your law, and damn if you hadn't better learn what kind of evil it is -- and fast.

        Because the corporate lawyers already know.

        • It's not circumvention if the server no longer requires it. Think about it: The CD check is used by Blizzard servers to authenticate clients. Fine. If you want to play on Blizzard's servers, you need to have a valid CD Key. If you use some mechanism to fool Blizzard's servers into thinking that you have a valid key when you don't, then you are circumventing their checks and are conceivably in violation of the DMCA.

          Now, if someone should create a server which allows all of the functionality of the Blizzard server *without* including a CD check, then this isn't circumvention. The clients do not require a unique CD key in order to play standalone (if there is a standalone mode, i don't know), so there is nothing in the server which is circumventing any existing functionality in the client. Think about it, Vivendi/Blizzard will have to convince the court that Bnetd is in violation of the DMCA for not including a particular feature.

          So the onus is upon them to describe how leaving something out of a simulation (Bnetd is a Blizzard server-simulator) qualifies as a circumvention. If anything, Bnetd can argue pretty strongly that they are enabling interoperability. Sure, it's interoperability between warezed copies, but if warezed clients are the problem, then that's Vivendi/Universal's problem (though they'd probably be able to get the court to sympathize unless bnetd was proactive in heading them off at the pass).
        • 1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA

          But it isn't a protection mechanism. You can still play the games on your own PC whether or not you connect to the Battle.net servers. Their existence or non-existence is not a requirement for you to play the games that you have purchased.

        • not really (Score:3, Insightful)

          by martissimo ( 515886 )
          1 (arguable assumption): The CD-Key authentication as used to authenticate players of network games on servers owned by Vivendi is a protection mechanism within the definitions bounded by the DMCA

          2 (provable fact): The BnetD server system does not utilize any CD-Key authentication.

          3 (Conclusion 1:2): The BnetD server system circumvents a protection mechanism as defined by the DMCA

          according to statutes that the EFF [eff.org] cites...

          This is simply untrue. As an initial matter, it does not appear that Blizzard's CD-KEYS system controls access or copying within the meaning of 1201. Even assuming that Blizzard's CD-KEY system meets the requirements of the statute, 1201(c)(3) contains an unequivocal "no mandate" provision that ensures that no person is required to design software so that it responds to Blizzard's technological protection measures. It provides:

          Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).

          This provision means that bnetd is not required to design its server software to implement your "key" system or other any other technological measures you might choose to place on Blizzard games.

          and unless im mistaken, that would be the reason that Vivendi dropped this part of the lawsuit

      • I'm curious, does anyone know how Blizzard profits from Battle.net?

      • New info (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Otto ( 17870 )
        After reading the First Amended Complaint [bnetd.org], I see a wrinkle nobody mentioned before. EULA violation. According to this, the EULA states (in section 11) that if they agreed to the EULA, they are forbidden from emulating the networking features of the games in question.

        Also, according to section 17, they claim code theft because the BnetD emulator copies the results of a bug in the username/password authentication portion of battle.net. Well.. depends on the bug, but that doesn't necessarily state that they copied code from battle.net. They may have simply copied the protocol. Anyway, how did they get access to that code? Seems fishy to me.
    • You can file suit against anybody for anything at any time you want. That doesn't mean you're going to win the suit.

      To me it would appear as if this case is based on creating precedent rather than anything else. Just read what it says;

      "Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA."

      I've speculated in the past that Vivendi-Universal wants to start charging for battle.net access. Some people have scoffed at this, but I really don't think it's that far off. It could be some kind of subscription based on minutes spent on battle.net or some feature based billing. Say that every game comes with 600 free minutes to try battle.net out, after which one needs to pay $29.99 or some other Vivendi-esque fee for monthly access. Or perhaps $49.99 for a Gold account which gives you the ability to host a game..?

      If bnetd was to exist and allow people to play for free; it could make a real dent in Vivendi's plans. Think about it... If Vivendi really doesn't plan on charging for battle.net, why in the world would they be scared that bnetd would? It would seem to me that people would go with the free service (battle.net) rather than the "rogue" bnetd.

      There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. I hope that a court would throw the case out on the grounds that Vivendi is speculating on something that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.

      The claim that bnetd will be hurt because it allows "pirated" copies to be played sounds equally dubious to me. Has Vivendi published numbers that are indisputable that show exactly how many copies are pirated and played on bnetd? How have they come to this conclusion other than assumption?

      When big corporations get scared they either try to buy the competition or sue them to stone age.

  • Pointless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by explosionhead ( 574066 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:15AM (#3394790) Homepage
    Despite their justification, it seems to be another case of a company attempting to hold on to its intellectual property, ignoring the fact that letting people run with it will in aid their sales revenue in the long term.
    Examples of this are everywhere, my particular fave is where fox started shutting down fan websites. How can this help promotion of your product??

    Silly move.

    • Re:Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      Despite their justification, it seems to be another case of a company attempting to hold on to its intellectual property, ignoring the fact that letting people run with it will in aid their sales revenue in the long term.

      That's not the most glaring thing they're ignoring; They're ignoring the fact that the IP in question - bnetd - IS NOT THEIRS. They are complaining about use of their source code, which never happened, at least as far as we know. Instead, the people created something similar based on the outputs of their source code.

      The IP in question is open source, and as such belongs to everyone. Not to any one member of everyone, but everyone - So Blizzard doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. They probably thought that bnetd would just go away when they filed, and weren't counting on them actually getting a lawsuit. When this goes to court, assuming the judge is half-clued, Blizzard will be out on their ass so quick it'll look like they wore shorts into a mosque.

  • Established companies trying to shut out others (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:16AM (#3394798) Homepage
    As long as the bnetd guys can show they did a clean-room reverse-engineering feat, I doubt Blizzard can say much about it. I don't know how the bnetd guys would have gotten server code from Blizzard in the first place to pirate.

    Imagine if 20 years ago, Compaq had not been allowed to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. The worldwide economy would probably be a few trillion dollars poorer, and God only knows if we'd even have the WWW or ubiquitous home computers...

    • eh? 3rd ed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:27AM (#3394883)
      If they are humans, they can have 2 clean-room reverse-engineering feats at level 1! =D

      *ahem* on a more serious note:

      Actually if the DMCA is invoked then the argument isn't that they copied Blizzard's stuff, or even reverse engineered it. Its because Blizzard does key-checking with their multiplayer games to make sure you bought a legitimate copy (or have a good key-gen) of their game. The bnetd version does not include this because they don't care about keychecking, they just want to play the game.

      Blizzard will argue that this will invalidate their copyright protection (cd-keys) because people can now play multiplayer without buying a license (cd-key). And they're right.

      bnetd will likely argue one of a few tracks:

      a) cd-keys aren't effective copyright protection. I have a starcraft key-gen. Google knows of them...

      b) that they have a clickthrough license agreement (do they? i dunno) that says "by downloading this source, I agree to only use it with legitimately purchased copies of Blizzard games." or some such.

      In a legal sense I don't see bnetd have too much to argue about except that the DMCA sucks, and cd-keys suck, or cd-keys are not copyright protection as far as the DMCA is concerned.

      Stupid Laws suck.
    • Hey, what about presuming innocence until proving guilty? Surely Blizzard has to prove they copied code, not bnetd guys proving they didn't?

      Which, of course I don't know for sure. Probably the DMCA says if they accuse someone of piracy, the defendant has to prove that they never did anything wrong in their life and went to church every day.
      • Hey, what about presuming innocence until proving guilty? Surely Blizzard has to prove they copied code, not bnetd guys proving they didn't?

        This isn't a criminal case, it is a civil lawsuit. There is no presumption on either side in a civil lawsuit, except that you better go in willing and able to prove your side better than the other guy.

        Now copyright violations *can* be criminal, in which case the police would arrest someone (as they did with skylarov), and he is innocent until proven guilty.
    • As long as the bnetd guys can show they did a clean-room reverse-engineering feat, I doubt Blizzard can say much about it.

      Traditionally, I think that's been the common wisdom. I think, however, that the DMCA will be brought to bear in this situation to show that bnetd is decoding Blizzard's "copyrighted" data stream without permission.

      Imagine if 20 years ago, Compaq had not been allowed to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS.

      Imagine if instead that other companies had been forced to develop their own solutions, like Apple did. One could easily argue that we would have a good number of companies that would have brought innovation to the industry, rather than being mired in the stagnation that is the PC. It's all just speculation either way.

      Besides, comparing the duplication of a video game environment with the duplication of the PC is thin at best. One could make an argument for reverse engineering BIOS or the MS Word document format, because these are monopolies that can be shown to have detrimental effects on the industry. But bnetd? It's really just a way for people to play pirated videogame software.
    • In a moral world, the Bnetd team shouldn't have to prove their innocence. It should be up to Vivendi to prove Bnetd's guilt.

      Anyone know what the reality is in the legal system?
      • Certainly in Scotland (Scots law is distinct from England and Wales), there are two situations:
        1. Criminal law (murder, theft, prosecuted by the police etc) - innocent until proven guilty. A guilty verdict can only be achieved if the guilt can be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
        2. Civil law (X suing Y for whatever reason) - no implicit presumption of innocence (AFAIK). "Guilt" (or loser) is decided on the basis of "balance of probability" (note: much less strict definition, hence someone could be found innocent in a criminal court but guilty in a civil court; yes, you can sue someone for murder as a private individual; however, they can't be jailed under a civil action, only fined. If they don't pay the fine, that's contempt of court and then they can be jailed :) ).
        AFAIK, similar rules govern laws in other countries, including the rest of the UK and the US.
        • It works that way in the U.S. too. Example: O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder in the criminal case, but was later found liable for the deaths by a civil jury.

          I personally think that sort of thing should be unconstitutional under the "double jeopardy" clause of the constitution, but I don't make the rules...

          Anyway, I expect that the standard of proof in the bnetd case is similar... they don't have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • Although it's true under US law that the standard of proof in civil actions is "more probable than not" (versus "reasonable doubt" in criminal cases), there is still somewhat of a "presumption of innocence." The plaintiff in a civil lawsuit still bears the "burden of proof", meaning that the defendant automatically wins any point on which the plaintiffs fail to produce evidence. At some point, unless Vivendi demonstrates there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether bnetd acted illegally, the judge will not even let the case go to a jury. (It's called "summary judgment," for legalese jargon fans.)

            How this might play out: after allowing some time for "discovery" (basically, exchange of relevant documents and taking depositions of witnesses), bnetd files a "motion for summary judgment," accompanied by a sworn affidavit of whoever was in charge of the coding, saying "we swear we didn't copy any source code," and by excerpts from the testimony of various Vivendi witnesses, who will hem and haw but finally be forced to admit they have no clue whether bnetd copied a single line of their code. (I have no idea myself whether they did or didn't, but word on the street is pretty consistent that it was a legitimate reverse-engineering job with no copying.)

            At that point (in my hypothetical), because Vivendi has the "burden of proof," it would have to do more than just accuse bnetd's witness of lying. To prevent a judge from granting summary judgment to bnetd, Vivendi would probably have to either (1) come up with a witness of its own with personal knowledge that copying took place (unlikely), or (2) hire an expert witness who will compare and analyze the battle.net and bnetd code, and conclude that it "must have been copied" because of various similarities. Assuming #2, the judge would determine whether the expert's testimony was reliable enough to be admissible (assuming they're in federal court), and then determine whether the testimony was sufficient to carry Vivendi's burden of proof. This is by no means a gimme: although it's true that you can find some "expert" to opine almost anything, judges often do find their testimony insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.

            So with that long discourse, I hope I have helped a little bit in understanding the "burden of proof." As an earlier comment stated, anyone can file a lawsuit in the US -- all you have to do is show up at the filing window with the filing fee and a stack of paper that looks sufficiently like a complaint to get past the court clerk. But there are many opportunities for defendants to get a groundless lawsuit dismissed, and it happens all the time. (If the complaint doesn't sufficiently describe how the defendant violated the plaintiff's legal rights, you can often get it dismissed without going through the time and expense of the "discovery" stage.)

    • Imagine if 20 years ago, Compaq had not been allowed to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS. The worldwide economy would probably be a few trillion dollars poorer, and God only knows if we'd even have the WWW or ubiquitous home computers...

      You forget, the home computer WAS rapidly becoming ubiquitous, thanks to a little company in Cupertino, California. [apple.com] IBM laughed at the idea of a home computer in the late 70s, until Apple sold a few million units and Big Blue scurried around trying to get their sh!t together. (Dons flame-retardant suit) And hence while Apple was busy fighting Big Blue, Bill Gates came in and stole control of the entire freaking personal computer industry behind IBM and Apple's backs! :D

      Of course, without competition from IBM/MS, who knows how Apple would have come out. Microsoft would have done software apps for Apples, maybe eventually went the way of Lotus and been bought out by someone, maybe Apple. Maybe Steve Jobs becomes BillG's boss!

      Maybe IBM makes Apple clones and the competetion would have given us a flat-panel iMac in 1999 instead of 2002, as was first rumored!

      Maybe Apple would have never gotten the GUI and somebody else (obviously not Xerox) would have marketed it; so they made the OS behind Apple's hardware. Steve wouldn't have left Apple and created NeXT; he would have left the OS up to the "software guys." Linux would come along in the early 90s and created Linux... on the Apple/Motorola 68060 chip and evicted IBM as OS king in 1996???

      Who knows. :)

      • You forget, the home computer WAS rapidly becoming ubiquitous, thanks to a little company in Cupertino, California. [apple.com] IBM laughed at the idea of a home computer in the late 70s, until Apple sold a few million units and Big Blue scurried around trying to get their sh!t together.

        Well, it was becoming more popular. But without the price competition that the IBM clones brought to the market I don't think Apple and IBM would have ever made home PCs as affordable.

        It would have happened eventually, but probably an extra decade would have intervened before the average family used a computer on a daily basis.

        But yeah, it's all just speculation. Compaq's feat was amazing and certainly changed history -- whether another world would have featured a benevolent Steve Jobs ruling over the computer industry (and forcing us all to wear black) is anyone's guess...
  • If blizzard would get off their rears and actually fix battlenet nobody would use bnetd. If battlenet was not slow and prone to crash why would anyone consider using an alternate service?

    Also, this irks me more than any of it:
    "The BNETD software, which emulates Blizzard's free online gaming service, bypasses an authentication process designed to prevent the use of illegal copies of Blizzard games on the Internet." - Recent action by Blizzard to combat piracy - 4/17/2002 battle.net

    How can blizzard expect bnetd to authenticate a cd key when blizzard won't release them? I could understand, if not condone, blizzard having a problem if bnetd were distrubuting pirated copies of blizzard's software but as far as I understand bnetd is not doing this.
    • ...but bnetd does thus facilitate infringement, bypassing an "effective" technological access protection method without the authorization of the copyright holder, which puts it squarely in DMCA land. It might make an interesting test case, actually.

      Blizzard is under no obligation to provide a CD authentication service for bnetd, even if that would mean that bnetd became completely legit and even if that boosted sales significantly due to more people being able to play. For one thing, they probably don't want one non-Blizzard server getting large numbers of submitted CD keys; for another, the authentication scheme might be useful for a key generator, depending on how sparse the set of valid keys is. But even if it were completely unmitigated good for Blizzard, the bnetd folks have no right to force it upon Blizzard, anymore than doctors or health insurance companies can force people to eat low-fat diets.
      • but bnetd does thus facilitate infringement

        How?

        Yes, I know it doesn't contain a CD keycheck. But for one thing, it's not required to, even by the DMCA:

        (3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer

        electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or
        component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).


        Second of all, bnetd doesn't assist in copying the software at all, because they keycheck has absolutely zero ability to prevent copying the software. You can put the disk in a drive and produce copy after copy, all day long, without ever running into the keycheck. In fact, the keycheck is only relevant once piracy has already occurred.
      • Blizzard don't necessarily have to provide an authentication service. If they can sniff the packets to work out the protocols, then unless the keys are stupidly massive, the coders can use the CD keys they posess from the legal copies they bought to sniff packets from and as many testers as are willing to find, submit these to the server and spot patterns.

        I mean, you're normally talking mod-7 or mod-11 checksum digits, at which point you just have to work out what key blocks are valid and what aren't. Should be possible to predict after a while what keys are going to come up and what aren't...

        Yes, this will generate false positives and no, I don't think the lack of CD key protection is a legitimate defence from Vivendi, but this is likely possible...

  • Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FurryFeet ( 562847 ) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (xnaduoj)> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:21AM (#3394822)
    As far as I understand the case, Blizzard's only stand is the claim that BnetD used source code from Blizzard without permission. If they can prove that, they win; if the don't, they lose. Whether Bnetd makes money or not should be irrelevant.
    I'm not really impressed with the answers, and I posit the source was someone from Blizzard who doesn't really know what he's talking about. Maybe from accounting, for all I know.
    I'm not trolling. Read the answers. There's nothing to see here.
  • I think its really funny when people try to defend their immoral actions. Face it, War3 is being pirated, illegally. All of us are guilty; trying to brush off the guilt with pathetic responses like: "Buying it is too expensive" and "If I can do it, its ok" are crap. The only thing you do is just admit your own guiltiness, quit, an/or buy the game

    I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the purpose of the bnetd project. It is used to run a bnet server on your own box so that you and your friends can play on a private server. The project doesn't advocate the use of pirating software, that's just what some of the users do. A lot of people that actually bought the game use bnetd on their networks to play their friends.

    Hope this clears up some confusion about the project.

  • From the interview...
    P-T: Do you feel that the huge number of pirated Blizzard games will hurt BNetD in the court cases?


    Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.


    Good thing he has such a firm grasp on the issues involved in this case. Of course, then again, most judges don't have a firm grasp on anything of this sort either.

    I wonder, if more judges that oversaw cases such as these were highly technically minded, would the people litigating such cases be inclined to learn more about the stuff they're litigating against? And if so, would they feel some pangs of moral regret for using such an absurd piece of legislation to pas their own bank accounts? (Specifically, the DMCA)

  • Wait for it... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tranvisor ( 250175 )
    So I was just wondering is it now illegal to make money off of someone elses work if you make it better?

    Call me crazy, but I thought that was the american way. See a product on the market, devise a way to make it better, and sell the upgrade to a public that wants it. You figure out a way to backlight a screen on a portable electronic device cheaply, you sell kits to do just that, and who knows you might make some money. You find out an ingenius way to boost a car's engine by 20 horsepower with $10 bucks worth of spare parts, by the gods sell a kit that does just that, only sell it for $15 bucks and make a profit. :)

    Somehow its totally different when applied to software? Well I don't think it is. You don't like how Blizzard balances its online servers because they can be crashy, so you devise a application that acts as your own server on your computer. In what fucked up world should that be illegal? Because Blizzard has some lame ass excuse about piracy? How is that your problem? You aren't pirating games, and somehow your supposed to be held accountable for all those who did simply because they may (may!) have used your software. I'm sorry, thats not the america I grew up in.

    • Re:Wait for it... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Peyna ( 14792 )
      IP is a different story. I can't take Stephen King's latest novel, touch it up, and sell it under a very similar name and try to profit off of it. That's where the problem is.

      Goods, services, IP, and software are all very different interrelated things.
      • I can't take Stephen King's latest novel, touch it up, and sell it under a very similar name and try to profit off of it.

        I dunno, I thought that's what John Saul and Dean Koontz have been doing for years, personally. Oh wait, you meant *improve* it .. :)

  • Unintended hiring consequences (Score:5, Funny)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:26AM (#3394869) Homepage Journal
    "P-T: What do you think about the attempted hiring of a successful cracker of the Warcraft III Beta by Blizzard?
    Vivendi Rep: Hiring your largest threat is one easy way to get rid of the threat of piracy"

    "Hey, I hear the best way to score a game programming job is to publically pirate their games!"

  • What is curious about V/B's reasoning is that they are suing based on the possibility of future earnings (at least that is what they claim) but the rep states that something must be used by someone other than the creator to be illegal under the terms of the DCMA. Considering bnetd has yet to make any money off this, how does the DCMA argument even apply to this case?

    M
    • I wonder how surprised the bnetd people were to hear from Vivendi that money is in their future. Ha.

      Yes, I also found it surprising that you can sue someone because you think they're going to turn around make money off of something. On that basis, they could say that anyone making copies of their own vhs tapes, cds, whatever, should be sued because they are going to seek to profit from it.

      We're not talking conspiracy to commit murder here, it's conspiracy to profit, and we have no proof!


  • Why not support trangaming? They will give Linux a closed source battlenet client, and problem solved!!!

    I suggested to transgaming to support battlenet, however we need more votes to get it actually supported.

    If all of these people worried about the open source battlenet would just give up their 15 bucks we'd have a closed source battlenet.

    While I disagree with DMCA, and I agree with open source, sometimes closed source is the easier path to take in the short term. Lets just get some games working in linux damnit, fighting with game making companies only scares them away more!!! Cant you people see that?

    This case should seriously be dropped, the team working on the open source battlenet should just make a closed source version instead and help the transgaming project.

    This court case against the DMCA is going to lose and be a huge waste of time and money on both sides of the fence, we have the SSSCA and Lobbying politicians to worry about, honestly I think the reason game developers dont make games for linux is because people demand their games be open source.

    Why fight these guys? Instead, we should be workingg together to bring games to linux.

    So all of you who threaten to boycott, do yourself a favor and instead of boycotting, petition blizzard to port battlenet or to license the battleenet source code to transgaming, mandrake, or anyone willing to pay the price.

    This will solve the problem because the binary can be released, we will be happy, they will be happy, transgaming will be happy because they'd get more subscribers.

    This is my solution, I'm sure my Open Source Supporting Community may end up flaming me,

    So be it, I want games in linux.
    • That won't help. Blizzard's beef is with the very existence of bnetd, not the fact that it's open source.

      The problem is that bnetd doesn't (in fact, can't) check the authenticity of the CD keys in use by the clients that connect to it - that allows people to pirate the games, hack out the CD key stuff (or use a distributed key), and then use bnetd to play multiplayer. It can't check the CD keys because Blizzard, understandably, won't give out their list of keys.

      Supporting Transgaming won't help either, as this is the Battle.net server that has ben reverse engineered, not the client. The server isn't available to the general public, it's what Blizzard use to allow online multiplayer gaming. It's doubtful that Blizzard will make it available, either, as that would allow people to hack around or spoof the CD key authentication routines (if it dialled home) or extract the list of CD keys (if it shipped with them). Besides, there's no point, right? Blizzard already provide the service, for free. Never mind that battle.net is notoriously slow and buggy...


      This is my solution, I'm sure my Open Source Supporting Community may end up flaming me,

      So be it, I want games in linux.

      Don't take my post as a flame; I want games under Linux too, but this issue has nothing to do with them.

  • Ummm, no. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spankophile ( 78098 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:31AM (#3394909) Homepage
    > Kind of like arresting someone because they
    > might get in a car accident 10 years down the
    > road.

    I guess you're also against arresting someone who's drinking and driving only because they "might" kill someone.

    • Re:Ummm, no. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SecurityGuy ( 217807 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:43AM (#3395009)
      I am, absolutely. Arrest them because driving while under the influence is illegal. I can't think of an instance where you can be arrested because you "might" do something, only where you are suspected of breaking an actual law. Around here you can be arrested for threatening someone. You won't be arrested because you might carry out the threat, but because you've already broken the law by issuing it.

      • You're missing the point.

        WHY is driving under the influence illegal? Because you MIGHT cause an accident that damages property or causes injury or death to someone.
        • I'm not missing the point at all. I was being pedantic AND correct. You don't get to win a lawsuit or arrest someone because they might break a law. You get to WHEN they break a law. Reasons why laws are enacted are entirely incidental to that point. It'd be equally correct if John. Q. Lawmaker tripped over his poodle that morning and voted for the law because he was in a bad mood.

    • Re:Ummm, no. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by markmoss ( 301064 )
      I guess you're also against arresting someone who's drinking and driving only because they "might" kill someone.
      Pedantically, you can arrest someone who's drinking and driving because they are breaking a law, while (depending on the interpretation of some unnecessarily complicated laws) what bnet is doing may or may not be breaking the law now. You can't arrest them because they might break the law later.

      But the interesting question is, why is it right to pass a law against drunk driving because they might kill someone later, and wrong to ban something because it might turn into a copyright violation later?

      Answer: IRREMEDIABLE HARM. The copyright holder can wait until there is an actual copyright violation, then go to court, shut them down, and also get monetary damages to replace any alleged lost sales. But if a drunk kills someone, no court can bring them back to life. So given that it is easily shown statistically that drunk drivers are far more likely to kill someone than nearly all sober drivers, it is reasonable to stop them when they start weaving around the road, test them, and arrest them if alcohol or other drugs are the cause, rather than waiting for the crash. There are at least two fine lines here that the legislature should consider, how much hazard is too much, and what kind of tactics are acceptable to catch the drunks.

      Note that personally I don't much approve of tactics such as waiting near the bar, pulling everyone over for breathalyzer checks, and prosecuting solely on the basis of the blood alcohol content, rather than looking for evidence of impairment first. I and some of my relatives can get pretty drunk at well under the legal BAC limit. (Inherited metabolic peculiarity. I figured that out in 1976 and haven't drunk since, but if I was an idiot and an asshole, I could drive home drunk every night and never get arrested.) Other people can be functioning pretty well when their BAC is high enough to be illegal in any state. Many of them will have faster reflexes drunk than I am when going home after 14 hours at work -- although if they're driving drunk, they're probably reckless too, and fast reflexes don't make reckless driving safe...
  • P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.

    Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.

    What gets me is the "that they did not create" portion. Seems that's the fulcrum of this case, and not the smokescreen questions regarding OSS and DMCA. Burden of proof would seem to favor the little guys here, simply because you have to prove that code from Blizzard entered into the codebase from an employee (former or current) or that an intrusion occurred.

  • But, can't we see why? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gphat ( 5647 )
    I don't really agree with the open-handed slap against bnetd, but I think I understand why it's in Blizzard's interest to attempt to shut it down.

    Blizzard provides Battle.Net as a free service to those that purchase their games. This allows them to keep their customers in a controlled environment where they can guarantee service. This makes for a better experience for the end user. Sure, battle.net is down on occasion, and sometimes they delete a character or two, but it's free.

    Now, with the beta, the situation is different. The bnetd code allowed players who did not have legitimate CD-keys to play together. While I _like_ bnetd, and I fully support their right to do what they've done, I also understand Blizzard's need to protect their investment.

    Why buy WarCraft III when I can copy my buddy's CD, use his CD key, and play on a rogue server? Why does it seem noone understands Blizzard's need to protect the time and money they put into this product?

    Of course, Kali has been around for awhile, providing us with a way to play Blizzard games (not to mention a million more).

    Flame away, I doubt many of you will take the time to see past the fact that a company is picking on a bunch of guys writing code for fun. It's really a shame that Blizz can't find a better way to deal with this... C'mon Vivendi, find a better way!
    • What I find distasteful is that the DMCA allows IP cartel members like Vivendi sue the maker of a product just because of *POTENTIAL* use of pirated software...

      It seems to not matter at all that Bnetd has 100 legit uses to the ONE potential illegit use.

      Why is it that the law allows the big guns to go after the "little guy" for what someone ELSE *MIGHT* do with their product, yet allows the "big boys" off scott free when it comes to RESPONSIBILITY for quality, defects, bugs, etc?

      Let's hope they don't get a "judge" Kaplan. As another poster said, they are getting the complete F.U.D. DeCSS treatment. Let's hope this doesn't turn into another show trial where the verdict is a foregone conclusion.
      • Another quick point... Why is it that software companies are allowed to get away with spouting largely "made up" piracy numbers and dollar amounts, IN COURT?

        This was one of the tactics used against Mitnick, and was used in the DeCSS case as well.

        In any OTHER business, the SEC would be all over them for not reporting that as a *LOSS*. Which they can't do, because they can't PROVE it...

        Fact is, I bet that "piracy", while a problem, is nowhere NEAR the scare numbers that the IP lobby loves to spout for marketing purposes.
  • So they forgot to ask whether Vivendi is using orc lawyers or human lawyers
  • -Vivendi/Blizzard are jackbooted thugs.
    -Jackbooted thugs need to be stomped.
    -Companies are stomped by being put out of -business.
    -Companies can't stay in business without customers.
    -If they stay in business, we let them.

    Action: boycott Blizzard. Tell your non-technical gaming friends--explain what has happened here, and how V/B intend to milk them as cash cows with a rent-a-game scheme, and tried to crush an innocent software project in the process.

    If you're a copyright infringer, make sure WC3 is out there, along with the patched bnetd for WC3 support. Bring pop-in-and-play CDR's and put them on the benches at the mall outside Electronics Botique.

    DO WHAT IT TAKES TO KILL THESE BASTARDS IN THE MARKETPLACE!

  • This is just silly... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yeoua ( 86835 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:39AM (#3394979)
    Uh, well, the answers to the questions from Vivendi are, well... silly

    Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.

    Uh, first of all, it hasn't yet been used for any kind of profit (see next answer), but doesn't this rather go against the whole open source thing? Isn't the point to have it spread around and fixed by many to get the best of the best making something? And isn't it supposed to be free in most cases anyway? So what is their argument? That the only people who can use bnetd for profit is... uh, the creators, who are, uh, bnetd? So based on his answer, blizzard can't even use this code for profit as they are not the creators, so what exactly is he trying to say?

    Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.

    And this speaks for itself. They are getting punished just because they stand a chance of making a profit off this product. Well, this is rather silly since bnet is free. The SECOND bnetd starts charging in any way, shape, or form, bnet will have a new bunch of regulars. Isn't it in blizzard's interest that bnetd starts charging? I mean, if they charge, the piraters need to either pay for the game and play free on bnet, or pay for bnetd. At this point, most would probably rather go legit and play on the official servers, rather than pay for using illegal software (that doesn't include a cool box and manual and whatnot). Which essentially means that bnetd will probably never be for profit (besides the fact that its open source and everyone has the code already anyway, so charging for it would be next to impossible given the speed of piracy nowadays).

    Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.

    Is bnetd theft of intellectual property? They claimed that they used code from blizzard, which is near impossible unless they "hacked" them and stole code, which would be another thing all together. It'd be a bit easier to write from the ground up than steal the code and risk all sorts of other problems. And i'm sure they got quite a bit of documentation that this was a straight reverse engineering process (i know the guys responsible for the warcraft3beta code for bnetd did reverse engineering with port dumps and so on, since the daemon STILL doesn't work as well as bnet, and they had to play with much to even get it working with 1.21, and many things are still not supported, as well as "new" features i don't believe existed in bnet).

    Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.

    Contrary to popular belief, bnetd CAN be used with retail blizzard games. Just because it can be used for pirated games doesn't mean it is illegal. Like the emulator situation, the games/roms are illegal, the fact of getting the thing working isn't (thus legal demo roms). If bnetd ONLY worked for pirated games, then that'd be another situation.

    Silly...
    • > So what is their argument? That the only people who can use bnetd for profit is... uh, the creators, who are, uh, bnetd?

      Based on my reading of it, what he's saying is that Blizzard created a product, bnetd stole it and might use it for a profit. When he's saying 'creators', he means Blizzard.

      Somebody needs to look up 'reverse engineering' in the dictionary
  • Kind of like arresting someone because they might get in a car accident 10 years down the road.

    Well, if they can mount a legal challenge, I'm sure they'd rather do so now before bnetd reaches a level of success that might fund more lawyers, servers, users, and bad press.

  • This is bull. (Score:5, Informative)

    by drivers ( 45076 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @11:51AM (#3395066)
    So, they claim that bnetd is made of Blizzard's copyrighted code. This is complete bull. I asked Tim Jung (the defendant in this case) what he knew about this claim:

    I am not even sure what they are talking about when they say we copied their code, since they don't explain it at all or in any details. We have never had access to their servers so there is no way for us to copy their server code. We also did not decompile the clients to get information that we needed either, everything was figured out and guessed at by looking at packet traces and packet dumps of the traffic.
    You can see his entire response on my site: Boycott Blizzard. boycottblizzard.org [boycottblizzard.org]

  • I don't believe the article at all. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @12:25PM (#3395321)
    WHOOP WHOOP! (Sound of crap detector going off)

    A Vivendi Rep?
    Does this Vivendi rep, say, have a name?
    When and where did this interview take place?
    Who is the interviewer, can we get his real name too?

    Why is some forum posting considered that important that it made it on /.? After all, if this was an interview or series of questions about a precedent like this and Vivendi's planned actions, wouldn't it be on a specific web page? Why would a Vivendi rep even talk about the DMCA when they said in press (with real names instead of "vivendi rep" as a monniker) previously that they were not using the DMCA? Also, why would they go out on a limb, patently off subject and say that open source should be declared illegal? The open source debate has really precious little to do with this action, IMHO.

    I think that this is all complete hooey. This is some troll pushing "the tech hot button of the week" and then throwing in a little "open source sucks!" to shake up the antfarm.

    • Re:I don't believe the article at all. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @01:30PM (#3395805) Homepage Journal
      Not only that, but in most cases where two parties are involved in impending legal action, nobody from either one will comment for fear of accidentally providing the other side with additional ammunition to use in their courtroom battle. It would certainly be irresponsible of a Vivendi rep to comment, especially one higher placed in the chain of command than the level at which the lawsuit was being conducted.
  • there is an article at salon.com...
    Specifically, the statement declares that "in order to make the bnetd software work, certain programmers at bnetd copied Blizzard code relating to password and username authentication, and incorporated it into the bnetd server program." But according to the bnetd developers, there was never any intent to encourage piracy or to otherwise financially gain at Blizzard's expense.

    Does bnetd include pirated code or not ? Read the excerpt above; Salon.com quotes Blizzard accusing the bnetd project of piracy, and then it quotes "bnetd developers", as if in response to that allegation specifically, and they don't deny it.

    Have the lead bnetd developers ever denied that bnetd contains code stolen from Blizzard ? And even if they did deny it, how could we trust their statement ? Any contributor to bnetd who got his hands on Blizzard's source could have snuck it into bnetd, claiming it as his own work. Since nobody except Blizzard has seen Blizzard's source, how is anyone on the bnetd project to know whether bnetd includes code stolen from Blizzard ?

    By backing bnetd in this the EFF is setting itself up to be painted as a defender not of free software, but as a defender of software piracy; If Blizzard can prove that bnetd includes stolen code, EFF gets screwed.

    Blizzard has seen Blizzard's source and, we can assume, they have seen bnetd source. The EFF has only seen bnetd source. Blizzard is alleging piracy. Think about it.

    • So we are just supposed to trust that the huge media conglomerate is doing something that is right and just, and NOT throwing its weight around to bully the small guy out of business. Because frivolous lawsuits that amount to nothing more than harassment of small critics/competitors/whistleblowsers are completely unknown. Please. In any case like this, I'm more likely to side with the little guy, just because I know that he's being picked on. And the bully knows that he can't defend himself.

  • Am I right in thinking that there was no problem before Warcraft III? That Blizzard knew or should have known that Bnetd existed. That, through an incredible oversight, they released a beta version of the game that relied on it being played on their official server to expire?

    So in short someone at Blizzard made a huge mistake and gave away the farm, and now they are using the legal system to try to fix things?

  • Read between the lines... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cryptnotic ( 154382 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @01:01PM (#3395566)
    The reason Vivendi/Blizzard is trying to shut down Bnetd is because Blizzard has been planning on charging fees for using Battle.net. They can't have a free alternative available, or no one will pay for a Battle.net subscription.

    By saying that the emulator, Bnetd, is using stolen source code, Blizzard will try to get them shut down for distributing copyrighted material. However, for material to be copyrighted, doesn't it have to be published? If it is a legitimately reverse engineered trade secret, and not a copyrighted work, then Bnetd should be in the clear. Surely Blizzard realizes this and is hoping that the Bnetd will crumble under the costs of defending themselves in court.

    Cryptnotic

  • Blizzard requiring that you use their server with their client looks like an illegal tying arrangement under antitrust law. Even Microsoft doesn't go this far.

    The comparable thing for Microsoft would be to integrate Windows activation with MSN, so you had to use MSN as your Internet service provider. They could then claim that any other ISP which allowed a Microsoft client to run violated the DMCA.

    If Blizzard wants to use some kind of forced registration/activation scheme, they probably have to separate it from their online service.

  • B.S. in almost every answer. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @01:25PM (#3395760) Journal
    Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.


    Is he trying to say that Open Source is inherantly illegal under the DMCA because many open source lisences allow for this very thing? Or am I misunderstanding?


    Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.


    This is a load of crap. The Bnetd team is doing this out of their own free time as hobbyists, and released their code under the GPL so that anyone could use it for free. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone involved with Bnetd ever seriously wished to make money off of it. Bnetd
    has been around for ~4 years, I believe.


    Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that.


    It is a fact that Bnetd was created through reverse engineering, not stolen code. Truth be told, Battle.net is apparently not very complex, and it only took a matter of time to get a clone working just through packet sniffing.


    Vivendi Rep: We feel the restrictions against the theft of intellectual property will be cleared up in this suit, and will lead to a more clear idea of what is and what isn't internet piracy for the general public. In general, Blizzard is being used as a "first time" suit for this kind of piracy, and we want the public to understand that what is going on with the BNetD project cannot be done without legal ramifications under the DMCA.


    Or do you just want the public to understand that they are stuck with crappy Battle.net, and that Blizzard doesn't care that their customers find added value in a server protocol that allows them to have an alternative way of playing online?


    Vivendi Rep: Yes. The fact that it is not only pirated server software but also pirated game software will do nothing but hurt BNetD in the courts.


    Again with the Bnetd being "pirated." Additionally, it is as if Bnetd is directly responsible for all the pirates out there. There are probably many more pirates on Battle.net using "stolen" CD keys than playing on Bnetd servers.


    I've bought Blizzard titles in the past, and although I was sort of looking forward to Warcraft III, I will not be buying or playing any more Blizzard titles unless Vivendi/Blizzard does a
    complete 180 on this.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close